Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

Sometimes, you don't need a flashy title for your videos.

Watch Video

Oh, Ubi, Ubi... When will you stop getting flogged?

When does ubisoft not talk bollocks? First it was "women are too much extra work to animate as well" and the next making of video shows that not only is all that stuff made but they have set it up to be easy to make. Will some one please take the marketing people out behind the chemical sheds and put them out of our misery.

Cinematic experience? What are they developing? Heavy Rain Unity? Is Ubisoft's PR department outsourced? Does it have any communication with the developers (or someone who knows about gaming) at all?

By now I'd swear Ubisoft is just spouting out bullshit to get an episode on this show.

Jim, why bother making a whole new episode for this topic. Just post a link to an older "Ubisoft are tactless liars" episode and do an episode on literally ANY OTHER sin of video game publishing. Even the choir tires of their preacher if he repeats himself often enough.

PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

After doing some research, it seems like there is a female PC you can play as in Assassin's Creed: Unity... If you bought some DLC. Which, no doubt, people will buy just to get said character.

As long as the power behind Ubisoft rests in the hands of a "corporation" or board of money grubbers, they'll never be able to talk straight and honest. It's all about the bottom line, and if they've gotta say something stupid to confuse people and get more sales in the short term? Why not.

Ugh, Ubisoft. I don't care at all about resolution, and while I'd appreciate a higher FPS, I'm perfectly happy with a steady 30.

But I'm still aggravated by this as it's yet another example of you (Ubisoft, not Jim) flagrantly lying to consumer. For fuck sake. Stop. Bullshitting. People! Is it really that difficult? It's nigh-pathological at this point.

Westonbirt:
PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

This is not a console issue, it's all over the industry. Games get downgraded and locked at framerates for their PC release, too.

Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

I just spent a few Benjamins to upgrade my graphics card...all because I didn't enjoy running Skyrim at sub 60 FPS. Yes, I can feel the difference, and no, I cannot imagine a single instance in which I would take 30 FPS instead, given the choice.

Considering Ubisoft talks a lot of bollocks these days (their CM is totally horrendous as is their PR-department), it's not surprising they do it once more.

Yaknow, I cant help but feel for Ubisoft's actual developers who have these absolute nobgobblers as spokespeople.

Its not even remotely hard to see what happened here. Each new iteration has to be prettier and the frankly somewhat flimsy console hardware cant handle it.

That's a pity, stupid that they went and did it anyway, and so so much more insulting that instead of admitting it they try and sell it with a good shovel full of horsecrap.

I don't disagree with the notion that some can enjoy 30fps more than 60fps. I generally do. However, that's for people to decide, not Ubisoft. Ubisoft, just give people the choices and let them decide. If I want to cap at 30fps then let me. 60? Let me. It's not that difficult.

That being said, as Jim stated, they are part of the reason this is a problem in the first place. Does it really matter if something is 60 fps 4k resolution? No. Hell I still use a TV that has native 768p and I'm perfectly happy with it. I actually prefer playing Resident Evil 4 at 30fps. It makes animations feel like they have more "Oomph" when they hit. But it's incredibly cowardly for Ubisoft to pretend like that's what they wanted all along. And even more damning to say that's exactly what all people prefer. Just admit that the hardware your working with cannot handle it.

I have a feeling they are under contract from one or both companies to not talk about it being the consoles fault. Or they're afraid of pissing them off for some other reason. That being said, it's enjoyable to watch them fumble about with a problem that we all knew would be a problem eventually. They got too big for their breeches. They're expectations and concepts ran wild and finally a lot of "AAA" devs and pubs are realizing that optimization isn't for kids. It's a necessity no matter what the hardware. Why did Shadow of Mordor need 6GB of Vram for the Ultra settings? Oh because they just flapped out uncompressed textures. Didn't even bother to compress them, even though it would have had no visual impact since no one can even get close enough to the textures to find out.

Basic fact is that we should ALWAYS strive for code optimization. It makes it cheaper for everyone. If I don't need to spend $600+ on a video card to run high settings at 60fps, guess who's gonna buy more games? Oh yeah, me. It's simple. Optimization allows hardware to have a good life and allows the market to purchase goods more frequently. If we get to the point where a user needs more power every year just to buy games then no one is gonna be buying games anymore other than the most wealthy gamers. Your profits will tank and you'll fall. Optimization is good for everyone. Relearn to do it game industry. Alien Isolation did, and it was wonderful.

Well, id say something along the lines of "Oh boy, more beating of the horse that just wont die." if Ubi didnt deserve it this time.

Though that said, did any of the Ubi mouthpieces ever relay anything about delivering superior graphics? Im racking my brain right now and im getting nothing.

Silentpony:
Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

It's the fact that it was promised, nothing more. It isn't necessarily two-faced. Essentially, if humans see a possibility and then fail to see it realized, they are pissed. Had no one ever mentioned 60fps or resolutions then this stuff wouldn't even be debated. They're would be nothing to debate. Because no one would care. It's still these big publishers fault for pushing it and then cowering away and lying. But had they never tried to hype it this generation, it would have never been a problem.

I hope to day make a game with a 1 frame per minute to make it feel more 'novel-matic'.

Maybe I should apply for a job with Ubisoft...

Every time I hear Ubisoft say these things, all I can distinguish is that they (the company) are unable to develop and code games properly and need to hide their shortcomings as a game developer/publisher through pushing the "Games at 30fps are better via cinematics!" bullshit.

Westonbirt:
It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

Neither Sony nor MS would like hearing such thing. They sell their products as a powerhouses, a leap in the technology, revolutionary... They know they cannot compete with PC, so they just pretend it doesn't exist.
It's ridiculous, I know. It's like Fiat boosting about the new Panda's 0-100 acceleration, instead of focusing on it's convenience. But that's the world we live in, many people out there genuinely believe Sony and MS' bullshit.

Silentpony:
Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

The issue we take is that they say 30fps feel "better" or "more cinematic". That's nonsense. On the other hand, Minecraft doesn't lie to you about its graphics being barebones.

Silentpony:
Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

Frame rate, screen resolution and graphics are all different issues.

Pretty graphics make for nice screenshots but a higher frame rate makes a game feel smoother when actually playing the game while having a game at the native screen resolution means you don't get the distortion that can happen especially with text that would appear if the game is not at a native resolution.

Though a game at 900P on a 1080P is more of an issue for PC gamers as you usually have a smaller screen that you are closer too than if you play on a console through a big screen TV.

Here's a link to an article that explains the different graphic setting ( http://lifehacker.com/5985304/get-the-most-from-your-games-a-beginners-guide-to-graphics-settings )

It's too bad the Bioware news blurb didn't make it in time for Jim's video, would have been interesting to see his take on that in correlation to Ubisoft's announcement. I do wonder about Ubisoft though, it seems that everytime they open their rhetorical mouth they get themselves in trouble.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Unity and Rogue come out.

Also, damn Jim your podium is crowded now; I remember when it was just Willem Dafoe now he's got friends.

I love you jim sterling.

One comment that always gets on my tits from developers is "more cinematic". Its an insult to games. To me its saying "video games are not good enough, they must be more like movies." The developers of The Order said the same thing a while back. I can't help but feel these people may be in the wrong industry. I wish people would call them out on this more often.

Demonchaser27:

Silentpony:
SNIP

It's the fact that it was promised, nothing more. It isn't necessarily two-faced. Essentially, if humans see a possibility and then fail to see it realized, they are pissed. Had no one ever mentioned 60fps or resolutions then this stuff wouldn't even be debated. They're would be nothing to debate. Because no one would care. It's still these big publishers fault for pushing it and then cowering away and lying. But had they never tried to hype it this generation, it would have never been a problem.

Ah. Okay. I accept that and agree. They shouldn't have promised and not delivered, and graphics don't necessarily make a good game. Thanks for clearing that up!

Silentpony:
...
But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? ...

The frame-rate affects your experience. It doesn't make the game look better.
The frame-rate has more to do with the gameplay than the graphics actually. I see no controversy here.
People are angry that devs take from the gameplay to deliver on graphics, because they can't deliver both.

Everyone was talking about the shadow of mordor pre release footage agreement, Jim! It was a good dodge controversy for shitty journalists to avoid GG. Regarding the video's main point, Ubisoft's PR maneuver is most likely for the sake to avoid stating that the PS4 and XBox 1 are substantially inferior hardware wise to gaming PC's. They most likely have to scale back the quality to make sure the games can run on gaming consoles to some degree of a stable rate and will not come out and say that the machines are shit for the sake of their relationship with Sony and Microsoft. I find it somewhat hilarious and in the same way disturbing that you're satisfied with painting Ubisoft to be garbage at programming instead of taking insight into the significant difference in power between an optimized gaming PC and current gen consoles. As someone who stated getting more invested into PC gaming, does that difference just not register with you? Or is it that you do the mental gymnastics equivalent to the physical performance of Gabrielle Douglas and think that when you install a GTX 980, your consoles immediately upgrade as well? With that said, give it time for modders to look through the game code and files; if possible, they'll unlock the framerate just as they restored the graphical fidelity to Watch Dogs. IF you haven't noticed, some gamers will attempt to get all they can out of their games and the PC platform is a good platter for a dissection.

I'm convinced that Ubisoft just thinks gamers are stupid, and they'll accept anything Ubisoft shovels down their throats.

Akexi:
With that said, give it time for modders to look through the game code and files; if possible, they'll unlock the framerate just as they restored the graphical fidelity to Watch Dogs. IF you haven't noticed, some gamers will attempt to get all they can out of their games and the PC platform is a good platter for a dissection.

The problem is, that often when a game is developed with 30fps(for example) in mind, crucial aspects of the game are based on that number. And if you unlock the frames, you create a diss-balance within the game. Like Skyrim's physics for example, even a single frame above 60 would cause serious bugs (flying objects, underwater physics activating when not underwater, etc...). The AI, I think, is also refreshed with the framerate.
It's good to have those modifications, but they don't always solve the issue.

Thanatos2k:
I'm convinced that Ubisoft just thinks gamers are stupid, and they'll accept anything Ubisoft shovels down their throats.

60% are stupid/don't care.
The other 40% would accept everything the devs shove down their throats, if the game is good.

I didn't know movies couldn't be immersive until now. I mean, I guess that's the takeaway here, if we're contrasting "immersion" and feeling like the movies.

Westonbirt:
PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

I bet those grapes were sour anyway.

Silentpony:

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

The great framerate debate:

A lot of people argue that they don't enjoy playing games which are below [X] FPS. No matter how pulling the story might be or how fun the gameplay is, they don't enjoy the relative sluggishness of the controls. See also: People who can't play shooters on console controllers.

And I don't necessarily blame them. I had a hankering to play the old Ultimate Spider-Man game a few days back, and discovered that it had a PC release. But upon further research, I also discovered that the game was forcibly locked to 30 FPS with absolutely no feasible way to change it, and on top of that it would experience even further slowdown during large combat/boss encounters. In an action game that focuses pretty heavily on movement and area awareness, that's kinda just not acceptable. It can easily turn a good game into a tedious one, and that just isn't fun.

Also, a lot of people who are fine with 30 FPS take issue with, again, the forced lock of a game to 30 FPS. Especially on PC, it's not so much that people are absolutely furious they can't play everything at 120+ frames-per-second (though some people certainly do get that way) but rather the fact that game developers and publishers are actively negating one of the inherent benefits of playing on PC in the first place. And when they phrase it the way Ubisoft has here, it comes across as incredibly patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of their audience. As far as it goes on console, I think a lot of people were just hoping that the power of the new systems would allow for a much greater jump than we've gotten so far.

Personally, I don't really define "next-gen" games by the resolution or framerate of them, I'm going to define it by how much more interactive the game worlds can become. As of yet, I haven't really seen a "next-gen" game because they've all just kinda been continuations on the pattern and formula we've had for years already.

As far as resolution or the graphical fidelity is concerned, I personally don't give much of a toss about them. It's far more about aesthetics and optimization to me. The Witcher 2 is still one of the most beautiful PC games I've seen, even from a technical standpoint, and my laptop can play it far better than games released this year which are only barely even beginning to reach the same level.

Also, one thing that never gets mentioned is absolute frame rate is not what's important - framerate CONSISTENCY is what matters. 30 fps DOES look better than 60 fps if the 30 fps is consistent but the 60 fps is not. Show someone a game and ask them what frame rate it's running at and they'll get it wrong half the time, but EVERYONE notices stuttering, and even if it's always above 30 fps but stuttering somewhere between 60 and 30fps it's going to look terrible.

Yet no one talks about this. They'll proudly tout 60 fps or 30 fps but never say what the average fps is, and you'll have to wait for reviews for them to maybe mention stuttering.

If Ubisoft decided to cap it at 30 fps because they couldn't get a consistent 60 fps then fine - say that. But given the performance of previous AC games which go into slow motion once 7+ enemies are around you or you throw a smoke bomb I'm guessing they couldn't even get a consistent 30 fps.

That Unity video at the end, where he was running the city? Yea, that looked really choppy and bad. 30 fps can be accepted I guess, but it's never, ever better and that video showed precisely why. It looked bad.

To me, I have a 40 inch tv in my bedroom that I game on, and I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 900p on it. A bigger issue for me is which version has a better frame rate, is there slowdown, and it is stable on the platform.

Also I agree, graphics don't make the game. Look at Gmod, the engine is garbage but the cult following is insane, I'll take a round of TTT over any military shooter anyday.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here