Dead Rising 3 Targeting 30 Frames Per Second

[OneCatch]

Next gen consoles, folks.


I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I agree with this. On my old PC I used to have to play stuff like Metro 2033 on like 20fps out necessity.
Since getting a new PC and getting used to 50-60fps, anything sub-40 looks really strobey to me, especially in FPS. And if I artificially lower something to 20 it makes my eyes bleed. No idea how I used to put up with it.

Admittedly on a TV screen on the other side of the room the difference between 30 and 60 is less noticeable, but still.

And it's embarrassing that they're aiming for 30 to start with - everyone should be aiming for 60, even if they tolerate drops to 30 in high intensity sections.
As others have said, judging by the look of the trailer it really shouldn't be quite that intensive (though I must admit that indoor bit shows some pretty lighting effects), and seems to get pretty severe drops. The fact that you notice them even on youtube say a lot.
Has to be poor optimisation, given that even other launch releases are aiming for 60fps with more impressive graphics.
Unless it's actually the hardware limiting it, in which case the next gen really is fucked.

 

[RA92]

I guess Capcom isn't utilizing enough of Micrsoft's power of THE CLOUD.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Translation: We suck at coding our new, expensive Forge Engine.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Next gen consoles, folks.


I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

Those who do most (or all) of their gaming on console either don't know what 60+ fps is like on PC, or just don't have a PC that can pull that fps in most new titles. There is a pretty small overlap between console owners and midrange/high-end PC owners.

30 fps is fine for them.

Exactly. I pretty much fall into that spot, and speaking for the uninitiated, while I've chased it on my older hardware I wouldn't notice if it bit me in the butt. I think the devs are hitting the argument right on the money though. Similar to the 120hz tv I bought last year, some things I watch there is a notable difference, some not. I played xbox at 720p for years then switched to full 1080p because I somehow missed that setting the first time around, but barely even saw a difference. When you put a full blu-ray movie in it the difference is suddenly mind boggling. We perceive frame rates differently depending on genre, on-screen action, and point of view.

So now I've finally seen some 60fps high end gaming and the conclusion is that I couldn't really care less. Does 60 look better? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. For this group it's less important to speed it up as it is to stop it from slowing down. So many games on middle hardware 'run at a perfect 30fps' until something important happens, the rate drops to the teens, and we get screwed.

If every piece of hardware were to suddenly jump to 60fps minimum no one would complain - they aren't hating - but not everyone chases the latest and greatest. They just want things to work reliably.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

Capcom really raising the bar with next gen consoles with ambitions like games running at a steady 30fps.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wow, the whole 30 fps. How ambitious! Are they sure they can pull off such a high number?

Considering the frame rate drops I've seen on even a lot of PC titles, I seriously don't think targeting a solid 30 FPS is under-ambitious.

A little disappointing, perhaps, that we're still here, but whatever.

 

[lacktheknack]

I thought that FPS dropped towards the END of the console cycle (see: Shadow of the Colossus), not the start...

Also, I don't like 30 FPS. It makes everything feel a bit laggy, constant or not.

 

[Something Amyss]

Next gen consoles, folks.


I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I'm the opposite. High frame rates STILL look like a routine that should be backed by Yakety Sax to me. It's hard to get used to, since I've literally been gaming since before you were born.

And now I feel this urge to tell you kids to get off my lawn.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Dead Rising has never been about being the prettiest game. It's about getting swarmed by undead and using silly weapons. 30 FPS is fine so long as the zombies are there in droves.

I'm going to give Capcom the benefit of a the doubt and hope this one turns out well optimized by November.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I'm gonna have to see if it comes to PC to see how much this matters to me. For example, once I played Devil May Cry: Devil May Cry on the PC at 60, I actually did better on PS3 at 30 because I felt like it was in slow motion and that I had more time to react and such. In Dark Souls' case, the animations are intrinsically tied to the 30 FPS and bumping it to 60 drove me up the wall. So it really depends on the game and whether or not "striving for 30" is a creative decision or being ass at optimization/slow hardware.

I actually don't want to try out my brothers 120hz monitor, because my GPU can't push 120 on many games and still look good. I'd hate to feel unsatisfied with 60.

 

[Hagi]

I guess Capcom isn't utilizing enough of Micrsoft's power of THE CLOUD.

Spoiler: Give them a break, it's summer you know. Not very cloudy these days. This game, and every other XBone game, will surely hit way over 60 FPS come winter when it gets real cloudy. Not to mention areas where it gets misty, I mean can these games even handle having that much cloud computing that close?

That was a joke. If someone takes this seriously I will cry. Not a single manly tear. I will cry in big heaving sobs of utter and complete despair.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Next gen consoles, folks.


I never really noticed until I switched to PC, but when I say, spend a few hours playing Borderlands 2 on PC, then go to play The Last of Us on my PS3, that FPS drop is really noticeable, I can't stop noticing it. Especially when any console game hits a rough patch and it suffers from even more FPS drop.

I'm the opposite. High frame rates STILL look like a routine that should be backed by Yakety Sax to me. It's hard to get used to, since I've literally been gaming since before you were born.

And now I feel this urge to tell you kids to get off my lawn.

Get outta here gramps. You're too old to Internet and you're cramping our style.

Spoiler: Style!

OT: I've played at 60 and 30 and I'm fine with 30. As long as it doesn't dip significantly under 30 I'll be fine.
Not that I'm getting Dead Rising 3 anyway but whatever. Opinions and stuff.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

So now I've finally seen some 60fps high end gaming and the conclusion is that I couldn't really care less. Does 60 look better? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. For this group it's less important to speed it up as it is to stop it from slowing down. So many games on middle hardware 'run at a perfect 30fps' until something important happens, the rate drops to the teens, and we get screwed.

If every piece of hardware were to suddenly jump to 60fps minimum no one would complain - they aren't hating - but not everyone chases the latest and greatest. They just want things to work reliably.

The thing is, it doesn't matter that it looks better. You won't be able to SEE the difference between 30 and 60 fps anyway, unless you can watch a direct comparison on 2 monitors at the same time.

The key is in input delay, playing at 30 fps on PC bring a control input delay that is often higher than your server ping online. This is very noticeable in games where you directly control your character, first person shooters, third person slashers etc. The game feels, laggy, sluggish, less reactive.

If you watch someone play a shooter at 30 fps on PC it will look perfectly fluid to you, but for the guy playing it will be agony if he's used to 60+.

 

[V TheSystem V]

But I thought that Xbox One would have loads of games running at 60fps? I thought the people buying it had some knowledge of this when they defend it on the IGN boards?

Seriously, I am fine with 30fps...as long as it's consistent. Dead Rising 2 dips, and that's on a current gen console, not the colossus that is meant to be Xbox One.

Dead Rising 3 does look great though. I hope they iron out these frame rate issues so people can enjoy it.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

I played xbox at 720p for years then switched to full 1080p because I somehow missed that setting the first time around, but barely even saw a difference. When you put a full blu-ray movie in it the difference is suddenly mind boggling. We perceive frame rates differently depending on genre, on-screen action, and point of view.

Fair points for the rest of your post, but this is missing a fact: The consoles don't do 1080p at all, ever, with the exception of a PS3 playing a Blu-Ray (or the short-lived HD-DVD thing for the Xbox, perhaps). They just upscale all the different rendering resolutions the games have set up to your 720p or 1080p.

They really run at such "high definition" resolutions as 1152x640, 960x544, 1040x624 and, of course, 1280x720 (which is the standard 720p). There are slight variations for each of those, adding or subtracting a couple of vertical or horizontal lines here and there, but nothing above 720p. Xbox 360 [http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113344&postcount=3] | Playstation 3 [http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113342&postcount=2]

And that's not even starting on the TVs themselves, which often don't even use the exact 1920x1080! Try plugging a computer to one of them to see what I mean.

Neat! I knew there were some distinctions, as connecting my PC gave a completely different image, but for a while my xbox was also running in 1080i. Any clue what that means? I'm still trying to figure it out, aside from it being magically below 1080p somehow.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I played xbox at 720p for years then switched to full 1080p because I somehow missed that setting the first time around, but barely even saw a difference. When you put a full blu-ray movie in it the difference is suddenly mind boggling. We perceive frame rates differently depending on genre, on-screen action, and point of view.

Fair points for the rest of your post, but this is missing a fact: The consoles don't do 1080p at all, ever, with the exception of a PS3 playing a Blu-Ray (or the short-lived HD-DVD thing for the Xbox, perhaps). They just upscale all the different rendering resolutions the games have set up to your 720p or 1080p.

They really run at such "high definition" resolutions as 1152x640, 960x544, 1040x624 and, of course, 1280x720 (which is the standard 720p). There are slight variations for each of those, adding or subtracting a couple of vertical or horizontal lines here and there, but nothing above 720p. Xbox 360 [http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113344&postcount=3] | Playstation 3 [http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1113342&postcount=2]

And that's not even starting on the TVs themselves, which often don't even use the exact 1920x1080! Try plugging a computer to one of them to see what I mean.

Neat! I knew there were some distinctions, as connecting my PC gave a completely different image, but for a while my xbox was also running in 1080i. Any clue what that means? I'm still trying to figure it out, aside from it being magically below 1080p somehow.

I'm not an expert on this but I think the i in 1080i is "imaginary" and that it takes a 720p image and tries to extrapolate it out to be a 1080p image, or something like that. I'm probably wrong though.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

But I thought that "the power of the cloud" would improve games so that this exact kind of thing wouldn't happen?

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

The "i" and "p" in video formats stand for "interlaced" and "progressive" scan, respectively. The resolution is the same, which is why the number is the same; the difference between the two is in how the image is displayed.

When it's time to display an image, a TV or computer monitor will draw each frame line by line, starting from the top, until a complete image has been drawn and then it starts over, drawing as many complete images as the frame rate dictates (24, 25, 30, 50, 60 depending on the source). Even at 25 times a second, it's fast enough that you don't notice and it gives good picture quality. That's Progressive scan.

Interlaced scan, on the other hand, starts out the same way. It draws the first line at the top of the display, but then it skips every even numbered line until half of an image has been drawn. When it starts over, it starts at the second line and proceeds to skip all the odd numbered lines that have already been drawn until the other half of the previous image has been drawn. It does this faster than progressive scan (50 times in PAL [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg/1000px-PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg.png] regions, 60 in NTSC [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg/1000px-PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg.png]), but only ever draws half images at any given time.

When it's done right, Interlaced video is fine, but it's really a (dying) Television standard from the days of CRTs. LCD or Plasma displays never (as far as I know) work in interlaced mode. So when they get an interlaced video signal, such as a TV channel or your Xbox in 1080i mode, it has to do something called deinterlacing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing] before showing it to you. I'm sure you've seen bad or absent deinterlacing before... it looks like this:

More reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video].

This post deserves a gold star. Here you go.

 

[Yuuki]

Similar to the 120hz tv I bought last year, some things I watch there is a notable difference, some not.

Ehhh, there's a few things weird here:
1) 120hz TV's aren't actually refreshing at 120hz, they add motion blurring to standard 60hz to fill in "ghost" frames that make it appear smoother to the human eye. It makes videos appear smoother but does bugger-all for gaming, best left disabled. For a true 120hz experience you would need a 120hz monitor...on PC...and a PC that can drive 100-120fps
2) Even IF the TV could hypothetically go at true 120hz, your console can only output 30fps to it (60fps in some cases, depends on game) so it would be pointless.

 

[mad825]

The thing is, it doesn't matter that it looks better. You won't be able to SEE the difference between 30 and 60 fps anyway, unless you can watch a direct comparison on 2 monitors at the same time.

The key is in input delay, playing at 30 fps on PC bring a control input delay that is often higher than your server ping online. This is very noticeable in games where you directly control your character, first person shooters, third person slashers etc. The game feels, laggy, sluggish, less reactive.

If you watch someone play a shooter at 30 fps on PC it will look perfectly fluid to you, but for the guy playing it will be agony if he's used to 60+.

Seems like one big assertion. People said the same about The hobbit.

For me, 30FPS is playable but not enjoyable. The thing is that unless the GPU surpasses the resource demand, there will be spikes, changes in FPS. It will not be constant and lag appears around 30FPS and gets worse from there.