Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

[Malpraxis]

I don't know. 60fps on Dark Souls felt pretty strange.
I'm probably among the group that doesn't care as long as they're having fun.

Still, I'm not getting Unity for the focus around co-op. There's nothing 'less cinematic' than having a random wanker doing cartwheels around my game, 30fps or not. To be honest, Rogue seems much more appealing.

 

[JET1971]

Also, one thing that never gets mentioned is absolute frame rate is not what's important - framerate CONSISTENCY is what matters. 30 fps DOES look better than 60 fps if the 30 fps is consistent but the 60 fps is not. Show someone a game and ask them what frame rate it's running at and they'll get it wrong half the time, but EVERYONE notices stuttering, and even if it's always above 30 fps but stuttering somewhere between 60 and 30fps it's going to look terrible.

Yet no one talks about this. They'll proudly tout 60 fps or 30 fps but never say what the average fps is, and you'll have to wait for reviews for them to maybe mention stuttering.

If Ubisoft decided to cap it at 30 fps because they couldn't get a consistent 60 fps then fine - say that. But given the performance of previous AC games which go into slow motion once 7+ enemies are around you or you throw a smoke bomb I'm guessing they couldn't even get a consistent 30 fps.

This is why I cap frames at 45 FPS if I can with games that average 60, The video card is never at full load so if something big happens like multiple large explosions requiring more processing power there is more available. That keeps the framerates consistent and smooth with no chop. If the game runs higher than 60 FPS I cap at 60. Anything over 70fps causes screen tearing because my monitors refresh rate.

OT:
the 30 fps for movies and TV works fine because of motion blur. if you pause the video during an action scene everything becomes blurry. This isn't because somehow the pause is 2 frames showing at the same time, it is 1 frame. Without the motion blur there would be noticeable micro stutter and it would look like ass. For video games there is no motion blur so to prevent the stutter higher framerate is needed. The extra frames serve the same purpose as the motion blur. This is why people notice 30fps in a game.

 

[Rozalia1]

You know...talking about controversy caused by hypemen is... completely pointless. Why does the "gaming community" put so much stock in hypemen?
Its worse than the wrestling community getting all in a bind over some dirtsheet news that is often wrong.

PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?

Neither Sony nor MS would like hearing such thing. They sell their products as a powerhouses, a leap in the technology, revolutionary... They know they cannot compete with PC, so they just pretend it doesn't exist.
It's ridiculous, I know. It's like Fiat boosting about the new Panda's 0-100 acceleration, instead of focusing on it's convenience. But that's the world we live in, many people out there genuinely believe Sony and MS' bullshit.

Why everything thinks this is the age of Jaguar is beyond me. Last generation you could perhaps argue that, this one not so much. They are billed as the best at their price range. Quoting a couple of managers hyping their clients doesn't change that fact, they are managers so of course they're going to tell us how perfect their client is. Mr Perfect was apparently the perfect man who do anything perfectly, yet he never won the big one as his hype might lead you to believe (after all he was the perfect wrestler).

This "and people believe it too" is comparable to the "you know its fake" nonsense. Irrelevant bunkum spread by people who want to insult others.
If those people were the least aware they'd know people know its scripted just fine and are happy for it as it allows for entertainment in the ring not possible if it were real (I want more than two men on the floor thank you).

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Cinematic is becoming more and more of a dirty word in the industry.
Gamers dont want cinematic they want, like jim pointed out, videogameatic (not a real word).

We should really stop pretending that making our games more like movies somehow increases the value of the piece of art presented on the screen, it really does not.
I dont consider video games more of an "artform" similar to books or movies or songs just because they have a "cinematic" feel

 

[LaochEire]

PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?

PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million

So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.

 

[JET1971]

PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million

So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.

Source for those numbers? and does the source count only retail sales or both retail and digital?

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

Crappy laptop club ahoy! We have nachos in the back.

I'm not going to go into most of the graphics or Ubisoft debates right now, but I do need to point something out real quick. Framerate is primarily a gameplay issue, not a visual one. While visuals are certainly much clearer on moving objects at higher framerates, the main kicker for people is how said framerates significantly improves response times in games that are even somewhat dependent on reacting to things in real-time (which applies to just about every non turn-based game with an emphasis on combat, including Assassin's Creed). In other words, higher framerate = better controls, unlike purely-visual things like resolution.

 

[daxterx2005]

At least we still have the cartoony Rayman right?

 

[Metalrocks]

ubi sure talks crap but in the end, if i can play the game on pc without any hassle and still looks good enough that i can tell what im looking at, its fine with me.
i just wish watch dogs would be properly optimized for pc. the game it self loks good and its actually fun, but these constant freezing for 5 secs happening at almost every second pretty much ruins the game that i dont want to continue anymore.
now i never had any real issues with any AC title. part 4 still worked flawlessly on pc, so as liberation released in february this year. and it did look still pretty nice. even when it was a port but the game was still fun.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.

You probably mean the worst company in France. It would probably never obtain that title, since French probably would rather give that honour to Infogrames (which nowadays hides under Atari's brand label to avoid brand-exposure, it is that bad). Mainly because they are well-known there for making lots of shovelware (though a few of their titles are still well-remembered there, but very few).

One has to wonder though if they are as lying to the people in their home country. I do not know.

Yeah, I forgot they were French. Still they're working they're way towards replacing EA as company most hated by gamers

 

[Atmos Duality]

laptops are not for gaming. They don't have the battery life for a real graphics card. A real graphics card would also die in there due to heat.

Dirt cheap laptops maybe.
I've used laptops for gaming in the past 6 years (neither of which cost me more than 1200).
While I don't run max settings in everything, what I do run is good enough and still quite superior to what any console produces. (to the point where complaints are more snobbery than sense)

DIY rigs are still the superior cost-effective option by far (and more extensible), but if you really want mobile processing, some smart shopping and a little care will go a long way even with laptop.

 

[direkiller]

Want to match the PS4 on a lets say 500 dollar machine? Lower to medium-high. And you may even BEAT it.

Uh... Considering that I have a $750 recent laptop that can't even run Far Cry 2 on medium settings and a reduced resolution without getting choppy, I think you're very wrong.

What laptop? My mate's laptop cost 800 dollars and whilst not even close to a similar priced Desktop PC (what WE WERE TALKKING about here) it can definitely max 6 year old games.

Specs:

Intel Core i5-4200M (2.5 GHz, 4 CPU's)
Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Better than you think.)
1366x768
4 GB's of RAM
Windows 7 Pro

What's funny though is that it can run Serious Sam 3 pretty well and even Skyrim decently enough so I suspect it's probably just Far Cry 2 being stupidly optimized, if at all.

Farcry 2 was coded fine.
It's just Farcry 2 has no idea what to do with on-bourd Intell gpu's, It just was not a thing for gaming when the game was made. Far cry 3 will probably run just fine.

You will also have trouble with some indie games(amnesia), because Intel will not give them the time of day when it comes to drivers.

 

[RicoADF]

So what are you going to do about it Jim?

You're the reviews editor at The Escapist, it should be easy for you to institute a policy that any game which runs at sub-60fps is specifically marked down and that it is mentioned in the review that this is why it's happening.

Hit them in their metacritic scores.

After all, the fact that reviews never have marked games down for failing to be 60fps and will frequently mention that graphical compromises have been made to get to 60 (equivocating over whether it's an overall benefit) is why game developers don't actually chase it as a feature.

Probably because not everyone is bothered that the fps is at 30. Personally frame rate consistency is more important than anything. 30fps consistent is far better than 60fps stuttering.

 

[direkiller]

PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.

So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?

PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million

So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.

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.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Ubisoft is only echoing what the general console playerbase is already happy with.

According to the thread I created, the majority of people don't care about 60fps and are happy to play at 30fps: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862342-Update-2-How-why-are-console-gamers-satisfied-with-30-fps

30fps takes literally half the resources of 60fps, resources which can instead be sunk into visuals. Investing in visuals also has additional big benefits of better-looking gameplay trailers and video reviews - since the majority of buyers get their knowledge of the game from trailers and reviews (and videos run at 30fps) the actual framerate of the game doesn't need to be any higher than that.

There's no reason for devs/publishers like Ubisoft to aim for 60fps on consoles. There is simply not enough demand from console gamers for it.

So who can you blame?

 

[J Tyran]

PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million

So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.

Wait, what? Are those supposed to be game sales statistics or pre built PC sales statisitcs? Either way you are either misunderstanding them or you are being disingenuous.

Most PC gamers build their machines, if you look at the raw sales statistics more components are sold (profitably too not at a loss or close to margin like consoles) than current gen consoles. More PC gamers are building and upgrading their machines than people are buying current gen consoles, further more when it comes to games the PC platform earns the most revenue and profit for the developers and publishers that can exploit it.

The "AAA" bullshit sector often have lower sales on the PC platform because PC gamers are fed up with them, other publishers work hard to give customers services and products they want and earn incomes that in some cases completely eclipse the revenues from a whole "AAA" publishers entire catalogue with just a single game.

 

[RicoADF]

*looks at Watch Dogs on PC*

Nope. Am certain it is just shit coding/optimization.

Metro looks MUCH better. Not a little, MUCH better. The only thing it has less is NPCs and theoretical space around the character. The actual AI probably wont be that good on Unity though.

4A achieved more, with the same hardware, at higher resolutions and 60 fps. With less money and less people on the project.

Metro is a FPS corridore shooter, Watch Dogs is a sandbox like Grand Theft Auto, 2 very different genres. Sandbox games usually have less visuals with higher demands because they have so much more going around.

 

[JayRPG]

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.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I don't want to piss one everyone's perception of what they "personally" consider to be "objectively" better, but I can't stand looking at things that are 60 FPS.

I can always tell the difference and it always looks worse.
So you can take your "objective fact" and shove it. I'd think of all people Jim would have the common decency not to call his opinion an objective fact and claim science supports something that is obviously his opinion.

Thank god for the improper usage of the word objective

http://gfycat.com/PaltryMiniatureConey

Even I can tell how jerky 30 fps is on that.

So something smoother and more responsive makes the game look bad am I right? It doesn't even effect graphics so the "it makes it look worse" is just an excuse.

It means how much the screen is updated, and that means a more responsive game. It makes it less vulnerable to lag. It doesn't speed up the game or anything.

There is no good argument against 60 fps. Its all excuses to cover bad developers who can't be assed to make a stable game on better hardware.

I think 60 FPS looks awful, that's my opinion.
You think 60 FPS looks better, that's your opinion.
There is nothing objective or factual about either of those sentiments.

When I watch things at 60 FPS it looks like I'm watching a puppet show in the back of a moving truck

You can't claim something is better or worse when you're talking about aesthetic preference.
There are people out there who think 24 is the one true frame rate.

Jim might have been joking when he said 60 FPS is objectively better but if he was this was the first time I couldn't tell he was joking. You'd think for a guy who gets accused of being "bias" so often, he wouldn't use the word objective incorrectly even for the sake of a joke.


And yes there are people who would sacrifice frame rate for draw distance and polygon count.
And increasing the responsiveness of a game by 1/60 of a second will only ever matter to people who play fighting games professionally.

 

[SamTheNewb]

As a matter of fact, higher framerates allow better reproduction of motion, and lessens temporal aliasing producing a higher fidelity result. But I guess temporal aliasing is only an issue for stuff that moves really fast.

Also, response times are hugely important to the VR people (especially those doing head tracking), so, you shouldn't discount latency.