The Order: 1886 Runs at 30 FPS for a "Filmic Look"

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
SourMilk said:
LazyAza said:
Have people even SEEN how good this game looks visually? I'm amazed they're able to even get it running smoothly at 30.

It's literally the first game I've seen where I've thought huh that looks like a cgi cutscene. The visuals are jaw dropping.
Yes because we all know that pre-release screenshots never get touched-up, they never only show the good parts of the game. I mean seriously, after the recent WatchDogs fiasco you're not even one bit suspicious? Don't you realise that they will reduce the graphical settings?

What kind of person are you?
The graphics have already been downgraded and the colour has already been taken away and replaced by Battlefield 3 Blue:

 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Gundam GP01 said:
So the choice between pixel art or polygons can be an artistic choice. Turn based and real time combat can be an artistic choice. Chiptunes can be an artistic choice. But frame rate cant be?
It's only "artistic" when I choose it to be. Much like whether or not something is derivative or an homage [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/01/08].

For the record, I don't really care. It's just kind of amusing the way that works out.

Rellik San said:
By that logic, shouldn't Lord of the Rings really be shown as nothing more than a series of wood block prints?
Why? One group choosing to embrace the style given means everyone else should make the same stylistic determination?
 

Six Ways

New member
Apr 16, 2013
80
0
0
Twinrehz said:
Okay, time to drag people through a quick brain storm, based a little on guesswork and assumption, but it shouldn't be that far off the mark. (Feel free to check facts, though, I love corrections).
Prepare to get them :p

You're right about 24fps being chosen for technical reasons back in the day (although it has as much to do with sound as visuals). To clarify some other points in your post - films are almost always shot at their output frame-rate, which in the vast majority of cases is 24. Almost the only reason to shoot at higher (or lower) rates is to slow down (or speed up) action after the fact by running it at the output frame rate. There's a technology called Showscan which advocates shooting at 120 and downsampling to lower rates, but that's not actually been used in any films yet.

24FPS is not chosen nowadays because of technical reasons, nor is that ever quoted as a factor. Shooting at higher frame rates is easy, but people generally don't want to. Put simply, it is an artistic choice. Films look very different at different frame rates. The general consensus as I'm aware is that 24fps, compared to say 48, intentionally looks less realistic. Suspension of disbelief is much harder when your brain thinks you're just looking at something real - the slight jitter of 24fps provides a buffer between you and the fictional world which counterintuitively can aid immersion greatly. In my experience I certainly found The Hobbit at 48fps to look like a stage play, with obvious costumes, lighting and makeup, and I'm pretty sure it's because my brain was more convinced it was real.

If it is done to please the elitist or retro crowd, then we have basically failed. We've practically stopped technological advancement because it doesn't suit a minority that thinks everything must stay the same, because of a crowd that thinks that's how it was done, that's how it should be done. Old-fashioned thinking for old-fashioned world.
I don't think that's a minority when it comes to film-goers. Gamers, I've noticed, tend to prefer higher fps in films because that's what they're used to. But that doesn't mean it's the right choice. Besides, I could make the counter-argument that if you increase frame-rates in films, you're just doing it to satisfy a minority who think that because we can do it, we should do it.

But games are a very different medium, and the almost ubiquitous drive to make them more "cinematic" generally undermines efforts to find gaming's unique strengths as an art form. Lower frame rates in games are almost universally detrimental given the interactive nature of the medium, and although a genuine limitation-free decision to lock a lower frame rate is a totally valid artistic choice, I think jamming it into a game (almost certainly to cover up technical issues) which isn't specifically designed around it will most likely result in a poorer experience.
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Neronium said:
I'll say the same thing I always say when it comes to this: as long as the framerate is consistent then I could give two shits about graphics or about a high framerate. Yes, it's 2014 and this should be standard now, but I've never enjoyed a game I liked less because it had a lower framerate or was full HD. If I like the story, characters, gameplay, and or music then I'm generally fine.

Really though, this trend of false advertising as of late is really not doing good for anyone really, and companies should really stop with this crap.
This right here. Yeah I can see a definite change between 30fps and 60fps but it doesn't bother me. As long as it's consistently either 30 or 60 and the graphics don't cause my eyes to bleed with overbloom I'm good to go. Doesn't matter much for this game anyway, it looks like your typical third person shooter except with a coat of Steampunk over it(and not even inspired Steampunk).
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
I think a lot of people are being unfair.

Yes, there are significantly better looking PC games.

But, that's not the point of a console.

If you told me, I could spend $350 to buy a PS4, which looked as good as Order does (Yet to be confirmed, mind you.) but, with the limitation of running at a sluggish 30 FPS, then, I guess that'd be fine. I mean, I'm a PC gamer, console games aren't really for me, but, for that price and performance, I guess it's acceptable.

I'd recommend it to somebody whom is less into games than I, and unwilling to put money into their hobby.

And that's ultimately what consoles are. They're PCs for the gaming hobbyist.

PCs are for enthusiasts. They're for people whom care about how well it runs, people who want high resolutions and all the fancy graphics, not for the casual gamer whom doesn't care if the game slows down occasionally.


And that's fine. It's a different standard for a less caring audience. So, there's not much point in holding it to the PC standard. Console games run at 30FPS in small resolutions, usually looking graphically inferior compared to PCs.

And for that, yes, Order does reach the console standard. However, the issue here is why they're saying they're running the game that slowly.
 

endnuen

New member
Sep 20, 2010
533
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
How is the witcher shit? Oh wait, consoles. They never got the full game because witcher 1 was PC exclusive. The full experience needs your choices from the last game.

Metro is shit? Its critically acclaimed. Both of them.

The only shitty game is hitman, and thats subjective because it follows silent assassin rules than blood money's rules.

And why would the order be any more than an ugly corridor shooter. Its not like we have star citizen or anything. Oh wait, we do, and its more impressive than the order. As well as every other PC game out there.

As for optimization, you are so totally wrong its hilarious. Better hardware is ALWAYS better hardware. To prove a point, here is a 8800, better than 7th gen but is nearing 10 years old, still going strong:

Here is another, with Batman running at 50 fps without fraps on.

That card is just as old as the xbox. Its slightly better than the ps3. Still going strong and still has higher settings. You don't have to upgrade, that's a myth. Everything you just said was a myth. A common myth that has long been debunked.

Its nice to know people will take a game no one has seen in full light and claim its the best. Its also nice you are making shit up now.

So next time don't pull out "trump" cards that are hilariously outdated by 20 years. What next, are you going to say we code to the specific card? Because that is also ancient as well.
Witcher is shit because it is about as aerodynamic as a bag of hammers. I played both incidentally and while the story is intriguing it plays like absolute shit on the pc.

Have you played Metro? The first was a pile of bugs with more bugs on them who all had crabs. The second a much better effort, but it also has its issues in the bugs/inconsistency area.

Yeah, it's a nice graphics card. I'd like to see the same videos with the CPU and RAM that is 10 years old.

I've never claimed anything was the best. But developers do not optimize their games to the 10000 different PC configurations out there, they make the games for hardware that is not more than a few years old, where as they optimize like hell for the consoles.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
What was order 1886 again?

Oh yeah, gears of war: steampunk edition. When did people start giving a fuck about this again?
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
Golly, if the game didn't look like a massive piece of shit I might almost be frustrated. Luckily it does, so I'm honestly not bothered, apart from the flat out bullshiting.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
endnuen said:
TheKasp said:
How is it that other, better looking games can deliver on 1080p and unlimited fps?
Bold statement, but just that. A statement. Please tell me which games this is?
There are plenty of better looking games on PC.

Metro Last light:

Crysis 3

Probably metro 2033 as well.

Any battlefield game on PC looks good on launch.



And to prove a point, here is an indie game.


Oh and this entire thread:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/is-there-a-single-pc-game-that-has-better-graphics-29416654/

And then there is Unreal engine 4, which is exclusive to PC.

You have Batman games, or any game with Nvidia tied to them.


I can go into modder territory, but now that would be an even more one sided fight.

Where have you been in the last 5 years?
i dunno about witcher 2, but man does metro last light look sexy

i wish i had a machine beefy enough to run those kind of games on max
 

Twinrehz

New member
Apr 12, 2020
361
0
0
Country
Norge
Oh wow, I spent the better part of an hour writing a reply, and then the forum went offline or something when I tried to post -.- I'll see if I can be bothered to write EVERYTHING all over again during the day.
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
Too bad I buy video games not Filmic experiences ;p. You want a film look you put changing your FPS in the options, other then that your complete BS only offering a lower frame rate.
 

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
hawkeye52 said:
Is it just me that can't tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps
Have you ever had the chance to compare the two while playing? Especially in say, a multiplayer shooter, or a fighting game. Otherwise it's no big surprise that you can't tell.
 

Busard

New member
Nov 17, 2009
168
0
0
I do hope this will come back to bite Ready at Dawn in the ass. They could go crash and burn for all I care, with people at their head who are so obviously bullshitting and have no grasp at all of their medium, I think we can do with less companies like these. They're essentially dead weight on this industry