Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

[pokepuke]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[And Man]

I think "Ubisofted" is my new favorite verb

 

[SamTheNewb]

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]

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...

At least we still have the cartoony Rayman right?

Isn't that run by a different branch in Ubisolf separate to Assassin's Creed?

 

[Lightknight]

Higher resolution matters a lot less on TVs than it does on a monitor you're two feet away from. 30 vs 60 FPS makes a difference no matter the revolution. Neither are entirely necessary if the game is good.

 

[Roxor]

You know, I bet we could put an end to these problems if we just forced developers to work on decade-old computers. If they can get the game running at 30fps on something that old, it's pretty-much guaranteed that it'll get 60fps on a modern system, even when running at 1920*1080, as opposed to the 640*480 the devs probably have to work at on something that old.