Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

[JET1971]

There is nothing objective or factual about either of those sentiments.

Not true, you are basing your subjective opinion against an objective fact. more frames per second does in fact improve gameplay. games at 15 FPS would be unplayable, 30 fps playable but not optimal, 60 fps is optimal because 60 fps covers the lack of motion blur that is used by TV and movies to give the illusion of smooth framerates.

 

[pokepuke]

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.

Yes, it is objectively better. I don't see how you could think it could be argued against or would be a joke in any way. It is literally more information on the screen for you to utilize. The video is smoother, you are displayed with more detail when action is happening, you miss less of the action from those missing frames, and then you can react more proportionately to the action while it is happening instead of during whichever snapshots you were given while either enemies are attacking you are you are engaging them.

All I can suspect is that people are used to TV and movies being at such low framerates (with all their tricks and gimmicks to smooth it out). Then when it is faster, and possibly without those gimmicks, or the gimmicks actually break, it is something you are not used to processing. Exactly why PC players don't like low framerates, because they are used to the purity and fidelity of high and smooth frames being blasted into their corneas.

Plus it is possible that some of those little errant camera movements (during fake shaky-cam and such) would be diminished at a lower framerate. You wouldn't notice it bouncing around as much because the low amount of frames would be clipping off bits of motion from the bounces or whatever.


This same kind of debate happened for The Hobbit, and people complained about "too much detail", even though that is all in the HD department, not fps. It was mainly for all the action and sweeping scenery shots, so they weren't blurry as fuck. But, to the critics' credit, even though they never actually mentioned this, I think The Hobbit wasn't shot correctly, because sometimes when people were talking it would have that effect where they seems to be moving too quickly, as if the video is trying to catch up with the audio. I think the framerate was actually messed up, so yes it was too fast, and then the beginning of the shot was ahead, while the end of the shot was behind. The only correct point would be right in the middle. I didn't notice this in Hobbit 2.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

If it's not inconsequential, then why is the example you provided (a twitch game) show almost no difference with regards to framerate except for once it reaches the low teens and below. I mean, it WOULD be really annoying if they locked it in at 5 fps. I might be pretty put off by that.

Well, all I can say is if for whatever reason, be it your eyes or your monitor's refresh rate, that you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60, then that's lucky or at least convenient. But for those of us who do this shit all day erry day, it's spitefully annoying/frustrating in that range.

 

[Strelok]

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.

Is it better than I think? Somehow I doubt it, as it ranks as a mid-low end card graphics option, #242 on the list if you look. It struggles with anything but the lowest settings at 1024 X 768 on games from 2005 (World of Warcraft). Sounds like you just didn't know what you were buying, or what to ask, like the most simple question, "Is the video option integrated on this notebook, and does it share VRAM with the system".

At least we get a scale to see what "decent" means to you.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
2011
low 1280x720
29.3 31.9 33 48 51.1 ~ 39 fps
med. 1366x768
14 15 15.5 23 24.2 ~ 18 fps
high 1366x768
8 8.4 13 13.8 ~ 11 fps
ultra 1920x1080
4 7.3 ~ 6 fps

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4600.86106.0.html

 

[J Tyran]

*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.

Except this argument falls apart when you consider a game like Sleeping Dogs, its an open world sandbox yet it looks far better and runs far better than Watch Dogs and had some exceptionally pretty lighting effects. No it doesn't look quite as drop dead gorgeous as Metro: Last light and Metro 2033: Redux (the one using LLs engine) because of the reasons you mention and the lack of PhysX which makes a real difference with the particle effects and environmental damage models. Its also a two year old game and uses far less resources, at launch there where a few niggles with Nvidia GPUs as it was an AMD developed game but instead of whining how unfair it was like AMD did with Watch Dogs Nvidia worked to fix the drivers to suit it instead.

All in all its a well optimised great looking game.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

Yes, it is objectively better. I don't see how you could think it could be argued against or would be a joke in any way. It is literally more information on the screen for you to utilize. The video is smoother, you are displayed with more detail when action is happening, you miss less of the action from those missing frames, and then you can react more proportionately to the action while it is happening instead of during whichever snapshots you were given while either enemies are attacking you are you are engaging them.

All I can suspect is that people are used to TV and movies being at such low framerates (with all their tricks and gimmicks to smooth it out). Then when it is faster, and possibly without those gimmicks, or the gimmicks actually break, it is something you are not used to processing. Exactly why PC players don't like low framerates, because they are used to the purity and fidelity of high and smooth frames being blasted into their corneas.

Plus it is possible that some of those little errant camera movements (during fake shaky-cam and such) would be diminished at a lower framerate. You wouldn't notice it bouncing around as much because the low amount of frames would be clipping off bits of motion from the bounces or whatever.


This same kind of debate happened for The Hobbit, and people complained about "too much detail", even though that is all in the HD department, not fps. It was mainly for all the action and sweeping scenery shots, so they weren't blurry as fuck. But, to the critics' credit, even though they never actually mentioned this, I think The Hobbit wasn't shot correctly, because sometimes when people were talking it would have that effect where they seems to be moving too quickly, as if the video is trying to catch up with the audio. I think the framerate was actually messed up, so yes it was too fast, and then the beginning of the shot was ahead, while the end of the shot was behind. The only correct point would be right in the middle. I didn't notice this in Hobbit 2.

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

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Every time the magic number "60 FPS" comes up in gaming discussion, I always think the same thing: F-Zero X ran at 60 FPS with 30 vehicles on the screen at once at BLISTERING speeds on the N64 way back in 1998. You have to do more than THAT to impress me

 

[Sack of Cheese]

Wow, Jim is married. First time I have heard about it. I wonder what she thought of all the naughty dragon dildos he got from fans. Ahh, yes, mm framerates stuff. I have been wondering, why 30vs60? Why not 40fps? 50fps? 70fps? Why is 60 the new standard?

 

[EXos]

While I agree that stable FPS is more important than as high as possible; PC hardware is driven to get a stable 60Fps.
And Yes, more is better, no argument as the human eye can distinguish frames up to an impressive speed. (At Least 200 and is expected to beyond)

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/
"Links with evidence? What is this? Inconceivable!"

What irks me the most is that they put limits in the game while one of the biggest strengths of PC is that it is ever growing in power and speed.
Just like the original Crysis that wailed on graphic cards until they burned, an unlimited game gets better looking over the years. Locking something is extremely stupid for a PC game and just shows a lazy developer.

Just because Sony and Microsoft dropped the ball with this generation the PC still suffers from the dumbing down.
Want to play at 30? Set it up yourself just NEVER, EVER lock an option.
"30fps is more cinematic?" Oh f@ck off...

 

[Mikeyfell]

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

60 fps is better on TVs too... Just saying...

Lets for just a second assume that some people may really prefer 30 fps over 60 (both locked fully). Does this mean you like 20 more then 30? Have you tried 15? Maybe it will be better for you?

Anyways, last time I checked, most well made PC games allow for 30, 60, 75, 120 and even 45 and 144 fps locked. So, again, PC has you covered.[/quote]

I've never seen 45 FPS, I might try that, but 30 is the sweet spot for me.

my internet is really shitty so sometimes I have to make due with 12 FPS which looks bad but I can at least process the choppiness. when I see something at 60 or higher (I've played Watch Dogs on a 240 HZ tv that simulated 120 frames I had to leave the room) Everything looks like it's sliding around the screen.
Watching animation at 60 is sickening because in my experience "In-between-frames" typically have motion added to them to smooth out the transition, but that doesn't happen at 60 because the motion is twice as smooth so it just looks like there's a shape being moved.

and live action stuff in 60 is (This is completely pathetic so don't mind me) frightening.

You see motion blur in real life, like when you wave your hand in front of your face really fast. So when I see the smoothness of 60 (or more) FPS, I know there should be motion blur but there isn't and that makes reality look like the uncanny valley, so it looks like a photo realistic cartoon and it's scary as hell

CG in 60 looks watery
2D animation in 60 looks like a puppet show
And Live action in 60looks like the absolute nadir of the uncanny valley.

I realize I'm in the minority, but still 30 is nice.

 

[JET1971]

Wow, Jim is married. First time I have heard about it. I wonder what she thought of all the naughty dragon dildos he got from fans. Ahh, yes, mm framerates stuff. I have been wondering, why 30vs60? Why not 40fps? 50fps? 70fps? Why is 60 the new standard?

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?

 

[jmarquiso]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.