Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

[The Wooster]

Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

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 [http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html], 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. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC6DNRob65M ] 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 [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-05-dragons-dogma-taught-capcom-new-tricks-that-give-devil-may-cry-the-feel-of-60-frames-per-second-publisher-claims]


Permalink

 

[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.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

 

[Sylveria]

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.

 

[ShirowShirow]

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.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Ladies and gentleman allow me to present: Man Not Caring

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

 

[Canadish]

"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...

Spoiler

Hey Virgil, get in the flask!

Foolishness Donte. Fooishness.

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

 

[DoPo]

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?

 

[Doom972]

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.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

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

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,

Also, obligatory mention:

Half Angel, Half Demon...

Spoiler

Hey Virgil, get in the flask!

Foolishness Donte. Fooishness.

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

 

[Twilight_guy]

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.

 

[Joccaren]

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.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

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.