Capcom Explains Why 30 FPS Isn't That Bad

[The Rogue Wolf]

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).

The thing with film is that motion blur "fills in the gaps". You don't notice choppiness because the movement of people and objects in a particular frame is at least partially captured, usually well enough to where your brain doesn't catch on that it's just seeing individual pictures played very quickly.

Computers are still incapable of replicating motion blur very well. I've personally never played a game that had that option enabled where it didn't bother me enough to switch it off. CGI in film also has this same problem- one particularly bad instance is in one of the Star Wars prequels (I forget which) where Anakin basically Force Jumps into the saddle of a creature. Even with all the money and technical expertise poured into the movie, the effect looks more like a crappy Blur filter applied in Photoshop than of a human being moving quickly.

 

[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.

??

Given DMC 1-4 where on consoles at 60FPS, how are the consoles limiting things here?

If I had to guess i'd say they are at the point now where if they want to improve their graphics over the last game, they have to choose between either sticking with 60 FPS and the same graphical quality, or lower it to 30 FPS and have higher res textures and better graphical quality and such, because current gen consoles can only handle so much.
Might not be true, but I really can't see any reason why they'd willingly decrease the FPS if they didn't need to.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

What Itsuno doesn't get, or doesn't want to admit is that FPS isn't only for the eye. A game on 30 fps has literally less responsive controls compared to the same game on 60 fps.
Also, I have to pay 60$ and then to use my imagination to fill the blanks that the developer couldn't? What a pathetic excuse.

 

[matrix3509]

As other people have said, you are mostly going to only notice the frame rate drop if you sit close to the screen, like with a PC.

If you DO play on PC, well you get either learn to deal with the headaches you will inevitably get from the reduced frame rate, or you eat shit because Capcom doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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.

??

Given DMC 1-4 where on consoles at 60FPS, how are the consoles limiting things here?

If I had to guess i'd say they are at the point now where if they want to improve their graphics over the last game, they have to choose between either sticking with 60 FPS and the same graphical quality, or lower it to 30 FPS and have higher res textures and better graphical quality and such, because current gen consoles can only handle so much.
Might not be true, but I really can't see any reason why they'd willingly decrease the FPS if they didn't need to.

so ... you think Ninja Theory is incompetent to then? cause that's what it sounds like

the game isn't that much better looking then DMC 4. assuming your right, kinda just adds another reason to not get it. hamstringing gameplay for graphics is a cardinal sin far as I'm concerned, least, far as games like DMC go. since, ya know, they kinda live or die on gameplay

 

[Evil Smurf]

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.

You fool, FPS means fun per second! This is why the PC master race is better because it can have more fun per second compared to the console peasants. LRN2PLY NOOB

Seriously some of us don't have the hardware to run games at 60 FPS.

 

[GAunderrated]

30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

My personal thoughts? It's elitism as usual and the FPS on my TV won't appear to make a difference but my computer monitor will. I don't care a single bit as long as the game is fun.

If you are going the ignorant blanket "elitist" route you should at least get it right. Sorry but PC gamers actually spit on 60 FPS as crap as well. I'd say they would at least accept 90 FPS as a nice minimum from my experience.

 

[Rad Party God]

Instead of making up loads of unnecessary explanations, why don't they admit that the consoles are not capable of running it at 60 fps?

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

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

??

Given DMC 1-4 where on consoles at 60FPS, how are the consoles limiting things here?

If I had to guess i'd say they are at the point now where if they want to improve their graphics over the last game, they have to choose between either sticking with 60 FPS and the same graphical quality, or lower it to 30 FPS and have higher res textures and better graphical quality and such, because current gen consoles can only handle so much.
Might not be true, but I really can't see any reason why they'd willingly decrease the FPS if they didn't need to.

Because the God of War style floating combat wouldn't work at 60 FPS. They're using the GoW style of slowing down to 10% for every hit like you're waiting for applause. At 60 FPS, that would be jerky and disorienting. That's why GoW worked at 30, and DMC, a much faster paced game works better at 60.

THIS IS WHY WE HATE THE GAMEPLAY! Everything else is so much smell on the shit.

Not to... rain on your parade or anything, but God of War does run at 60 FPS. Even 3 on the PS3. The slowing down at the end of combos is just because of their whole "cinematic" marketing BS, but everything during the game is still running at a clean 60 FPS. It's not actually cutting out frames, it's just slowing down the action, and yes, there is an actual tangible difference from a technical stand-point.

 

[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?

Because he's full of shit.

Ah, gotcha - at 30 FPS you have to fill in the blanks. Add shit and 60 FPS is tiring to the eyes.

 

[BeerTent]

What Itsuno doesn't get, or doesn't want to admit is that FPS isn't only for the eye. A game on 30 fps has literally less responsive controls compared to the same game on 60 fps.
Also, I have to pay 60$ and then to use my imagination to fill the blanks that the developer couldn't? What a pathetic excuse.

Visually, there's nothing different between 30, 40, and 60. As someone has previously stated, the human visual system can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. When buddy says that "You'll have to use your imagination to fill in the gaps" he talking about what you already do sub-consciously.

As for less responsive controls... So? It's stated in the article, PC users will be capped to 60. PC's more about the knee-jerk uber-precise movements. We got what we need on the PC, and PC players can live with 30 frames a second, hell, even 20 in a shooter. (Not having an easy time, mind you.) I find Consoles are all about lining up the shot, and pressing the buttons at the right time. There's less precision, just setting up the shot and timing it correctly. If they're able to get that in a good state (A studio in that size, a minor speed-bump of a challenge.), what will be the difference?

The answer? Nothing. You'll get the same hack-and-slash experience as before.

 

[Dogstile]

30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

Don't start with that shit. Not all of us PC gamers are such pricks about FPS and you know it.

OT: I don't really care, so long as it looks good, it looks good. I'll not complain until i've seen the game in action after it comes out.

captcha: Fast asleep

I should be.

 

[Nihlus2]

You cannot really compare framerate and the human eye... only make a close assumption. But it varies from person to person. So saying that people are more accustomed to 30 and more prone to feel "strained" at 60 after longer sessions is... well fairly random in all honesty.

That said, it is cheaper and less straining on consoles to lock something at 30 fps. Although the more that is going on, on the screen, and at a higher pace, it gets slower and more blurry at 30, whereas 60 fps will run a lot more smoother! ... This is DMC we are talking about right? Not excactly a single piece moving chess game style of game is it?

Ah well...

 

[shrekfan246]

Huh.

That is my mistake. I really though GoW was at 30. My bad.

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.

 

[Sylveria]

But... Anything less than 120 FPS is a slideshow! 60 FPS is just unplayable, and god... 30 FPS... Who the hell can play games at 30 FPS?!

Sarcasm aside, I doubt people truly notice a difference between 30 and 60 when they play the game. They just want something more about DMC to whine about. Granted that this Devil May Cry game isn't really holding my interest, but 30 FPS is nothing to cry about.

Play a US SNES game then play the PAL version. There's only a 10FPS difference between them.. you'll notice.

 

[thesilentman]

30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

Don't start with that shit. Not all of us PC gamers are such pricks about FPS and you know it.

OT: I don't really care, so long as it looks good, it looks good. I'll not complain until i've seen the game in action after it comes out.

captcha: Fast asleep

I should be.

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.

30 isn't bad, it's just that some ALL PC gamers get a kneejerk reaction to not being able to play games in 60. It's some sort of elitism factor here.

My personal thoughts? It's elitism as usual and the FPS on my TV won't appear to make a difference but my computer monitor will. I don't care a single bit as long as the game is fun.

If you are going the ignorant blanket "elitist" route you should at least get it right. Sorry but PC gamers actually spit on 60 FPS as crap as well. I'd say they would at least accept 90 FPS as a nice minimum from my experience.

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]

 

[Baresark]

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

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.

 

[Saulkar]

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.