Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Rocklobster99:

DoPo:

Grey Carter:
Itsuno pointed out that 60 FPS would be "better," but went on to claim that long gaming sessions at higher framerates have a tiring effect on payers' eyes because the frames "almost shake or flash."

Hold on, if that is true for 60 FPS...isn't it also true for 30 FPS? I'm confused. What is going on? Why is my brain getting tied in knots trying to think this part through?

Because he's full of shit.

Ah, gotcha - at 30 FPS you have to fill in the blanks. Add shit and 60 FPS is tiring to the eyes.

BiH-Kira:
What Itsuno doesn't get, or doesn't want to admit is that FPS isn't only for the eye. A game on 30 fps has literally less responsive controls compared to the same game on 60 fps.
Also, I have to pay 60$ and then to use my imagination to fill the blanks that the developer couldn't? What a pathetic excuse.

Visually, there's nothing different between 30, 40, and 60. As someone has previously stated, the human visual system can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. When buddy says that "You'll have to use your imagination to fill in the gaps" he talking about what you already do sub-consciously.

As for less responsive controls... So? It's stated in the article, PC users will be capped to 60. PC's more about the knee-jerk uber-precise movements. We got what we need on the PC, and PC players can live with 30 frames a second, hell, even 20 in a shooter. (Not having an easy time, mind you.) I find Consoles are all about lining up the shot, and pressing the buttons at the right time. There's less precision, just setting up the shot and timing it correctly. If they're able to get that in a good state (A studio in that size, a minor speed-bump of a challenge.), what will be the difference?

The answer? Nothing. You'll get the same hack-and-slash experience as before.

shrekfan246:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

sethisjimmy:

If I had to guess i'd say they are at the point now where if they want to improve their graphics over the last game, they have to choose between either sticking with 60 FPS and the same graphical quality, or lower it to 30 FPS and have higher res textures and better graphical quality and such, because current gen consoles can only handle so much.
Might not be true, but I really can't see any reason why they'd willingly decrease the FPS if they didn't need to.

Because the God of War style floating combat wouldn't work at 60 FPS. They're using the GoW style of slowing down to 10% for every hit like you're waiting for applause. At 60 FPS, that would be jerky and disorienting. That's why GoW worked at 30, and DMC, a much faster paced game works better at 60.

THIS IS WHY WE HATE THE GAMEPLAY! Everything else is so much smell on the shit.

Not to... rain on your parade or anything, but God of War does run at 60 FPS. Even 3 on the PS3. The slowing down at the end of combos is just because of their whole "cinematic" marketing BS, but everything during the game is still running at a clean 60 FPS. It's not actually cutting out frames, it's just slowing down the action, and yes, there is an actual tangible difference from a technical stand-point.

Huh.

That is my mistake. I really though GoW was at 30. My bad.

thesilentman:
30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

Don't start with that shit. Not all of us PC gamers are such pricks about FPS and you know it.

OT: I don't really care, so long as it looks good, it looks good. I'll not complain until i've seen the game in action after it comes out.

captcha: Fast asleep

I should be.

You cannot really compare framerate and the human eye... only make a close assumption. But it varies from person to person. So saying that people are more accustomed to 30 and more prone to feel "strained" at 60 after longer sessions is... well fairly random in all honesty.

That said, it is cheaper and less straining on consoles to lock something at 30 fps. Although the more that is going on, on the screen, and at a higher pace, it gets slower and more blurry at 30, whereas 60 fps will run a lot more smoother! ... This is DMC we are talking about right? Not excactly a single piece moving chess game style of game is it?

Ah well...

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Huh.

That is my mistake. I really though GoW was at 30. My bad.

I agree with you that it's a much slower style of hack&slash than Devil May Cry, though, so I can understand why you would think that.

Hmmm... personally, I've played some hack-and-slash games that ran at 30fps, and enjoyed them just fine. With the Otogi series, in fact, the 30fps limit helped create a lovely 'cinematic' feel that complemented the beautiful mythological visuals.

I've played a bit of the Devil May Cry games, however, and I'm not so sure with them. So much of the combat in those games revolves around split-second timing.

It's like with Ninja Gaiden. The original version on the Xbox ran at 60fps, and it was integral to the experience. So much of the combat was based around blocking and countering your enemy's attacks as they happen, that the high framerate was needed in order to ensure your eyes had that split-second to process everything and get your thumbs to respond. With the sequel, the framerate was dropped to 30fps, at least on the PS3. And while the gameplay was as great as ever, the framerate drop did have a noticeable effect on the way the combat played. The controls felt a little less responsive, and the action a little more delayed.

So yeah... to be honest, I think this can be chalked up to them deciding to use the Unreal engine. While it works for a lot of other games well enough, the Unreal engine would not be my first choice for developing a hack-and-slash game. For a top-of-the-line hack and slash, you want a silky smooth framerate and an engine that allows for incredibly responsive controls. While it works well for shooters like Gears or Mass Effect, I don't think the Unreal engine is conducive to a smooth hack-and-slash experience. I can't see something like Devil May Cry 3 being made on it.

sethisjimmy:

Lunar Templar:

sethisjimmy:
Meh, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker, but it's obvious this comes from the limitations of consoles. Better they add more features and content than solely try and up the FPS. That's the mistake RAGE made, and that game looks terrible on 360. Textures load only as they enter your FOV, and unload when they exit your FOV, and they aren't even good textures, not to mention the miniscule draw distance.

??

Given DMC 1-4 where on consoles at 60FPS, how are the consoles limiting things here?

If I had to guess i'd say they are at the point now where if they want to improve their graphics over the last game, they have to choose between either sticking with 60 FPS and the same graphical quality, or lower it to 30 FPS and have higher res textures and better graphical quality and such, because current gen consoles can only handle so much.
Might not be true, but I really can't see any reason why they'd willingly decrease the FPS if they didn't need to.

Bayonetta managed to combine swanky visuals, buttery smooth gameplay and a 60fps framerate. I've no idea what engine the guys at Platinum were using, but I'd have thought if they can come up with something that allows for that sort of high-end hack-and-slash experience, the boffins at Capcom should have no problem doing the same.

But... Anything less than 120 FPS is a slideshow! 60 FPS is just unplayable, and god... 30 FPS... Who the hell can play games at 30 FPS?!

Sarcasm aside, I doubt people truly notice a difference between 30 and 60 when they play the game. They just want something more about DMC to whine about. Granted that this Devil May Cry game isn't really holding my interest, but 30 FPS is nothing to cry about.

A Smooth Criminal:
But... Anything less than 120 FPS is a slideshow! 60 FPS is just unplayable, and god... 30 FPS... Who the hell can play games at 30 FPS?!

Sarcasm aside, I doubt people truly notice a difference between 30 and 60 when they play the game. They just want something more about DMC to whine about. Granted that this Devil May Cry game isn't really holding my interest, but 30 FPS is nothing to cry about.

Play a US SNES game then play the PAL version. There's only a 10FPS difference between them.. you'll notice.

I have never noticed or even cared about FPS and I doubt I will start now.

They said they will play like it is 60 FPS so quit complaining.

The human eye can only do 20-something frames anyway, I have NEVER noticed unless I took my time to look.

60 FPS is obviously better, but unless I try to look for the difference, I cannot see any problem.

Dogstile:

thesilentman:
30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

Don't start with that shit. Not all of us PC gamers are such pricks about FPS and you know it.

OT: I don't really care, so long as it looks good, it looks good. I'll not complain until i've seen the game in action after it comes out.

captcha: Fast asleep

I should be.

Read the second snippet. Yeah? I care more about having fun in a game than the graphics. And this is why I need to remember the almighty [/sarcasm] tag.

GAunderrated:

thesilentman:
30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

My personal thoughts? It's elitism as usual and the FPS on my TV won't appear to make a difference but my computer monitor will. I don't care a single bit as long as the game is fun.

If you are going the ignorant blanket "elitist" route you should at least get it right. Sorry but PC gamers actually spit on 60 FPS as crap as well. I'd say they would at least accept 90 FPS as a nice minimum from my experience.

Well, damn. I think I'll go back to the dirty console peasant race now. "Sniff" I had fun, guys. See ya. "Sniff"

I don't have a problem with only 30 FPS. Especially on a console. They say the PC version will be 60. This matters because TV's and monitors display things differently. 30 or 60 on a console is meaningless. 30 to 60 a PC is night and day, but a steady 30 is far from unplayable as many purport.

No, the thing I have a problem with is the bullshit science this guys is blowing out of his ass. He needs to shut the fuck up. Let me lay it out for people. The human eye doesn't see things in frames, it either sees it as smooth or not smooth. The brain (the organ that actually sees, as opposed to the eye which are the sense organs) can't even see smooth or not smooth. It either gets perception from that sense organ or it does not. There have even been medically studied instances of a person who can only see an updated image from their eyes every 5 seconds, but they didn't even know it (as the brain cannot see itself). But these people didn't see darkness interrupted by an image every five seconds, they didn't see at all (that means they didn't see blackness either)... but I digress as I am going on a tangent. He is incorrect in saying that 60 FPS can cause eye strain and eye fatigue. The thing that causes eye eye fatigue is when a monitor has a lot of action going on and the frame rate is not synced with the refresh rate.

As I said, this is not noticeable on consoles play because of how consoles output images. And it doesn't sound like there is going to be a problem on the PC if/when that comes out. And I don't have a single problem with however the game is gonna come out as I know it, but this guy needs to not just make stuff up because he is insecure about his game.

So he's telling me that it's more exhausting to view 60 FPS than 30?

No, it's the other way around.

I have no explanation of that, because I need none. It is more exhausting to view something at 30 FPS than 60. I have tested this, it's intuitive, and it is the case.

Is there something wrong with my eyes? Or just his?

I like how almost everything they said is either subjective, or an outright lie. There are people who can't play 30fps games. Like, they find them unplayable. This isn't because they're whining, its just the way their brains and eyes work. In the same way, people get headaches from first-person shooters which have a low FOV. And developers who try to justify their low FOV from a technical standpoint are as wrong for standing by it to those people as Capcom and Ninja Theory are to those who find 30fps impossible to play at. If your engine can't do it, that was something you should have caught the inception of the project, and its on your shoulders. Don't try to justify now, you assholes.

I keep saying this and since this requires little effort I will say it again. The more FPS you have the more iterations to input commands and react to the action onscreen you have. I have two monitors, one 120HZ and the other 60HZ. Switching between them I have a very noticeable difference in gameplay. This will not be the same for the majority of people but to say that no one can benefit from this is either arrogant assertion of one's opinion or general (harmless(?)) ignorance.

Andy of Comix Inc:
I like how almost everything they said is either subjective, or an outright lie. There are people who can't play 30fps games. Like, they find them unplayable. This isn't because they're whining, its just the way their brains and eyes work. In the same way, people get headaches from first-person shooters which have a low FOV. And developers who try to justify their low FOV from a technical standpoint are as wrong for standing by it to those people as Capcom and Ninja Theory are to those who find 30fps impossible to play at. If your engine can't do it, that was something you should have caught the inception of the project, and its on your shoulders. Don't try to justify now, you assholes.

Absolutely, 30 fps is a joke when you have been playing 60, even 90+ FPS on games for years. I have been playing on PC for well over a decade and playing the same games on consoles is like night and day, the frame rate alone is like watching a slow motion movie. This guy is so full of s**t and he knows it, what he said about 30 FPS hurting your eyes compared to 60 is pure console player pandering.

You know Capcom, FPS is the LAST thing I'm worrying about.

Coreless:

Andy of Comix Inc:
I like how almost everything they said is either subjective, or an outright lie. There are people who can't play 30fps games. Like, they find them unplayable. This isn't because they're whining, its just the way their brains and eyes work. In the same way, people get headaches from first-person shooters which have a low FOV. And developers who try to justify their low FOV from a technical standpoint are as wrong for standing by it to those people as Capcom and Ninja Theory are to those who find 30fps impossible to play at. If your engine can't do it, that was something you should have caught the inception of the project, and its on your shoulders. Don't try to justify now, you assholes.

Absolutely, 30 fps is a joke when you have been playing 60, even 90+ FPS on games for years. I have been playing on PC for well over a decade and playing the same games on consoles is like night and day, the frame rate alone is like watching a slow motion movie. This guy is so full of s**t and he knows it, what he said about 30 FPS hurting your eyes compared to 60 is pure console player pandering.

It really does go a long way to ensure the comfort of the play experience. Something I'd hope developers put a lot of work into. If you want me to enjoy your game, yeah, make the content fun for sure, but make sure I'm not hurting my eyes in the process, will you?

And, as others have pointed out: the previous Devil May Cry games all ran at 60fps on console as a rule of thumb. So its not even console pandering. Its just outright bullshitting.

30 FPS is normally considered the minimum for a playable experience. This guy is talking out of his ass. Capcom just cant get it to run a a consistent 60 FPS so they limit it to 30 FPS to eliminate any tearing which could look like absolute crap on a TV.

I never noticed frame rate issues when I played exclusively on consoles, and aren't most console games locked at 30?

30 is fine for this kind of game anyway. The only games it really benefits to have 60 fps are first person shooters.

I doubt most console players would care if they didn't know anyway, do we need to start getting fps counters in the corner of the screen? No.

Funny thing, your eyes don't really have a framerate at all. They're made up of different kinds of light receptors that work at different speeds, and it's physically impossible to hold your eyes perfectly still anyway, so you brain is just used to interpreting slight amounts of jumpiness as smooth motion. It really only takes a framerate in the teens to get this to work for most people, and it works for everyone in the low twenties.

However, as I said, not all the receptors in your eye work the same way, and the type that's most prevalent in your peripheral vision is much faster than the more detail oriented types in the center of your retina. This means that your peripheral vision is much, much better at noticing motion or flashing lights. That's why while it's true that movie theaters only change the frame 24 times per second, they actually have to flash each frame three times for a total of 72 flashes per second so you don't notice the flickering lights.

Actually, if you're having problems with a game making you a bit queasy or just seeming a bit off at 30 FPS and you're playing with the lights off the problem is most likely that the light from your monitor is flashing slowly enough that your peripheral vision can see the room being lit up and going dark really fast, and if you turn on the lights to give the corner of your eye a more consistent light level you might just find your problems go away.

sethisjimmy:
Meh, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker, but it's obvious this comes from the limitations of consoles. Better they add more features and content than solely try and up the FPS. That's the mistake RAGE made, and that game looks terrible on 360. Textures load only as they enter your FOV, and unload when they exit your FOV, and they aren't even good textures, not to mention the miniscule draw distance.

Didn't id software fix that shit? Or was that only fixed on the PC version?

CardinalPiggles:

sethisjimmy:
Meh, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker, but it's obvious this comes from the limitations of consoles. Better they add more features and content than solely try and up the FPS. That's the mistake RAGE made, and that game looks terrible on 360. Textures load only as they enter your FOV, and unload when they exit your FOV, and they aren't even good textures, not to mention the miniscule draw distance.

Didn't id software fix that shit? Or was that only fixed on the PC version?

Ah jeez I just realized that I wasn't connected to the internet when I played it, so there probably was a patch I just haven't downloaded it yet.

I kinda feel stupid for berating it now.

As others have said, when you're talking a fast paced execution dependent action game, FPS count is about much much more than purely the visual smoothness. The quotes in the OP basically tell me that Capcom/Ninja Theory has basically designed DMC to be less technical than the previous games in the series.. which isn't surprising in the least considering the games Ninja Theory has made in the past. Visually snazzy titles with little going on under the hood.

BeerTent:

BiH-Kira:
What Itsuno doesn't get, or doesn't want to admit is that FPS isn't only for the eye. A game on 30 fps has literally less responsive controls compared to the same game on 60 fps.
Also, I have to pay 60$ and then to use my imagination to fill the blanks that the developer couldn't? What a pathetic excuse.

Visually, there's nothing different between 30, 40, and 60. As someone has previously stated, the human visual system can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. When buddy says that "You'll have to use your imagination to fill in the gaps" he talking about what you already do sub-consciously.

No. This is wrong. There has never been any actual evidence to back this up. The reason why 24FPS is fine on movies is not because of some BS like the human eye can only take in that many images, or that it "draws you in" to the movie more (really? How does that argument mean anything? It's something my subconscious does automatically, it's not going to effect my enjoyment of the movie at all)

It is because of motion blur. You know how if you take a picture of a fast moving object, like a car on a highway, it isn't defined at all and just looks like a blurry mess? That happens on a smaller scale to everything. This blur serves to "soften" the chunkiness of the 24FPS to something that is natural for the eye to see. And the slower moving objects that are not blurred do not move fast enough for the eye to notice the low framerate (in fact, due to the exposure times, it has to be this way)

So it's fine for movies. How does that explain why 30FPS is not acceptable for games? Well, there is no motion blur in video games. Video games are rendered in 3D instead of real time, for obvious reasons. The rendering software, due to needing to output in real time, doesn't take motion into account, as adding the blur would increase the time it takes to render each frame, so you go from 30FPS to 10. Not a good tradeoff. So you don't get the motion blur, which means that it doesn't account for the low FPS and you get choppy movement.

Note: all of this is to do with cameras and screens. I do not mean to imply that the eye, or the world for that matter, has a framrate. The eye works in a way that makes that word meaningless.

sethisjimmy:

CardinalPiggles:

sethisjimmy:
Meh, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker, but it's obvious this comes from the limitations of consoles. Better they add more features and content than solely try and up the FPS. That's the mistake RAGE made, and that game looks terrible on 360. Textures load only as they enter your FOV, and unload when they exit your FOV, and they aren't even good textures, not to mention the miniscule draw distance.

Didn't id software fix that shit? Or was that only fixed on the PC version?

Ah jeez I just realized that I wasn't connected to the internet when I played it, so there probably was a patch I just haven't downloaded it yet.

I kinda feel stupid for berating it now.

Well I don't actually know if there was a patch for it, but I think there was.

I'd like to get the game (now it's cheap) and try it for myself, but I won't if the textures won't friggin' work properly.

Meanwhile Nvidia and Amd set out to kill these guys, because no one has a reason to buy their top end GPUs anymore.

It depends on the game.

Shadow of the Colossus had an atrocious framerate on PS2... didn't stop it from being one of my favorite games ever made.

Likewise, I've played games with silky-smooth 60 fps that I hated.

While playing a game at 60 fps looks absolutely amazing, I've never seen the difference until I see both versions. I never complained about Skyrim on my 360. It was beautiful looking around with much smoother FPS, but if someone set up a TV, not telling me which framerate the game was, I wouldn't pay attention. I would be playing Skyrim.

As someone who's played Borderlands 2 at 30, 60 and 120 fps, you can very clearly tell the difference between all three.

Oh capcom, first you were trying to sell people DLC they already bought, and now you're trying to sell them an idea and let their imagination do the work. I love you guys, stay classy.

30 FPS honestly isn't that bad, yes 60 FPS is pretty much optimal but every game is far from unplayable on 30 FPS. 30 FPS is necessary, 60 FPS is a luxury. Not being able to play a game at 60 FPS should NOT be a deal breaker for anyone who is being reasonable.

thesilentman:
30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

My personal thoughts? It's elitism as usual and the FPS on my TV won't appear to make a difference but my computer monitor will. I don't care a single bit as long as the game is fun.

Agree with this, I notice a lot of people seem to care more about being able to say "zomg my uberbeastmode computer can run x at 60FPS" than they actually care about the noticeable difference between 30 and 60 FPS. People care more about achieving the number so they can brag about it than what the number actually does.

yes, let's pretend that 30 FPS isn't all that bad for a DMC. They're really trying anything to sell this game because there is ZERO hype for it.

To the dev, nice try. Your explanations/sugarcoating are complete bullshit and I'm glad you're able to feed into the misinformation about framerates.

Lunar Templar:

sethisjimmy:
Meh, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker, but it's obvious this comes from the limitations of consoles. Better they add more features and content than solely try and up the FPS. That's the mistake RAGE made, and that game looks terrible on 360. Textures load only as they enter your FOV, and unload when they exit your FOV, and they aren't even good textures, not to mention the miniscule draw distance.

??

Given DMC 1-4 where on consoles at 60FPS, how are the consoles limiting things here?

They're going for higher poly models/more effects/use a different engine and the consoles can't handle it anymore? Is it really that hard to figure out?

BF3 came out on consoles, but MW3 also came out on consoles. Why does BF3 have 30 fps when MW3 has 60?

thesilentman:
30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

My personal thoughts? It's elitism as usual and the FPS on my TV won't appear to make a difference but my computer monitor will. I don't care a single bit as long as the game is fun.

No, 30 isn't bad to you. To most people who are used to gaming on 60 FPS, it's night and day. 30 can and does indeed look really choppy and uncomfortable (with this problem rising the faster paced the game is). You may also be one of the people who don't see the difference between 480p and 720p (or higher). What then? People who don't appreciate games being capped at crappy resolutions are elitists? Get real, would you.

I don't know what you're thinking, but the word 'elitist' isn't the worst descriptor of a person, especially when you're using it in a context like this.

GAunderrated:
If you are going the ignorant blanket "elitist" route you should at least get it right. Sorry but PC gamers actually spit on 60 FPS as crap as well. I'd say they would at least accept 90 FPS as a nice minimum from my experience.

No, the vast majority are at least fine with a framerate that doesn't dip below 60. From what I heard, unless you're playing some really fast paced games like Quake 3, going over 60 really doesn't make too much difference. Certainly not even remotely as much as 30 fps over 60.

BeerTent:
Visually, there's nothing different between 30, 40, and 60. As someone has previously stated, the human visual system can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. When buddy says that "You'll have to use your imagination to fill in the gaps" he talking about what you already do sub-consciously.

God, dude, you're making my brain hurt. Please stop. While you may be right depending on what you mean by saying process, the human eye can and does pick up on shit that happened for one two-hundredth of a second.

There are huge differences between 30, 40 and 60. The fact that you can't pick up on them doesn't give you justification to be blatantly wrong. One reason you might not have is because you never actually tried to look at the difference by either getting used to 60 and having it as standard or simply checking out different framerates on a game. Or you may have bad eyes, also a possibility. Personal anecdotes aside, how about you read up[1] on that shit.

[1] Hell, look up specific tests and studies if you find this site shady.

Personally I don't think this is that bad. Yes, it would be better if it runs at 60, but in order to manage that they would have to cut corners. Another thing is that a game set to run on high fps on a console sometimes got the problem of drops in fps. Some of us find the difference between 30 and 60 to be subtle, but I think we all agree that a sudden drop from 60 to 40 in the middle of an intense fast paced section is quite jarring.

I'd rather have a stable low fps than a bouncy one.

 Pages PREV 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
Registered for a free account here