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

LauriJ

New member
Mar 1, 2012
141
0
0
I think it's rather neat really. I am sure the finished product will be interesting.
 

Wasted

New member
Dec 19, 2013
250
0
0
hawkeye52 said:
Is it just me that can't tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps
This website has a very simple comparison between 15, 30, and 60 frames per second.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you still cannot tell the difference between them then I honestly do not know what to tell you. The difference in the fluidity of movement is night and day to me. I was hoping that this generation would finally bring the consoles to a 1080p resolutions and 60fps standard but it seems that it won't happen. Shame since PCs have been moving to 4k resolutions and 120fps for many years now.
 

hawkeye52

New member
Jul 17, 2009
760
0
0
Wasted said:
hawkeye52 said:
Is it just me that can't tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps
This website has a very simple comparison between 15, 30, and 60 frames per second.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you still cannot tell the difference between them then I honestly do not know what to tell you. The difference in the fluidity of movement is night and day to me. I was hoping that this generation would finally bring the consoles to a 1080p resolutions and 60fps standard but it seems that it won't happen. Shame since PCs have been moving to 4k resolutions and 120fps for many years now.
I can barely tell. It's to the point where I find it so negligible that it really doesn't matter to me. Though tbh I am happy to play on anything above 15fps and it won't make a difference to me.

Clowndoe said:
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.
I've never compared the two side by side but I have played on a variety of computers ranging in quality to a fairly competitive level. For example I was in one of the best clans in Europe for 2142 and I played CoD4 a lot and played semi competitively. The reason why this fps doesn't bother me though might be because I am used to playing at pings anywhere between 50-200.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
Translation: "Fuck it! Fuck it! Its too hard! Just make the damn thing run at 30 FPS and give some bullshit excuse."
 

Clowndoe

New member
Aug 6, 2012
395
0
0
hawkeye52 said:
I can barely tell. It's to the point where I find it so negligible that it really doesn't matter to me. Though tbh I am happy to play on anything above 15fps and it won't make a difference to me.
That seems unlikely, but if it works for you I can't complain XD.
 

Twinrehz

New member
Apr 12, 2020
361
0
0
Country
Norge
Sorry for the delay on my reply, SixWays, I sat at length and wrote a reply last night, but when I clicked post, the escapist forums had gone down, and EVERYTHING that I'd sat for almost an hour writing and editing was lost.

Six Ways said:
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
I can assure you, I'm thrilled to get such a good reply. ^^

Six Ways said:
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.
Well it seems I have very little to say on this, since it turns out I watched the hobbit in regular boring old 24fps, it's something I'll have to correct later. Let me just say that on the few occasions that I've seen higher frame rates in action, be it on Discovery HD or a demo on a TV in a store, I've always thought to myself "damn, that looks good, why doesn't everything look like that?". Because while I don't really think about the regular frame rate while watching TV or movies, whenever something is running at faster fps, I think it looks appealing, and I like the more fluid movement in the shots. That said, I'll have to see what it looks like when I see 3 hours worth of movie with it.

I'd say I'm a contender for higher frame rates simply because I personally think it looks good. The suspension of disbelief has always been a weird thing for me, because when watching a movie, I've never, and I mean NEVER, been able to immerse myself to the point that I forget the world around me, though it seems basically everyone else is able to. My attention span isn't so much short as it is all over the fucking place all the time, and I have to focus to remain on a single subject. My mind also tends to wander and meander around a subject, for no other reason than to distract me, it seems. It seems to me though that this all boils down to a subjective thing, though I only have your word for it that people find higher frame rate a little unsettling and weird.

Six Ways said:
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.
As is the case with games, presentation only goes so far, and I've always felt that Hollywood movies focus way to little on making the story as engaging as the action. It seems the only kind of movies that get the storywriter's love is chick flicks. In itself not bad, but I wouldn't mind seeing a proper narrative coupled with an action movie. While I enjoy the woosh-bang-crikey of action movies and the funny one-liners, it would be nice to see the story get some real love too. I'm not good at watching movies though, since even with the liberty of the internet I can't be bothered to, ahem, acquire them anyway, in fact I find some satisfaction of actually buying films (and series, if I like them), though that doesn't happen very often either.

Six Ways said:
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.
Agreed. I don't understand this persistence with the thought that games need to be cinematic. Now, Yahtzee is very much my point of view in why games SHOULDN'T be cinematic, so I wont start going into detail on that, instead you can just watch his reviews of Bayonetta and other games labeled as cinematic (I don't remember which ones, there's way more than 200 of his videos by this point).

As for why The Order is getting so much hate for the choice of frame rate, I think it has just as much to do with the clamoring of up to date technology from Sony and MS, as with the developer's attempt to lamp shade the decision by calling it an artistic choice, saying it will make for a more cinematic experience. Whether or not they're ACTUALLY lying to us or not, I won't speculate in, because at this point it could go either way. Suffice to say that this was supposed to be a next gen title for the PS4, an anticipated one at that, and they're already showing signs of having to restrain something to give us something else.

Personally I don't see why it's so anticipated, it just looks like a generic first person shooter set in a steam punk environment, but what gamers apparently have been wanting for years is a new console generation and a game to show it off with, since the old generation was apparently getting too old and wrinkly, and the hardware limitations weren't going to go anywhere. Yet it seems the new generation still manages to be too weak to serve the gamer expectation of what they would like the new console generation to be. The strides forward made by console generations in the past (see the gap between N64/PS1 and GC/PS2 for that particular eyesore), is going to be harder and harder to bridge, because it's now gone down to such fine detail that they've needed to ramp up the lighting and shading, two of the things that GPUs have nightmares about, to make the step forward worth it.

As it then turns out, the step forward isn't big enough, and the limitations that were thought to go away with a new console generation are still there, and are still going to be roadblock for future development, unless game designers decide to ditch the console market and aim for the PC crowd with the beefiest of cards. However, that's not the solution either, because you'll be alienating not only the console gamers, but also the players on PC with a not-so-very beefed up GFX card. As always, there's optimization, there's adjustable settings, and the problem could be that the developer of The Order is just bad at optimization, or they've run out of time, in itself not unlikely given that each new generation of consoles means new developer tools to get used to.

Actually I'm running out of ideas at this point, the point I think I'm trying to make is that with the message that The Order will run at 30fps, it seems almost like the developers could be suggesting that this generation of consoles has already failed, a message that console gamers will most certainly not take lightly, and will angrily defend, because that's what we've been doing for the last 20 years. We look at differing opinion with distrust and hate, because that's what we're used to, we must defend the honor of the things we support. We're like footballers, only more passive-aggressive, arguing over it on forums instead of going at each other in fist fights.

I am of course NOT saying the new generation has failed, I'm just contemplating over what the statement from developers might make gamers think and say in response.
 

Manlyburger

New member
May 17, 2014
5
0
0
Here's a gameplay screenshot of this game for reference:

http://i.imgur.com/hFEbo6A.jpg

Looks pretty average. Poor textures on the signs.

And there's no way it's going to outperform Crysis 3 maxed. Even with the letterboxed resolution the PS4 wouldn't be able to maintain 30FPS in that game.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
endnuen said:
Ultratwinkie said:
snip

Metro games fulfilled their promises.

Crysis did too.

So did the Witcher.

So did Hitman absolution.

snip

The 7th gen managed to fulfill its promises, but not this gen.
Both Metro and Crysis were pretty games. Shit games, but pretty.
Witcher was a pretty game, shit, but pretty.
Hitman absolution, pretty, but shitty.
Just because the games were "shitty" that doesn't make them any less pretty, which was the point.

Also really? They were all shitty games? Christ you've had a good run on games, because I can think of tons of games that would qualify for "shitty" and those ain't them. Well haven't played absolution, but the rest of them are critically acclaimed, Metro was especially lauded when it came out.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Manlyburger said:
Here's a gameplay screenshot of this game for reference:

http://i.imgur.com/hFEbo6A.jpg

Looks pretty average. Poor textures on the signs.

And there's no way it's going to outperform Crysis 3 maxed. Even with the letterboxed resolution the PS4 wouldn't be able to maintain 30FPS in that game.
looks good in my opinion, tough upon a closer look, some stuff does look a bit blurry, dont know if low res textures or motion blur
 

Michael Lapierre

New member
Mar 7, 2013
13
0
0
Boy, this forum is starting to make me sad...

I'm 66 years old, have played video games since 1973, starting on an Atari 400. I watched it go from white blocks moving around on a black background. Now, here I am, watching people critique an experience they have not yet had, almost as if embracing the negative as an old friend.

Alright, I get it.

You are all technical experts, know whether or not the developers are doing this for whatever reason, and are righteous in your indignation, but you know what?

The payoff for optimism is ALWAYS better than the one for pessimism, and I will go on watching new worlds being created for me to play in, relishing the new experiences when they come. I am not a 'sheeple', nor am I mentally deficient, nor do I require help to be cynical... I choose to experience life as a joyful process, and new experiences brought to me through the hard work and imagination of the creators are part of that joy...

Relax...Wait and see...THEN comment.

At that point, you will be dealing with reality, and not sitting in a corner, making paper tigers to justify your cynical and unfounded opinions. Don't do it for the developers, the publishers, or the 'suits' who manage to screw up so much in our hobby...

Do it for yourself!

Enjoy the amazing world you live in brothers and sisters. You are privileged.

(Sorry if it sounds 'preachy'. Just a Canadian Geezer Gamer, feeling your pain, and trying to help... ;-)
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
endnuen 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.
Apparently not. I'll take the improved visuals/physics and consistent 30 FPS over 60 FPS.
The PC master race are just impossible to please. At all. Ever.
That's completely reasonable. Many people would agree with you on that. The reason people are angry IS NOT because the game is running at 30 FPS. There are plenty of good games that run at 30 FPS. The reason people are mad is the terrible excuse that the company provided for the game being at 30 FPS. Framerate does not effect the artistic vision of the game. They ARE NOT saying that by doing 30 FPS they are providing better textures etc etc. They are saying that they chose 30FPS to 'make it more like a movie.' This makes absolutely no sense; no videogame at 30FPS is any more 'movielike' then a videogame at 60FPS. If they had come out and said, 'Hey, we want to make the graphics nicer, so the framerate had to be capped at 30FPS,' that would've been fine.

Nice passing comment at PC gamers btw. Considering thia game is a PS4 exclusive, I don't think any PC gamers are particularly invested in this; I know I couldn't care less. But please, do continue poor little console crusader; do continue perpetuating conflict between PC and console gamers. No one had made any comments about PC in this thread, but you had to bring it up... but its the PC gamers that are always blamed for arguing.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
They can go fuck themselves with their filmic look. I don't want the game to feel like a movie. You know why movies looks like that when the camera moves very fast? Because they have to use blurring techniques to hide the stuttering. When you do that in the game I get headaches and also my eyes hurt. You know what doesn't give me headaches? 60 frames per second. I've seen the gameplay and to be honest I don't think it's even running at 30fps. It seems to be running at the movie-like 24fps. Or at least it will in certain areas. They are sacrificing gameplay quality for graphical fidelity. And that is unacceptable to me.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Michael Lapierre said:
Boy, this forum is starting to make me sad...

I'm 66 years old, have played video games since 1973, starting on an Atari 400. I watched it go from white blocks moving around on a black background. Now, here I am, watching people critique an experience they have not yet had, almost as if embracing the negative as an old friend.

Alright, I get it.

You are all technical experts, know whether or not the developers are doing this for whatever reason, and are righteous in your indignation, but you know what?

The payoff for optimism is ALWAYS better than the one for pessimism, and I will go on watching new worlds being created for me to play in, relishing the new experiences when they come. I am not a 'sheeple', nor am I mentally deficient, nor do I require help to be cynical... I choose to experience life as a joyful process, and new experiences brought to me through the hard work and imagination of the creators are part of that joy...

Relax...Wait and see...THEN comment.

At that point, you will be dealing with reality, and not sitting in a corner, making paper tigers to justify your cynical and unfounded opinions. Don't do it for the developers, the publishers, or the 'suits' who manage to screw up so much in our hobby...

Do it for yourself!

Enjoy the amazing world you live in brothers and sisters. You are privileged.

(Sorry if it sounds 'preachy'. Just a Canadian Geezer Gamer, feeling your pain, and trying to help... ;-)
hey i dont think anybody is saying the game cant be great, people are simply saying this comment is simply PR bullshit, as simple as that
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Twinrehz said:
I don't know what resolution or FPS raw film is shot in nowadays, but we most certainly have the technology to process large amounts of raw film without having to limit the FPS to 24, unless the movies are shot in 50k (which I highly doubt).
Film has no resolution, like any anologue video/audio it can be blown up to any size you want without distortion and thus you can digitise it at 1080p, 4km 10k or a million x a million pixels, it's just a question of screen capabilities (and the size of your storage space).
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
RicoADF said:
Twinrehz said:
I don't know what resolution or FPS raw film is shot in nowadays, but we most certainly have the technology to process large amounts of raw film without having to limit the FPS to 24, unless the movies are shot in 50k (which I highly doubt).
Film has no resolution, like any anologue video/audio it can be blown up to any size you want without distortion and thus you can digitise it at 1080p, 4km 10k or a million x a million pixels, it's just a question of screen capabilities (and the size of your storage space).
filming equipment does have resolution dont they? thats why buying a cell phone with a camere of X amount of mega super duper pixels is such a big deal

plus you can see old films being all blurry and stuff
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
filming equipment does have resolution dont they? thats why buying a cell phone with a camere of X amount of mega super duper pixels is such a big deal

plus you can see old films being all blurry and stuff
A mobile phone has a digital camera not an analogue film camera, different technology.
Old movies aren't blurry due to 'resolution', it can be the film has degraded due to poor storage, or the equipment that digitised them wasn't very good (film has to be focused to look sharp) or the digital source copy wasn't done in a high resolution.

As an example I watched the dirty dozen a few weeks back on bluray, it looked as sharp as any new HD filmed movie because they had digitised the master film copy rather than upscaled some low resolution copy.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
RicoADF said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
filming equipment does have resolution dont they? thats why buying a cell phone with a camere of X amount of mega super duper pixels is such a big deal

plus you can see old films being all blurry and stuff
A mobile phone has a digital camera not an analogue film camera, different technology.
Old movies aren't blurry due to 'resolution', it can be the film has degraded due to poor storage, or the equipment that digitised them wasn't very good (film has to be focused to look sharp) or the digital source copy wasn't done in a high resolution.

As an example I watched the dirty dozen a few weeks back on bluray, it looked as sharp as any new HD filmed movie because they had digitised the master film copy rather than upscaled some low resolution copy.
i see, very interesting
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
i see, very interesting
If you'd like to read up on it wiki has a big page on film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

Most of my knowledge comes from film and photography courses as well as personal experience as a hobby, so feel free to read up it's quite interesting :)
 

Twinrehz

New member
Apr 12, 2020
361
0
0
Country
Norge
RicoADF said:
Twinrehz said:
I don't know what resolution or FPS raw film is shot in nowadays, but we most certainly have the technology to process large amounts of raw film without having to limit the FPS to 24, unless the movies are shot in 50k (which I highly doubt).
Film has no resolution, like any anologue video/audio it can be blown up to any size you want without distortion and thus you can digitise it at 1080p, 4km 10k or a million x a million pixels, it's just a question of screen capabilities (and the size of your storage space).
That depends on what kind of equipment they use to record the film. I would imagine that newer films are recorded with digital equipment, rather than rely on 35mm film. It makes for easier editing, they don't have to transfer the video and audio from an analog to a digital medium, and it's simpler to just re-shoot a scene than starting to do some heavy editing because of spectacular cock-ups made by the actors or the recording crew.

EDIT: 35mm film, if recorded properly, far exceeds the capabilities of digital resolutions, yes. I suppose that's a good argument for recording with 35mm film, but that still depends on what resolution is used IF they are in fact using digital equipment.