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

[Manlyburger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

I was refering to actual film (aka 35mm) not as in a 'movie', however I agree with the rest, film is better quality however digital is far easier and cheaper to film with, it's all about compromise.

 

[Twinrehz]

I was refering to actual film (aka 35mm) not as in a 'movie', however I agree with the rest, film is better quality however digital is far easier and cheaper to film with, it's all about compromise.

Ah, then it seems I missed the point completely. My bad.