Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

[Treblaine]

Multiple snip

At no point in your long, rambling posts, do I see anything coming even remotely close to a valid argument explaining why 30 fps instead of 60 will ruin the game. Well, one suggestion that lowering frame rates to 30 will somehow make it harder to play. So, if hard games can't be played at 30 fps...

Spoiler

I rest my case.

You're clueless.

Ninja Gaiden 2, Serious Sam and Super Meat Boy are played at 60fps.

Dark Souls is hard BECAUSE OF the clunky controls combined with how powerful the enemies are! The game forces you to be extremely strategic with every move you make as you cannot correct on the fly. Dark Souls is not a hack n' slash in the same sense as Ninja Gaiden or DMC. Super MEat Boy is a fast paced side scrolling platformer that since Super Mario Bros NES has been 60fps standard. Fast paced FPS games like Serious Sam are usually at home on PC where they are benchmarked with 60fps considered the ideal framerate to achieve. If v-sync is enabled in Serious Sam 3 on PC then it will lock frame-rate to 60fps.

Question: do you even play video games? Like. At all.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't really care, the human eye can only perceive 25 frames per second, so unless you dog is playing, the rest is just wasted computing power.

Who told you that? Or did you just make it up. Because either someone lied to you or you just made something up.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

So a synchronization to monitors defautl frequency of 60 hz (60 blinks per second) is given way for the traditional 30 FPS (every second blink) tactics.
It is being met with a huge amount of stupid fans who think it changes anything.
They try to explain it with a made up theory of how it works without knowing shut about how human eye or brain interprets sight.

Well, its capcom.... stupidity is demanded of them.

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

yes, it requires 2x the processing power of computer for no gain. synchronizing with monitor is good and so, but it can be done with 30 (now 35 for example would be a problem, or if you use one of those monitors that run on 80 hz, but those are kinda extinct now).
as far as "seeing" if synchrnoization is done correctly the only effect is psychological.
and yes i know there are gmes like quake where higher FPS gives you higher jumps, thats BAD PROGRAMMING.

Yeah, you're the "expert". Nintendo, Sony, Valve, id-software, John Carmack.... they're all just stupid idiots who have been wasting their whole career and you're so smart you don't even have to make any games you'll just claim they are wrong without evidence, experience or precedent.

It has nothing to do with synchronisation considering how 30fps games so often dip into 24-29fps range which does NOT evenly split over 60 frames per second.

Bu no, the WHOLE INDUSTRY is wrong and you are right. Apparently.

 

[Captain_Dreadmor]

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.

any higher than 60 fps the human eye cant see but personally things dont look bad until they are bellow 20 fps

 

[RadioactiveMicrobe]

This, the weaker engine, the slower gameplay, and the kind of desperate "cool" factor make me not want this game at all.

 

[Strazdas]

So a synchronization to monitors defautl frequency of 60 hz (60 blinks per second) is given way for the traditional 30 FPS (every second blink) tactics.
It is being met with a huge amount of stupid fans who think it changes anything.
They try to explain it with a made up theory of how it works without knowing shut about how human eye or brain interprets sight.

Well, its capcom.... stupidity is demanded of them.

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

yes, it requires 2x the processing power of computer for no gain. synchronizing with monitor is good and so, but it can be done with 30 (now 35 for example would be a problem, or if you use one of those monitors that run on 80 hz, but those are kinda extinct now).
as far as "seeing" if synchrnoization is done correctly the only effect is psychological.
and yes i know there are gmes like quake where higher FPS gives you higher jumps, thats BAD PROGRAMMING.

Yeah, you're the "expert". Nintendo, Sony, Valve, id-software, John Carmack.... they're all just stupid idiots who have been wasting their whole career and you're so smart you don't even have to make any games you'll just claim they are wrong without evidence, experience or precedent.

It has nothing to do with synchronisation considering how 30fps games so often dip into 24-29fps range which does NOT evenly split over 60 frames per second.

Bu no, the WHOLE INDUSTRY is wrong and you are right. Apparently.

Im not an expert, but i did my research. Nintendo was never known to be "Smart" anyway, Valve never claimed that "60 fps better than 30 fps" and so on. The explanation why 30 fps is ok given in this article is CLEARLY false however so it follows that the guy is either lieing or stupid.
You make assumtions of what i do and do not, and you blame me for lack of evidence, funny.
The lag-spike that drops the FPS is a problem for 30 fps locks, unless you program it like San Andreas did, which made no problem at 25fps lock. 30 is more popular however due to monitor sinchronization. if the sinchronization is done properly, human eye cant see the difference. difference is seen when the game frame generation does not match monitor refreshing, and thats why some people claim to "see the difference" when all they see is game change does not match monitor change. V-sync is popular for a reason.
If you make a game that can run on 60 FPS with, say, lag-spyking into 50 fps, lock it at 30 fps, you will not have lag-spykes because you dont need to generate more than 50 frames as you generate only 30. Now of course there are things like bad end-user equipment but really thats up to the user to sort out.
There are many people who are wrong about many things, and its no wonder there are many in the gaming indsutry as well. when you take a 3000 lines code and see that i can easily be shorted into 1000 lines code and woudl take 0.5 times the processing power, but they tell you to "go with what your given" and then complain about "high system requirements" it becomes really easy to blame the industry for stupidity.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

You know Capcom, FPS is the LAST thing I'm worrying about.

+1 internet.

The game's not out yet and we're having whiners demanding that the game be a solid 60 to justify their horrendously expensive graphics cards/ placebo-effect-addled brains. Seriously. Even if you can notice a difference between 30 and 60, it's eye candy. 30 is objectively provable as perfectly playable. More looks better, but it's really an optional extra.

The gameplay and story are going to be 100x more important than whether the framerate is 30 or 60.

... Yeah, because you buy graphic cards for your consoles /facepalm

Damn, you have no idea what you are talking about. The difference between 30 and 60 FSP is perfectly visible and diminishes the experience.

Congratulations, Capcom has officially distracted you from the real problem.

 

[Treblaine]

So a synchronization to monitors defautl frequency of 60 hz (60 blinks per second) is given way for the traditional 30 FPS (every second blink) tactics.
It is being met with a huge amount of stupid fans who think it changes anything.
They try to explain it with a made up theory of how it works without knowing shut about how human eye or brain interprets sight.

Well, its capcom.... stupidity is demanded of them.

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

yes, it requires 2x the processing power of computer for no gain. synchronizing with monitor is good and so, but it can be done with 30 (now 35 for example would be a problem, or if you use one of those monitors that run on 80 hz, but those are kinda extinct now).
as far as "seeing" if synchrnoization is done correctly the only effect is psychological.
and yes i know there are gmes like quake where higher FPS gives you higher jumps, thats BAD PROGRAMMING.

Yeah, you're the "expert". Nintendo, Sony, Valve, id-software, John Carmack.... they're all just stupid idiots who have been wasting their whole career and you're so smart you don't even have to make any games you'll just claim they are wrong without evidence, experience or precedent.

It has nothing to do with synchronisation considering how 30fps games so often dip into 24-29fps range which does NOT evenly split over 60 frames per second.

Bu no, the WHOLE INDUSTRY is wrong and you are right. Apparently.

Im not an expert, but i did my research. Nintendo was never known to be "Smart" anyway, Valve never claimed that "60 fps better than 30 fps" and so on. The explanation why 30 fps is ok given in this article is CLEARLY false however so it follows that the guy is either lieing or stupid.
You make assumtions of what i do and do not, and you blame me for lack of evidence, funny.
The lag-spike that drops the FPS is a problem for 30 fps locks, unless you program it like San Andreas did, which made no problem at 25fps lock. 30 is more popular however due to monitor sinchronization. if the sinchronization is done properly, human eye cant see the difference. difference is seen when the game frame generation does not match monitor refreshing, and thats why some people claim to "see the difference" when all they see is game change does not match monitor change. V-sync is popular for a reason.
If you make a game that can run on 60 FPS with, say, lag-spyking into 50 fps, lock it at 30 fps, you will not have lag-spykes because you dont need to generate more than 50 frames as you generate only 30. Now of course there are things like bad end-user equipment but really thats up to the user to sort out.
There are many people who are wrong about many things, and its no wonder there are many in the gaming indsutry as well. when you take a 3000 lines code and see that i can easily be shorted into 1000 lines code and woudl take 0.5 times the processing power, but they tell you to "go with what your given" and then complain about "high system requirements" it becomes really easy to blame the industry for stupidity.

Absolute nonsense.

And predictably a COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SOURCES! Nor even an explanation, just hollow claims like:

"difference is seen when the game frame generation does not match monitor refreshing, and thats why some people claim to see the difference"

Which is completley unfoudned. And you're not going to convince me you are right about synchronisation when you REPEATEDLY spell it wrong as "sinchronization". That's not a typo. You genuinely don't know how to spell it.


"V-sync is popular for a reason."

Yes, to stop screen tearing. You clearly have NO IDEA what you are talking about. V-sync stands for "Vertical synchronisation" which means every refreshed frame must be a whole frame. You probably don't realise what screen tearing is.

Locking to 30fps is far worse than 60fps occasionally dropping to 50fps as you have inherently increased lag of the 3-frame delay. And that's not what lag-spikes are.

You STILL don't know what you are talking about and it's embarrassingly obvious.

"its no wonder there are many in the gaming indsutry as well."

it's not "many" it's the ENTIRE INDUSTRY! They are ALL in agreement that 60fps is better and appreciably better than 30fps, it's just some want to have the higher resolution or resolution that they settle for 30fps is "minimum acceptable level".

Higher framerate is achieved by having LOWER system requirements!!! You just don't have any freaking idea about this. I pity for anyone who reads any of your posts on this subject and believes a single word of it.

 

[Pakkie]

I can feel a massive difference from 30 to 60 on PC, even 45 feels a little bit off... as well as a noticeable difference with input lag when vsync is on.
On ps3/xbox though the difference is minimal

I'm a relatively competitive FPS player though, with currently about 1.5k hrs in CSS so I guess it depends on what you play a lot of the time as well.

EDIT: Just a note, I have also used a 120hz monitor and FELT a difference but couldn't really see one, its hard to explain... I guess it was just more responsive maybe?

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Congratulations, Capcom has officially distracted you from the real problem.

How? I don't own a console and don't give a fuck about Devil May Cry or Capcom. But even if I would: The playability of such games is the biggest problem. I can play adventure games with 30 FPS, not that anything hectic is happening on the screen and I have to react fast. I can't play FPS with 30 fps, it is simply not playable. The aim goes off because everything statters.

The fluency of the depicted picture is the biggest issue there might be depending on what genre we talk.

And what is supposed to be the bigger issue with DMC and Capcom? That they changed Dantes hair?

The problem?

Gameplay, story, characters, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuoUfyMUQTc&list=FLjmHpfEcT1qoAXIWAVRca3A&index=12&feature=plpp_video

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Congratulations, Capcom has officially distracted you from the real problem.

How? I don't own a console and don't give a fuck about Devil May Cry or Capcom. But even if I would: The playability of such games is the biggest problem. I can play adventure games with 30 FPS, not that anything hectic is happening on the screen and I have to react fast. I can't play FPS with 30 fps, it is simply not playable. The aim goes off because everything statters.

The fluency of the depicted picture is the biggest issue there might be depending on what genre we talk.

And what is supposed to be the bigger issue with DMC and Capcom? That they changed Dantes hair?

The problem?

Gameplay, story, characters, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuoUfyMUQTc&list=FLjmHpfEcT1qoAXIWAVRca3A&index=12&feature=plpp_video

Yeah and FPS is what creates problems with the gameplay. This is part of the problem.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

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.

Funny thing is, if they hadn't announced it most people probably wouldn't have noticed and just assumed it was at 60 or running smoothed 22-60.

Now they've announced it, everybody knows, cue publicity.

OT: FPS is hardly the most important factor to me, sure 60 is nice, but as long as the game is running smoothly I don't mind. FPS caps don't bug me as long as your average frame-rate is at least 25 (any lower I find the animations too jerky).
30 FPS also leaves room for the game to do more in each second since it's only rendering half the frames.

 

[Reaper195]

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.

I agree. Hell, most console games run at 30FPS and I've never had a problem with it. yeah, CoD games look slightly smoother...but to the point where it makes next to no different.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

Why the hell aren't they using the clearly better engine?

 

[RolandOfGilead]

WTF? If it ran at 60 fps on the same consoles this one will be on how can you bash consoles' performance. Anyway, I definitely notice how slow movies are in the theater. How can you think that when the action "slows down" cinematically for like a finisher or something, that the actual FPS drops? Their reasons for this drop in fps are pure BS. Anyway, to answer my own question from an above post, a different studio means different engine competencies and they sure as hell weren't about to take the time to train everyone and suffer more delays.

 

[Do4600]

...Meaning the things they're trying to do with the engine simply won't run at 60 fps on consoles. So they handed it over to the Capcom bullshit department and they came up with "techniques" that allow your brain to "fill in the pieces". That's like trying to sell me a shitty house for double it's worth and when I ask why it's so expensive you tell me that you had to specially outfit the house so the sun would rise every morning over it.

 

[Bad Jim]

Why the hell aren't they using the clearly better engine?

Until consoles have enough power that it doesn't matter anymore, it will always be possible to take any 60fps game, make more detailed models, write fancier shaders and spit out a 30fps game with better looking screenshots, that also looks better on Youtube.

That's why every game seems to chug along at 30fps. It's just a choice between playability and marketability. Sadly, publishers prefer the latter. While Capcom is technically correct in saying that 30fps is not that much of a big deal, it's also true that a game with simpler shaders and half the polygons could still look pretty good.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

A game's framerate is among the things I couldn't care less about when it comes to a video game, provided it's not running at a slideshow's pace; it has to be playable, of course.

Of course, Devil May Cry, embarrassing remake or not, is among those things as well, so eh.

 

[jpoon]

Bull and shit capcom. You guys obviously are fucking idiots and take your gamers as complete morons. There's not a single time EVER that I have thought to myself "Oh shit this buttery smooth animation is just wearing my mind out.". Idiotic shit, no wonder I never buy games from these idiots, this game will be no different.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Multiple snip

At no point in your long, rambling posts, do I see anything coming even remotely close to a valid argument explaining why 30 fps instead of 60 will ruin the game. Well, one suggestion that lowering frame rates to 30 will somehow make it harder to play. So, if hard games can't be played at 30 fps...

It's quite simple. The number of frames per second doesn't just determine the screen updates, it determines the number of times per second the game can respond to an input.

At high difficulties, which is how you're supposed to play spectacle fighters, this type of game is built around expecting the player to have split second reactions to dodge, counter, and punish enemy attacks. If you can't do that because the game simply can't keep up with your button inputs, then you can't play the game properly.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years time, after the PS4 and Xbox 720 have hit the market, these developers will be praising the fluidity of movement created by a standard of 60 fps...

Why even address the issue? Just focus on promoting the positive aspects of your game rather than making up a bunch of BS to justify a fairly minor shortcoming..