Dead Rising 3 Targeting 30 Frames Per Second

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Dead Rising 3 Targeting 30 Frames Per Second

Dead Rising 3 promo art

Capcom address concerns that Dead Rising 3 demos at E3 and GamesCom have been dropping below 30 FPS.

Dead Rising 3 developer Capcom Vancouver is working with Microsoft to improve the game's frame rate issues before it's official launch, senior producer Jason Leigh has assured VideoGamer.com. Fans were quick to notice that both the GamesCom and E3 demos of the game ran into frame rate issues, but Leigh assures us that "[the] demo is actually several weeks old and we've made a lot of ground. We've got a little bit more ways to go before we release the game."

Games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 ranged anywhere from 30 to 60 frames per second, with games in the later stages of the generation's life-cycle usually utilizing lower frame-rates. Halo 3, for instance, was locked at 30 FPS, as was The Last of Us. Many of us expected the hardware upgrade of the PS4 and Xbox One to come with an increase in frame rate, bringing consoles in line with the 60 FPS PC gamers have come to accept as standard, but developers seem to be fairly split on the issue.

Call of Duty: Ghosts developer Infinity Ward says they are aiming for 60 FPS "with no compromise", while Thief developer Eidos Montreal suggests 60 FPS is "not a necessity," and will stick to 30.

Meanwhile, Capcom Vancouver, which is having trouble even maintaining 30 FPS, claims Dead Rising 3 should be stable by launch. "We're targeting 30 frames a second," Leigh added, "and because we're based in Vancouver, and Seattle is where Microsoft is based, we're only three hours up the road so we constantly have tech people driving back and forth and they're helping us to make this a very smooth running game at launch."

Hopefully they can sort this out before launch. What do you guys think? Is 30 FPS too low? Should 60 FPS be the standard for next-gen?

Source: VideoGamer.com

Permalink

Wow, the whole 30 fps. How ambitious! Are they sure they can pull off such a high number?

30 is fine by me but they can do whatever they like so long as the game plays smoothly.

I'd say it really depends on why it's 30 FPS.

If you're putting twice the amount of stuff on-screen, more enemies, more weapons, more explosions, more terrain etc. then you're going to take twice as long t render a single frame and thus half your FPS. I'd say that's fine if it improves the gameplay. I'll sacrifice a bit of fluidity for having a game that's much more filled.

If you've badly optimized code ( no, start of the console cycle is not an excuse. This gen is pretty much normal PC architecture ) then there's no excuse.

The game doesnt even look that visually good so I'll just say that Capcom probably isnt that well prepared for next gen. I dont even know what engine they are using but when you have a game like Battlefield 4 running at 60FPS then I really dont think that its just because of the high number of zombies on screen since there is also Knack with that whole "a lot of shit on screen" thing (and I doubt that its AI, its zombies, they either dont do anything or follow in a conga line).

30 FPS? Keep pushing that envelope, Capcom...
But really, is anyone surprised by this?
It's not like Capcom have been making the smartest decisions lately, anyway.

Woah, back the fuck up, 30FPS?, I didn't realize it was still 2005.

Congrats on making a good use of that next-gen hardware, guys.

Sometimes it feels like devs just use the better tech to be more lazy about optimization... 30 FPS as the aim on a console that's not even out yet, Xbox One. Very ambitious indeed.

I'm hoping this whole 30FPS is only while devs are getting used to optimising for the next-gen, rather than a thing that will continue because they are too lazy or not allowed to spend time optimising because of publisher pressure.

Srsly, I thought the whole point of the next gen was to bring consoles up to the PC gaming master race 60fps?

vrbtny:
I'm hoping this whole 30FPS is only while devs are getting used to optimising for the next-gen, rather than a thing that will continue because they are too lazy or not allowed to spend time optimising because of publisher pressure.

Remember that resolution and frame-rate both dropped over this generation to compensate for the hardware getting long in the tooth

vrbtny:
I'm hoping this whole 30FPS is only while devs are getting used to optimising for the next-gen, rather than a thing that will continue because they are too lazy or not allowed to spend time optimising because of publisher pressure.

Srsly, I thought the whole point of the next gen was to bring consoles up to the PC gaming master race 60fps?

The common excuse is that things need to be at 30 FPS to the devs can better control the interactions between the players and NPC's. Which is total bunk because Dark souls ran fine at 60FPS and so does every other game that is eventually forced to run as such.

So basicly 30FPS is just so they can be lazy with certain things.

Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

Daystar Clarion:
Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

Those who do most (or all) of their gaming on console either don't know what 60+ fps is like on PC, or just don't have a PC that can pull that fps in most new titles. There is a pretty small overlap between console owners and midrange/high-end PC owners.

30 fps is fine for them.

way to be ambitious guys...

if it's smooth and NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER drops below 30, it's kind of acceptable if a lot is going on, but for next gen "more powerful than PCs" consoles, that's shocking

If the game runs smooth at all times and the world is as open, seem less, and packed with content as they say it is, 30 fps is no big whoop.

Run-on sentence for the win.

Eh don't care. I've never regularly been treated to 60FPS like the PC players have, so it being 30 doesn't affect me at all. Hell, I'd prefer it if it means we're getting a ton more content and it runs smoothly.

Whoops, double post. My bad, guys!

vrbtny:
I'm hoping this whole 30FPS is only while devs are getting used to optimising for the next-gen, rather than a thing that will continue because they are too lazy or not allowed to spend time optimising because of publisher pressure.

Srsly, I thought the whole point of the next gen was to bring consoles up to the PC gaming master race 60fps?

Well, next-gen uses PC architecture, so devs don't need to 'get used to it' because normally nowadays what you learn to program for first.

I don't see why it's such a big problem. 30FPS is smooth and can sometimes give the game a certain look dependant on the game. Besides, they say they're probably targeting 30FPS so they have a 'comfort zone' because of the amount of the work they're rendering all at once

Dryk:

vrbtny:
I'm hoping this whole 30FPS is only while devs are getting used to optimising for the next-gen, rather than a thing that will continue because they are too lazy or not allowed to spend time optimising because of publisher pressure.

Remember that resolution and frame-rate both dropped over this generation to compensate for the hardware getting long in the tooth

Don't worry, the human eye can't noticed frame-rate over 15 anyway. For the record, I am making fun of console players who argue that we can't see more than 30 fps and only PC elitists claim they can to justify their platform.

I am going to guess this is because of the early stage in developing for the console. Shit happens because they're not used to the hardware and the OS they have to work with. As long as the game manages to NEVER drop below 30 fps and keep stable values I won't say it's a dealbreaker (Xbox One exclusive on the other hand is one).

Depends really, on a PC, a shooter title with a mouse ... you need the FPS to be smooth when you quickly mouse look to various targets, but on a controller you get a more gradual acceleration so it looks smooth even at 30 FPS.

30 FPS on a mouse, not good... on a controller is ok, not the best but is more than acceptable.
It is a surprise though that the latest gen cant get past the 30 FPS barrier, these machines are on par with a decent PC AND are dedicated to gaming for the most part whereas a PC is more a machine that does a lot of stuff and can play games as well.
Dead Rising 3 better have infinite draw distance and absolute masses of a wide variety of zombies with very high texture quality to excuse a low FPS, or I'll have to call it a bad piece of coding... a new console is not a good excuse.
Its a bloody PC and CapCom have a decent engine they use in their ports to the PC at the moment, so whats the issue here ? Smartglass / Win8 Phone intergration ? Kinect ? That crappy recording 'feature' ? The need to run several adverts on the dash while playing the game ?

Daystar Clarion:
Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I agree with this. On my old PC I used to have to play stuff like Metro 2033 on like 20fps out necessity.
Since getting a new PC and getting used to 50-60fps, anything sub-40 looks really strobey to me, especially in FPS. And if I artificially lower something to 20 it makes my eyes bleed. No idea how I used to put up with it.

Admittedly on a TV screen on the other side of the room the difference between 30 and 60 is less noticeable, but still.

And it's embarrassing that they're aiming for 30 to start with - everyone should be aiming for 60, even if they tolerate drops to 30 in high intensity sections.
As others have said, judging by the look of the trailer it really shouldn't be quite that intensive (though I must admit that indoor bit shows some pretty lighting effects), and seems to get pretty severe drops. The fact that you notice them even on youtube say a lot.
Has to be poor optimisation, given that even other launch releases are aiming for 60fps with more impressive graphics.
Unless it's actually the hardware limiting it, in which case the next gen really is fucked.

I guess Capcom isn't utilizing enough of Micrsoft's power of THE CLOUD.

30FPS wont be too bad if its CONSTANT.
However... knowing what it is to play at 60 fps... damn. It IS noticable.

Translation: We suck at coding our new, expensive Forge Engine.

Yuuki:

Daystar Clarion:
Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

Those who do most (or all) of their gaming on console either don't know what 60+ fps is like on PC, or just don't have a PC that can pull that fps in most new titles. There is a pretty small overlap between console owners and midrange/high-end PC owners.

30 fps is fine for them.

Exactly. I pretty much fall into that spot, and speaking for the uninitiated, while I've chased it on my older hardware I wouldn't notice if it bit me in the butt. I think the devs are hitting the argument right on the money though. Similar to the 120hz tv I bought last year, some things I watch there is a notable difference, some not. I played xbox at 720p for years then switched to full 1080p because I somehow missed that setting the first time around, but barely even saw a difference. When you put a full blu-ray movie in it the difference is suddenly mind boggling. We perceive frame rates differently depending on genre, on-screen action, and point of view.

So now I've finally seen some 60fps high end gaming and the conclusion is that I couldn't really care less. Does 60 look better? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. For this group it's less important to speed it up as it is to stop it from slowing down. So many games on middle hardware 'run at a perfect 30fps' until something important happens, the rate drops to the teens, and we get screwed.

If every piece of hardware were to suddenly jump to 60fps minimum no one would complain - they aren't hating - but not everyone chases the latest and greatest. They just want things to work reliably.

Capcom really raising the bar with next gen consoles with ambitions like games running at a steady 30fps.

Adam Jensen:
Wow, the whole 30 fps. How ambitious! Are they sure they can pull off such a high number?

Considering the frame rate drops I've seen on even a lot of PC titles, I seriously don't think targeting a solid 30 FPS is under-ambitious.

A little disappointing, perhaps, that we're still here, but whatever.

I thought that FPS dropped towards the END of the console cycle (see: Shadow of the Colossus), not the start...

Also, I don't like 30 FPS. It makes everything feel a bit laggy, constant or not.

Daystar Clarion:
Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I'm the opposite. High frame rates STILL look like a routine that should be backed by Yakety Sax to me. It's hard to get used to, since I've literally been gaming since before you were born.

And now I feel this urge to tell you kids to get off my lawn.

Dead Rising has never been about being the prettiest game. It's about getting swarmed by undead and using silly weapons. 30 FPS is fine so long as the zombies are there in droves.

I'm going to give Capcom the benefit of a the doubt and hope this one turns out well optimized by November.

I'm gonna have to see if it comes to PC to see how much this matters to me. For example, once I played Devil May Cry: Devil May Cry on the PC at 60, I actually did better on PS3 at 30 because I felt like it was in slow motion and that I had more time to react and such. In Dark Souls' case, the animations are intrinsically tied to the 30 FPS and bumping it to 60 drove me up the wall. So it really depends on the game and whether or not "striving for 30" is a creative decision or being ass at optimization/slow hardware.

I actually don't want to try out my brothers 120hz monitor, because my GPU can't push 120 on many games and still look good. I'd hate to feel unsatisfied with 60.

Raiyan 1.0:
I guess Capcom isn't utilizing enough of Micrsoft's power of THE CLOUD.

Zachary Amaranth:

Daystar Clarion:
Next gen consoles, folks.

I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I'm the opposite. High frame rates STILL look like a routine that should be backed by Yakety Sax to me. It's hard to get used to, since I've literally been gaming since before you were born.

And now I feel this urge to tell you kids to get off my lawn.

Get outta here gramps. You're too old to Internet and you're cramping our style.

OT: I've played at 60 and 30 and I'm fine with 30. As long as it doesn't dip significantly under 30 I'll be fine.
Not that I'm getting Dead Rising 3 anyway but whatever. Opinions and stuff.

TiberiusEsuriens:

So now I've finally seen some 60fps high end gaming and the conclusion is that I couldn't really care less. Does 60 look better? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. For this group it's less important to speed it up as it is to stop it from slowing down. So many games on middle hardware 'run at a perfect 30fps' until something important happens, the rate drops to the teens, and we get screwed.

If every piece of hardware were to suddenly jump to 60fps minimum no one would complain - they aren't hating - but not everyone chases the latest and greatest. They just want things to work reliably.

The thing is, it doesn't matter that it looks better. You won't be able to SEE the difference between 30 and 60 fps anyway, unless you can watch a direct comparison on 2 monitors at the same time.

The key is in input delay, playing at 30 fps on PC bring a control input delay that is often higher than your server ping online. This is very noticeable in games where you directly control your character, first person shooters, third person slashers etc. The game feels, laggy, sluggish, less reactive.

If you watch someone play a shooter at 30 fps on PC it will look perfectly fluid to you, but for the guy playing it will be agony if he's used to 60+.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67218)