Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

image

Unlike previous Devil May Cry games, DmC Is capped at 30 frames-per-second.

There's plenty of reasons to be leery about the upcoming Devil May Cry not-quite-a-reboot. The radically different art direction, the liberties it's taking with the series' lore or the fact it's being developed by a Western studio not known for its compelling combat design. But while it remains to be seen if those factors will make or scuttle the game, there has been one change that's a clear downgrade: Previous Devil May Cry games ran at 60 frames-per-second, the new game runs at 30.

Now to some people, especially the crowd of hard-boiled enthusiasts who make up Devil May Cry's core fan base, that's a huge deal. The difference between 30 and 60 FPS is perhaps subtle to the untrained eye, but pick up a controller and the two framerates are like night and day. Or perhaps not, as director Hideaki Itsuno told Eurogamer.

"60 FPS is a speed the brain and the eye can catch up with and understand," he said. "But at 30 FPS there's a technique where you take advantage of the brain's ability to fill in the blanks. So even though you have it running at 30 FPS, you create the motions and the poses in such a way that the brain will naturally fill in what would have been the extra frames."

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."

"Adjusting the speed is almost necessary," he added.

According to DmC's technical art director, Stuart Adcock, the game's lowered framerate is down to its engine - the game is using the UE3 engine rather than Capcom's in-house MT-Framework - and the fancy level-shifting shenanigans you can see in this trailer. The PC port will apparently run at a solid 60FPS, making it the version of choice depending on release date and port quality.

Still, Capcom and Ninja Theory think they've included enough visual and technical tricks to emulate a 60FPS level of responsiveness. I guess we'll find out if that's true when the game hits consoles next January.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

Well OK.

Personally I know squat about how many framerates the human eye can perceive but I do know that people don't go out of movie-theaters complaining about choppy framerates (movies usually run 24fps).

Now personally I think above 45fps is just luxury and bragging rights (kinda like having a Veyron, sure it can do 431km/h but how many times do you need that capability?!?), but hey I could be wrong.

Sure the animation looks smoother but there isn't any way it could seriously effect my gaming.

Meh, DMC is dead to me.

Puts a picture of new Vergil on the newsfeed thumbnail...

60 FPS is great, but it's not the be all end all of games.

I'd prefer it if it were 60, but my day won't be ruined if it's not.

Crapcom, telling us to use our imagination to fill in the blanks is something that passed back during the Atari age, but now, no, go fuck yourselves.

Ninja Theory was lazy and used Unreal 3, among being lazy in several thousand other ways but those aren't the topic atm. The company has tried their hand at imitating DMC several times and fallen on their face on each occasion. Now they're actively ruining DMC, cutting out all the middle men. I honestly hope the game bombs and takes Ninja Theory with them. Smug pieces of Eurotrash.

Hmm. I have no idea whether this will work or not! Wait and see I suppose.

I will say that the one other Ninja Theory game I have played, Enslaved, had such atrocious framerate that it actually did hurt my eyes. Why Itsuno thinks a smoother framerate would make things worse is beyond my realm of comprehension.

Ladies and gentleman allow me to present: Man Not Caring

image

Couldn't care less the FPS of the game, so long as I find it fun.

"P-please buy this house! Look, you can hardly even see the damage caused by the damp!"

Sorry guys. I've played your games, and you do notice the difference when you compare it to 60fps competitors.

No sell.

Also, obligatory mention:

Half Angel, Half Demon...

This thread is going to end well...

After playing on PC for the past two years, 30 FPS has become very jerky and slow to me. It's still playable, but goddamn if it's not noticeable to me that the game is less responsive than if I were playing at 60 FPS. Case in point was playing Batman: Arkham City at 60 FPS on my PC and then switching over to the PS3 version. Combat instantly felt slower and more clunky, and everything just felt... less smooth. Or take Assassin's Creed III for instance. While watching my friend play it over the weekend on the PS3, I could very easily tell the different sections where the game would randomly speed up to 60 FPS and slow back down to 30.

As for DmC, well, if it's being built on the Unreal Engine instead of an in-house one then I don't doubt that they'd have a legitimate reason to lock the frame-rate, how many other Unreal games run at 60 FPS on consoles? And I think it's better for them to just lock it at 30 rather than having the random speed-ups to 60 in select locations, because then you feel like your game is just fast-forwarding on you every now and then.

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.

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."

"Adjusting the speed is almost necessary," he added.

Really? It's always been the other way around for me.

I'm not a FPS obsessive, but higher FPS seem to be better on my eyes.

Cools, I'll just get the PC version. That was my only concern about this game, which looks leagues and miles more interesting than the previous series, especially after having been blown away with Ninja Theory's work on Heavenly Sword and Enslaved. I wonder if Andy Serkis is involved in this game as well?

Either way, consider me sold.

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?

Introducing: Headache-O-Vision!

If the game stays on 30 FPS even on the intense parts, and you sit far from the screen, and the room is moderately lit, I guess it could work.
I start feeling the difference once a game goes below about 38 FPS, and under 30 I find it unbearable, but then again, I'm used to playing on my PC close to the screen and in a low-light or dark room.

I don't have anything to say on the matter that I haven't already said, but a couple of things catch my eye.

Grey Carter:
There's plenty of reasons to be leery about the upcoming Devil May Cry not-quite-a-reboot. The radically different art direction, the liberties it's taking with the series' lore or the fact it's being developed by a Western studio not known for its compelling combat design. But while it remains to be seen if those factors will make or scuttle the game, there has been one change that's a clear downgrade: Previous Devil May Cry games ran at 60 frames-per-second, the new game runs at 30.

Do you realize how much I want to scream right now? Not in pain or anger, mind you, but not necessarily in joy. I want to scream in a "it's about goddamn time" sort of way. It's about goddamn time someone in the gaming press made a statement about established fans' problems with DmC that wasn't some witless likely-accompanied-by-a-shit-eating-grin reference to the hair and nothing else.

Thank you, Mr. Carter. You're not the first, but you're not a common sort.

Also,

Canadish:
Also, obligatory mention:

Half Angel, Half Demon...

I've never seen this before. My laughter is joyous.

Yeah, trying to appease people whoa rgue over frame rate. That will turn out well. Why don't you just talk to a brick wall instead, it's more likely to listen.

If you want to cap it at 30FPS, fine. You don';t need to explain yourself, that just makes you look like you're afraid at your own decisions, which is bad. Some people are going to leave because 'OMG, FPS is too low' those idiots are going to leave no matter what you do, don't make yourself look like your afraid at your own decision because of them.

MrFalconfly:
Well OK.

Personally I know squat about how many framerates the human eye can perceive but I do know that people don't go out of movie-theaters complaining about choppy framerates (movies usually run 24fps).

Now personally I think above 45fps is just luxury and bragging rights (kinda like having a Veyron, sure it can do 431km/h but how many times do you need that capability?!?), but hey I could be wrong.

The human eye can generally see framerates of between 26-30 FPS from memory. However, it is not uncommon to be able to visually see a difference between 30 and 60 FPS, even if it is very slight.

Movie theaters and TVs get away with low FPS due to how they display their content, which is differently from PC monitors, so you generally won't notice a difference between 30 and 60 FPS just watching the TV.

Playing, however, is a slightly different matter. When you input a command, the game must process this. Thanks to how most games are built, it processes this every frame. Hence, if you play on 30 FPS your the commands you issue take slightly longer to be processed and executed.
Now, this slightly longer is... negligible, however you can notice it if your used to much higher framerates, much like you can notice the difference between 1080p and 720p if you've spent a lot of time with 1080. Using only 720 you don't see 1080p as that much of an improvement. Go to 1080 for a while, then back to 720 and you'll notice that the image isn't as crisp or clear.

Also, 45 FPS is rather low for bragging rights or luxury. On a console, maybe - but that's 'cause they're way too old by this point. 150+ FPS is generally bragging rights zone, unless playing a highly graphically demanding game - like BF3, TW2 or other modern PC graphics powerhouses [Crysis no longer counts as changing technology means its quite easy to get higher FPS on it now] - on maximum settings, and sometimes at 2560*1440 or *1600. These days saying your PC can run at 60FPS on a basic game, like that on a console, is like saying your car has a max speed of 60km/h. Sure, its all you'll need most of the time, but it can hardly be called good or great, unless you drive at a consistent 60km/h minimum on the trickiest roads in the world to drive, without ever falling below 60km/h for even a split second. That's ok bragging rights. There is better, but you have no need of it as whilst you drive 60km/h on the hardest tracks, you can break over 200 on a straight road.
Now, please note I know about f*** all about cars, so I'm not entirely sure whether its difficult to drive the hardest road in the world at 60km/h or not, all I know is the speed limits around where I live and on freeways.

OT: There is nothing wrong with a game running on even 120FPS, unless a console's weak graphics capabilities cause screen tearing or something - which is what it sounds like their talking about in the 5th[?] paragraph. This is not a problem caused by 60FPS, however, but by poor hardware and/or software, 'cause I have never had such problems on my PC even playing at 2-300 FPS.

Oh god... inb4 the absolutely preposterous debate over how many "frames" our eyes can see, as if it were an applicable metric...

Incidentally, I've just been playing Dark Souls at 60 fps and I'm sorry; you can embellish the language used all you want, but 30 fps in a video game is settling. For less.

People using movie comparisons don't realize filmmakers have to work their butts off to make fast action look good at 24fps, because it inherently sucks at capturing fast motion clearly.

There is a major difference. 60 FPS made the combat so beloved in earlier DMC games because your moves were tight, fluid, and asked for faster input that made the action faster and smoother.

Whether or not it was on purpose, Dark Souls (yeah, yeah, I know) runs at 30 FPS. You can feel the difference compared to many other action RPGs because it makes the game slower and more methodical in combat. It just so happens to work in the game's favor. I'm fairly certain that this guy's grasping at straws to try and justify this, and the new DMC will certainly feel slower and less quick/flashy as a result of the switch.

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?

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.

I've said it before but I never used to notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. However since I play alot more games now that run at 60 fps on pc, when going back to play a game at 30 fps I have to say the difference is very noticeable in that 30 fps starts to look like a flick book animation. Its sort like the difference between HD and SD to me, in that you don't often realise the improvement until its taken away.

And I explain why it is that bad:
It looks like shit!

Yes, yes, I know, I'm very smart, shower me with praise.

MrFalconfly:
Well OK.

Personally I know squat about how many framerates the human eye can perceive but I do know that people don't go out of movie-theaters complaining about choppy framerates (movies usually run 24fps).

The thing with film is that motion blur "fills in the gaps". You don't notice choppiness because the movement of people and objects in a particular frame is at least partially captured, usually well enough to where your brain doesn't catch on that it's just seeing individual pictures played very quickly.

Computers are still incapable of replicating motion blur very well. I've personally never played a game that had that option enabled where it didn't bother me enough to switch it off. CGI in film also has this same problem- one particularly bad instance is in one of the Star Wars prequels (I forget which) where Anakin basically Force Jumps into the saddle of a creature. Even with all the money and technical expertise poured into the movie, the effect looks more like a crappy Blur filter applied in Photoshop than of a human being moving quickly.

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.

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.

As other people have said, you are mostly going to only notice the frame rate drop if you sit close to the screen, like with a PC.

If you DO play on PC, well you get either learn to deal with the headaches you will inevitably get from the reduced frame rate, or you eat shit because Capcom doesn't give a fuck.

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.

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.

so ... you think Ninja Theory is incompetent to then? cause that's what it sounds like

the game isn't that much better looking then DMC 4. assuming your right, kinda just adds another reason to not get it. hamstringing gameplay for graphics is a cardinal sin far as I'm concerned, least, far as games like DMC go. since, ya know, they kinda live or die on gameplay

Andy Shandy:
Ladies and gentleman allow me to present: Man Not Caring

image

Couldn't care less the FPS of the game, so long as I find it fun.

You fool, FPS means fun per second! This is why the PC master race is better because it can have more fun per second compared to the console peasants. LRN2PLY NOOB

Seriously some of us don't have the hardware to run games at 60 FPS.

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.

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.

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.

Instead of making up loads of unnecessary explanations, why don't they admit that the consoles are not capable of running it at 60 fps?

And yes, there's a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

sethisjimmy:

Lunar Templar:

??

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.

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.

 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