Bloodborne Dev: 30 FPS is "The Best" For Action Games - Update

Steven Bogos

The Taco Man
Jan 17, 2013
9,354
0
0
Bloodborne Dev: 30 FPS is "The Best" For Action Games - Update


Bloodborne Producer Masaaki Yamagiwa says that 30 FPS is the best framerate to play action games in.

Update: Yamagiwa has stated via Twitter [https://twitter.com/giwamasa/status/526925825677877248] that the "30 FPS is the best framerate to play action games in," quote from the PlayStation Lifestyle interview is a misquote/translation. "We are to assign 1080p/30fps for Bloodborne considering its game designs, but didn't say it's the best choice for all action games," he said.

Original Story: If you're the kind of gamer who loves the silky smooth gameplay that only 60 FPS can bring, you've no doubt been disappointed by announcement [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134481-Watch-Dogs-30-FPS-on-Both-Xbox-One-and-PS4-Confirms-Ubisoft] that upcoming next-gen games will be capped at 30 FPS. While the usual excuse is simply "the hardware can't handle it," (often reworded to, "we decided to spend system resources elsewhere") this time, Bloodborne producer Masaaki Yamagiwa has told us that his upcoming title will most likely be capped at 30 FPS because it is, according to him, "the best" framerate for action games.

"[We] haven't made an official announcement yet," Yamigiwa told PlayStation Lifestyle [http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/10/27/bloodborne-frame-rate-targeting-30fps-since-its-the-best-for-action-games-claims-producer/#/slide/1], "but they will probably go for 30fps since that's what they found to be the best fps (frames-per-second) to play action games." He also added that "they weren't targeting 60 FPS because it's not a first-person shooter, it's an action game," implying that the only games that benefit from 60 FPS are shooters.

Yamigiwa is certainly throwing some more fuel onto fire of the debate surrounding next-gen resolution and frame rate, and stating that the 30 FPS benchmark was a deliberate decision rather than a hardware limitation doesn't exactly help his argument.

What do you guys think? Is 30 FPS really the best for action games, or would you go higher if you could?

Source: PlayStation Lifestyle [http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/10/27/bloodborne-frame-rate-targeting-30fps-since-its-the-best-for-action-games-claims-producer/#/slide/1]

Permalink
 

MazokuRanma

New member
Oct 29, 2009
52
0
0
I prefer higher resolution to framerate, but that's mostly because I sit fairly close to my TV (It's mounted above my desk) and I honestly can't see much improvement beyond around 40 fps myself. I'm sure there are people with sharper eyes that do, but for my eyes it will be resolution that wins every time.
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
Just more industry nonsense. I can clearly tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS in an action game and I much prefer not being bogged down because the developers are too lazy or the hardware is too old. This generation is actually regressing in quality instead of progressing.
 

STENDEC1

New member
Jul 20, 2012
54
0
0
The only reason to limit your framerate to 30fps is purely because of hardware limitations. Anyone who claims that 30fps is better than 60fps either doesn't know what they're talking about or is being deliberately misleading, most likely for the purposes of marketing. After gaming for so long at 60fps, anything less looks jerky and unplayable to me. It looks like what it is - the hardware can't handle a faster framerate and is therefore not able to make the game look as good as it could.

As to the argument that 30fps is more "cinematic" than 60fps, I'd like to point out that film runs at 24fps, not 30. You just try running your game at 24fps and then tell me it looks better than 60fps.
 

Eternal_Lament

New member
Sep 23, 2010
559
0
0
Honestly depends on the type of action game you're going for. If you're trying to be very frenetic or you're trying to achieve a very fast-paced tone, 60fps is usually the way to go. Anything slower will simply make the game feel to bogged down. Conversely, if you're trying to instill a sense of "weight" to every action, 30fps will do the job. Anything faster will usually make things feel too "light" relative to the tone/actions.

Also important to note, all the Souls games have been 30fps so far, and although they can be upped to 60fps on PC, Dark Souls 2 has also shown that From's games are kind of built around "frames" in bizarre ways, such as weapon durability and invincibility frames, meaning running it faster is actually making the game harder for you. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just the team going for what they're used to.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Korten12 said:
Actually... It's a mistranslation on part of the translator.
I assumed it had to have been.

For someone like Mr. Yamagiwa, of whom seems keenly aware of the technical intricacies of action game design, to say 30fps is better than 60fps is patently absurd. 60fps is objectively better in almost every regard, especially at a technical level. Having double the frames per second to work with can make a world of difference in a host of areas when coding and designing the game.

And I'm not here to argue over whether or not any given player can tell the difference between the two frame rates. I'm speaking purely in an objective sense.
 

mjharper

Can
Apr 28, 2013
172
0
0
There really should be a movement to boycott any game where the developer says this. Because it is so obviously BS, and it means the developer/producer/whatever thinks we're idiots.

You insult our intelligence, we boycott your game. Simple.
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
It is interesting how this argument grows, gamers want the higher FPS for performance reasons, but when it comes to movies, people say the movie looks floaty...
 

nevarran

New member
Apr 6, 2010
347
0
0
Uh, a foreign language, that's the getaway from all those PR nightmares.
Everyone stops talking in English and when they say something stupid - "it was translated poorly" :p
VoidWanderer said:
It is interesting how this argument grows, gamers want the higher FPS for performance reasons, but when it comes to movies, people say the movie looks floaty...
That is not interesting at all. I'm not even going to explain it to you, it's that simple.
 

Alexander Kirby

New member
Mar 29, 2011
204
0
0
Right now the way people judge videogames is to watch a highly compressed 30FPS video on YouTube, probably at 480P aswell. Since the rate at which graphics are improving has been slowing down some recently I honestly think a lot of people would judge the graphics and think "meh, it's not that much better than what I've already got" if devs were prioritising FPS and resolution.

I think a lot less people would be willing to spend £400 if the graphics weren't so noticeably better. And as for using 30FPS to give it a "more cinematic" style, well that's just because silly humans are stuck in their ways: Just look at the number of people that spoke out against the 48FPS of the Hobbit films.
 

Sol_HSA

was gaming before you were born
Nov 25, 2008
217
0
0
30fps = 33ms minimum reaction time
60fps = 17ms minimum reaction time

Yes, 30fps is clearly superior for games where you want quick reactions, right?

I wouldn't actually mind lower visual fps as long as the input was polled (and game physics were calculated) at, say, 100hz.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Saw this elsewhere, folk have thankfully been quick on stating the mistranslation. From my understanding what was being put across was higher resolution > higher frames.

Argue you if that is right if you want, but lets not start the talk of the boycotts (can you even boycott a game you'd never buy anyway?), 30 vs 60, frames, console bashing, shadow cabal, and the like if you will. Those storylines are old and tired thanks.
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
why would you cap the frame rates anyway why not give people the choice if your rig cant handle 1080P at 60fps then swap out the settings for something it can handle its better to let people have control over the settings so if they want to play at a standard frame rate they can and if they want to play at a low frame rate they can do that too or if they want to emphasize graphical effects over frame rate let them do that or vice versa
 

Bindal

New member
May 14, 2012
1,320
0
0
A few years back, developers and publishers were all about "more frames and better graphics"
Now, they can't do either - and then try to make it sounds not being able to do so is better.

How about admitting that you completely screwed up, guys?
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
There is no possible benefit to user experience to go for 30 FPS rather than 60 FPS. When the hardware can't even with it, it's understandable and a fair sacrifice, but it should never be the FPS to aim for.
 

black_knight1337

New member
Mar 1, 2011
472
0
0
Or in other words "We don't want to piss off Sony by saying the PS4 is weak so we'll just make up some bs about how worse performance is better".
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Hey, FromSoftware?

'30 fps is best for action games' only because when you code games to be able to go for 60fps *cough* Dark Souls II *cough* you somehow tie the game's speed to the framerate.

You guys have excellent level design across your Souls games, but... don't make aphorisms to somehow excuse your own lack of experience with coding game stability.

60fps is always better. You have more frames of animation to work with, and the game just feels more responsive.
 

VincentX3

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,299
0
0
I call bull on this.

Every time this discussion comes up my answer is Corporate bullshit, and it really is.

Seriously, all you have to do is play DMC Devil May Cry (Hell even DMC4 or DMC3 works) on 30 FPS then replay that level at 60fps.

It's so much smoother at 60fps, it feels more natural and this "ooh user inputs are better at 30fps" is literally them sticking saying "were to incompetent to make this work at 60fps" When I was playing those games in particular the input was spot on at 60fps and obviously the feel was more natural.

Now you can argue "but those are totally different games" and yes, they are.
But Dark souls and Dark souls 2 at 60 vs 30 FPS is a pretty huge difference too.

Using DSFix on Dark Souls to make it run at 60fps felt so much more natural and smooth, going back to 30 just felt off afterwards. Same goes for Dark souls 2.

Now if only the Dev's said something like "We cant optimize it for 60fps or the hardware isnt powerful enough to sustain it without drops" then I would be totally fine with that, at least they we're sincere.

But when they start spouting bullshit about how 30 is better than 60 without any real proof other than words, then yea, I'm not falling for that.