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.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
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.Dogstile said:
Well, damn. I think I'll go back to the dirty console peasant race now. [sub]"Sniff" I had fun, guys. See ya. "Sniff"[/sub]GAunderrated said:
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.
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?
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.
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.Andy of Comix Inc said:
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?Coreless said:
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.
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.
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.
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.CardinalPiggles said:
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.
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)BeerTent said:
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.