Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
WHo are we to dictate what Ubisoft should do? After all, 900P is their creative vision, right? Who are we to step on their artistic vision?
 

Sack of Cheese

New member
Sep 12, 2011
907
0
0
JET1971 said:
I am sure she is thanking the fans.

OT:

30 and 60 has been a standard for years now. 30 for low end systems barely able to run the game or at least to hold a stable FPS, 30 is the bottom line, the base frame rate, the lowest number for playability. 60 fps is the standard for PC gaming and has been for around 20 years. That's why we have v-Sync at 60 FPS. Monitor manufacturers have used that standard for monitors bare minimum refresh rate. 60 FPS is the standard for quality because it does the same as motion blur does for movies and TV, it is fast enough to look correct without noticeable stuttering.

30 FPS actually has visible stuttering, watch smoke or dust type particle effects in a game and you can see it if you pay attention. 60 fps and you wont see that stuttering.

But then why 30 or 60? well why 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, or 4096?
Yeah i know the basic, I mean like if they can't get to 60, can't they at least squeeze out another 5-10fps or something and go "Look, at least we tried!"?
 

alj

Master of Unlocking
Nov 20, 2009
335
0
0
Charcharo said:
I have a simpler reason Jim.

Ubisoft have bad coders.

If 4A games can with less people and a much smaller budget make a 1080P 60fps game like Metro Last light Redux that looks QUITE A BIT better then Unity...

THIS time it is NOT the (otherwise pathetic) consoles fault. This time. It is Ubisofts fault. For throwing money at incompetent coders.
Exactly this. Programmers are just lazy now i mean how can you have an office application or web browser or a simple interface for a DB run slow on a modern system they are orders of magnitude more powerful than mainframes in the 80s and they never had laggy UIs even back in the dos days apps always ran fast, but programmers need to use multiple inherited modules and packages to make that button shiny to conform to the road-map set out in the meeting ect ect and the application ends up being slow and crash all the time, its inexcusable. I am looking right now and outlook is using 54mb of ram 50 fucking 4 for email ! Yes we manged to receive email just fine back in the 70s when you where lucky to have a backup tape drive of 50mb and a few kb ( yes kb) of ram for a muti user system .
 

LaochEire

New member
Mar 9, 2010
104
0
0
direkiller said:
I genuinly do not give a rats ass about PC vs console but, Sales figures are worthless in this great e-peen war.

Most never include digital sales because company only put them out in there stock reports.

As PC sales are a majority Digital
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/18/analyst-92-percent-of-pc-game-sales-are-digital

this leads to a rather large discrepancy in sales figures, when in reality they are much closer.
UbiSoft's own balance sheets suggest the same thing. Sales by platform show PC sitting at 14% for Q1 2014 up 4% from previous quarter. PS4 went from 12% to 36% and that's just one console. They include digital. I'm not getting into a debate about platforms and sales. It's not my point. My point was to tackle a PC elitist comment saying PC was the superior and more competitive platform and UbiSoft wouldn't admit it. That's clearly wrong as UbiSoft admitted that PS4 was their most profitable platform.

You are correct that it's a worthless e-peen war though. Wish this forum would realise it too. Doesn't stop snide comments though...
 

Failsafe Operator

New member
Mar 25, 2012
9
0
0
Thank god for Jim because finally someone who understands why I have been playing PC games over console games for the past 16 years.

Jim is 100% correct concerning his analysis of the idiots who are trying to market lower resolutions and lower FPS as the current norm.

A game is going to look and feel better at higher resolution and higher FPS everytime. With the options given to PC gamers, typically one would set the game at the highest resolution the monitor will support and start dialing in visual quality so that FPS would be in the ball park of 60 fps. PC gamers have been doing this for years.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
Charcharo said:
Seems like 4A had something in mid when they went for Advanced DX11 Depth of Field and Motion Blur... I hope they continue their work there.
Dont know. Where possible, Id rather have 48 fps over 24 and 60 (75) over 30. Then again, on PC you do have a choice :(
If there was a program or something that better simulated motion blur over 60 FPS gameplay I might prefer it
But I doubt that's going to happen for console games any time soon
 

Sofus

New member
Apr 15, 2011
223
0
0
I would much rather play a game with a steady fps than have it jump up and down all the time... but there is a massive difference between 60 and 30 fps, and in the 500 or so different games I have played, I have always been able to feel the difference.

Yeah I agree that the problem isn't as big in third person as it is in first person.. but when your hardware only has 30 fps to work with, then you will either have to play without vsync (can you even do that on consoles?) or see the game lag whenever the fps drops to 29 fps.

P.S. The difference in fps isn't just in what you see.. it's how the game reacts when you move the mouse (I know.. PC exclusive problem). I actually bought a MS xbox controller just so that I wouldn't have to feel the delay while playing third person games.
 

Toblo1

New member
Jun 1, 2014
66
0
0
In all honesty, I can enjoy games that are at 30 FPS, but I prefer 60 if the game is able to. It's only when a game dips below 30 when I begin to complain. I can feel the difference between 30 and 60, but for the most part, I don't really care.

In other news, that MSpaint of David Cage is going to haunt my dreams for a long time.........
 

LoneWolf83

New member
Apr 8, 2014
37
0
0
All they had to say was there are technical reasons fro 30 fps and 900p.They don't need to use bullshit arguments, it just makes them look bad.
 

pokepuke

New member
Dec 28, 2010
139
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
It's not objectively better
there is no such thing as objectively better when you're talking about a preference.

Just because you like 60 doesn't make it better
majority is not the measuring stick of objectivity

I prefer 30 I am not wrong about my own opinion, it is not objectively better, I don't care what PC gamers like because I play on a TV, and when I see video running at 60 FPS it looks horid
You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.

You don't like it so you'll spin the context to fit your narrative, just because you know you can't argue against it with anything except your own taste, which is wrought by being solely a console/TV player.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
 

DanHibiki

New member
Aug 5, 2009
174
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
no you don't.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/can-we-build-a-gaming-pc-on-a-console-budget/1100-6418829/
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
DanHibiki said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
no you don't.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/can-we-build-a-gaming-pc-on-a-console-budget/1100-6418829/
Except those PC's don't really have any staying power. Sure they'll run modern games but in the near future, you may very well have to upgrade.

And honestly, if you're really going to go the gaming PC route, you might as well go at least a good chunk of the way.
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
pokepuke said:
Mikeyfell said:
It's not objectively better
there is no such thing as objectively better when you're talking about a preference.

Just because you like 60 doesn't make it better
majority is not the measuring stick of objectivity

I prefer 30 I am not wrong about my own opinion, it is not objectively better, I don't care what PC gamers like because I play on a TV, and when I see video running at 60 FPS it looks horid
You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.

You don't like it so you'll spin the context to fit your narrative, just because you know you can't argue against it with anything except your own taste, which is wrought by being solely a console/TV player.
I must agree that there is no thing as "objectively better" when it comes to preferences, and there is little reason to argue with someone at that point. Different tastes, eh? I do get your point, but really - the difference between 30 and 60 fps is not that the higher framerate "objectively, undoubtedly, scientifically provenly" looks better, it is that it looks smoother - and that absolutely can look strange. Though there is no reason to not allow gamers to fps lock to their personal preference, just like we are allowed to change brightness and screen size.

Point of critique towards Jim: You have rightfully called Ubi out on patronizingly telling gamers what is supposed to look good and what isn't, but did the exact same thing just moments later - that there is an objective truth concerning these preferences and then you tell us what is supposed to look good and what not (or at least not as good). Through the entire video, I think you kind of lost track on the actual issue (Christ, I don't want to recognize this trivial bullshit as an issue anyway) and started ranting against some interviewee because they said something you didn't like. Which, again, I kind of share your opinion on this one, but really, was it worth getting all riled up for an entire episode? Wouldn't a tweet à la "Ubisoft thinks we're stupid AGAIN, nothing new to see" have sufficed?

But who am I to judge which topic is worth discussing and which one isn't? So by all means, do go ahead, I enjoy your videos very much regardless whether I agree or not.
 

DanHibiki

New member
Aug 5, 2009
174
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
DanHibiki said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
no you don't.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/can-we-build-a-gaming-pc-on-a-console-budget/1100-6418829/
Except those PC's don't really have any staying power. Sure they'll run modern games but in the near future, you may very well have to upgrade.

And honestly, if you're really going to go the gaming PC route, you might as well go at least a good chunk of the way.
it's guaranteed to run console ports at a higher resolution and FPS until the next generation of consoles come out, at which point you can buy a newer video card for a hundred bucks that will run those games.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
pokepuke said:
You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.

You don't like it so you'll spin the context to fit your narrative, just because you know you can't argue against it with anything except your own taste, which is wrought by being solely a console/TV player.
There's no math involved in determining what looks better.
Give me an equation that PROVES conclusively what I prefer to look at.

It literally (The actual definition of literally not the new one) is my own taste. That is the only relevant information when you're talking about what looks better.

Unless you can provide an equation that I can plug concrete numbers into that will quantify aesthetics on a linear scale, you're the one who's wrong.

You prefer 60, that's your opinion
So show me the "math" you accused me of ignoring
 

MoonWhispers

New member
Nov 10, 2003
16
0
0
I am entirely too amused that you used the phrase "swings and roundabouts". British idioms in general really, I'm weird, I get that.

At any rate, I wish companies would stop lying about their reasons for graphics decisions being what they are.
 

SamTheNewb

New member
Apr 16, 2013
53
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
There's no math involved in determining what looks better.
Give me an equation that PROVES conclusively what I prefer to look at.

It literally (The actual definition of literally not the new one) is my own taste. That is the only relevant information when you're talking about what looks better.

Unless you can provide an equation that I can plug concrete numbers into that will quantify aesthetics on a linear scale, you're the one who's wrong.

You prefer 60, that's your opinion
So show me the "math" you accused me of ignoring
It is stated that 60 is objectively better. You claim that you don't like it. That is fine. Subjective and objective facts are different things. It can be objectively better but subjectively worse for you. That is all fine.

However you make a claim that there is no reason to say 60 fps is objectively better. That is incorrect. You contend that something can't be objectively better, because you subjectively don't believe it is better and it doesn't make your experience better. You are mixing subjectivity and objectivity. You can't use your subjective opinion to disprove an objective assessment, because they are two completely different things.

60 fps is objectively better because it provides higher resolution of motion. This means higher clarity and better reproduction of motion. This means that there is less temporal aliasing and more accuracy in reproducing intricate motion. Finer details in motion can be expressed with 60fps than 30fps. This makes 60fps objectively better. 60 fps is far more detailed. However, the case one may bring up, is, can humans appreciate the increase in the quality and detail of motion reproduction.

You are correct in saying that 60fps doesn't make your experience objectively better. What you state is more or less a tautology. A person's experience by definition is something that is subjective, therefore there is no way to tie an objective fact to how good your experience is. The inverse is also true, there is no way to tie how your subjective experience to the objective quality of something.

So while 60fps has objectively higher accuracy and capability of reproducing intricate and detailed motion. The existence of 60fps doesn't predict how good your experience with something is. However you should not discount the fact that 60fps gives better accuracy and fidelity in reproducing motion simply because you think it looks worse.

60fps is objectively better in many technical ways, it, however, doesn't mean you have to like it better.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
Whatislove said:
I love Tales of Symphonia, one of my favourite games, I was so excited for Tales of Symphonia Chronicles (HD rerelease on the PS3) and then I started playing and noticed something really wrong. Having played through the Gamecube version 4 or 5 times there was something not right when I started playing the HD remake.

I later discovered it was based off the PS2 port which was locked at 30fps (the gamecube version is 60fps) and it is almost unplayable for me. In fact, my last playthrough was on my Gamecube (which I still have) and I would still prefer to play my Gamecube version running at 60fps in all it's 480p blurry glory on my 55" UHD TV than the more graphically sound but locked at 30fps HD remake.

You spend more than half the game in a battle sequence which is basically an action adventure/hack n slash, it is not an FPS and it does not feel "more cinematic" at 30fps, nor does it feel better in any way.. hell, it barely feels acceptable after playing it at 60fps.
*gasp* No wonder it felt weird to be playing it again on the PS3... I thought it was because it's been too long since I've played it without New Game + backing me up most of the time...

OT: You know, I'm starting to think these kind of announcements from Ubisoft are not really geared towards us gamers, but to the investors as a means to re-assure their success in said investment... Or maybe I'm just thinking too deep into all this...
daxterx2005 said:
At least we still have the cartoony Rayman right?
Isn't that run by a different branch in Ubisolf separate to Assassin's Creed?