Dead Rising 3 PC Version Will Run Into Issues Above 30 FPS, Says Capcom

[Baron_BJ]

The part about this that I find most amusing is that not only did they tie shit to the frame rate, but DR3 has been rather notorious on the xbone for consistently dropping below 30fps. Even on the console the physics would have been sub-optimal. Delightful.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Keep in mind, though, that while there are people who will swear they can tell the difference between 30, 60, 120 and even higher

I'm one of those people. I can tell right away if it's low, moderate or very high framerate. In side by side comparison I can pick out even higher, because of its smoothness.

When it's not just video, it's even more telling. Heck I can tell the difference between 60fps at 60hz and 120fps at 60hz, because of the smoothness and responsiveness of movement when I move my mouse, in first person view games.

Sidenote: any panning camera shot in movie theaters is extremely choppy to me, in both 24fps and 48fps(LotR, etc).

 

[Rad Party God]

It's really strange coming from Capcom, who have released a steady amount of good PC ports since 2007, Resident Evil 5 & 6 both ran at buttery smooth, perfect 60 fps without a problem, heck, even DmC who ran at 30 fps on consoles, ran at perfect 60 fps on PC (without counting those pesky pre-rendered cutscenes).

Why the heck did Capcom suddendly decided to put their foot into their mouths and screw up Dead Rising 3 so freaking badly?.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm one of those people.

I'll assume you read the rest of my post and just point out that it still applies.

 

[Rozalia1]

And you'll buy it anyway, so we have absolutely no reason to change or care.That's what pisses me off the most about this. People will throw a fit about the 30 FPS issue, but then they'll make sure that the PC version makes Capcom millions of dollars anyway. It would be nice, for once, to see the PC community band together to stubbornly cross our arms and just sit there until the developers agree to fix the issues they brazenly said that they wouldn't fix.

What you want to happen in such a movement occuring:

Capcom: Seems people aren't buying our game...seemingly because of certain issues...well lets fix them.

What will actually happen:

Capcom: Seems people aren't buying our game...damn pirates the lot of them. Hey EA, Ubisoft, and all you other cool cats...you guys having this issue too?
Group: Yup.
Capcom: Well lets not bother anymore to really stick it to those losers.
Group: That'll show them.
Microsoft + Sony: We agree.

...

Nintendo: Don't really give much of a crap.

 

[-Torchedini-]

Maybe I'm just old and don't have the newfangled eyes this generation has, but given persistence of vision (which is how we actually create the concept of motion in the brain) isn't 60 FPS more than the human eye can detect?

And its not only about perceiving motion. With movies you can do that and get away with it. But games are interactive. Responsiveness varies a lot between 30 and 60 fps. at 120fps you're fine, going higher than that doesn't have too many benefits because other factors come into play.
At 60 fps you are implementing input every 16.6ms on the monitor. Drop that to 30fps thats a free 16.6ms extra delay for free. That stacks with delays in game code and the delay you have when reacting to visuals. So basically you are making it very annoying to play fast paced games. That's why I laugh when I see somebody pronouncing that 30fps is okay. Because it is not.

For more indepth material I would suggest reading this http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803
It is quite technical though so, heck I don't understand some things being said but the overall picture is very clear.