The Last of Us

ShadowHearth

kunst nugget wrote: »

I wonder is it something that will be made available to more games? Just a quick googling sees there's some debating on the issue with people stating a preference for 30fps because they feel it's more cinematic… a debate that seems to be mirrored a bit in filmmaking with 24/48fps.

Movies FPS and games FPS are completely different. The feel is different and what you used to is different, plus games are interactive wheres movies are not. That would be a very bad example, but unfortunately some people think same way when it comes to games ( 24 vs 48 frame thing )

As for better for some games is a complete bull**** and that is a popular excuse of developers these days that cannot make their games run 60 fps on so called "next Gen". Everything plays and works better with 60 fps. I have not played a single game where I would say: " You know what? This game would look so much better in 30 fps".

I am really sad, that some people actually bit on that bull**** cupcake developers threw out in to media.

Some missed my point. I'm not having some 30v60 fps debate.

60 fps is no doubt going to make it look smooth, response times for the player thus improve, 1080p for sharper image clarity that's all fine happy days. I play games on my pc in excess of 60fps all the time. Twitch shooters, strategy games etc...

I'm just saying it might have an effect on this particular games balance.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

60FPS has a very distinct look though, almost 'sped up' compared to video particularly. For action games or those requiring fast reflexes or refresh rates, the gulf between 30 and 60 is massive and pretty much always 60 is the best. However, I can see how in some (and I mean just some) games, particularly some with a more sombre or understated style, that a developer could for reasonable artistic reasons opt for 30 frames, even if there are no technical obstacles. The filmic look is a consideration, but I'd also suggest that in certain cases 30 FPS could be better suited to the pace and atmosphere of a title. It would be a rare game that would benefit in these ways, but I do think there is the possibility of exceptions.

To give one example, Tearaway is a game that uniquely benefits in one respect from a lower frame rate (I can't find any concrete info online on what it actually runs at, but it certainly feels like 30 FPS): there's a stop-motion aesthetic applied to movement and characters throughout, which is actually really charming and visually appropriate flourish that wouldn't in any meaningful way benefit from 30FPS. That's a very particular case, however.

Putting it better than I ever could. We'll said.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To give one example, Tearaway is a game that uniquely benefits in one respect from a lower frame rate (I can't find any concrete info online on what it actually runs at, but it certainly feels like 30 FPS): there's a stop-motion aesthetic applied to movement and characters throughout, which is actually really charming and visually appropriate flourish that wouldn't in any meaningful way benefit from 30FPS. That's a very particular case, however.

In this case you can just have the same slower animation cycles yet still run the game at 60fps.

I don't think the aesthetic excuse really holds any water. Watching a film and playing a game are two very different things and while low frame rates work for film it doesn't work for games, in fact motion blur needs to be added to cover up fast movements, something film has naturally. So far I've never played a game I thought benefitted in anyway from 30 FPS and feel its at the detriment of any game I've played. Both film and games are consumed in very different ways and aren't comparable. You might give the excuse 30 FPS gives a more cinematic effect (something I've never thought) but even still it makes for a vastly inferior game.

johnny_ultimate

Discounting the 'cinematic look' argument for a moment, although cinema does have a very unique look, and while games are fundamentally different and require higher frame rates, savvy developers could potentially utilise that film look in a thematically or stylistic appropriate way. But that's hypothetical, and I don't think anyone has done it really successfully yet so I'll be curious to see how The Order does turn out (although I'm more excited by its 2.35:1 presentation ).

It's less that 30FPS is 'better' in some cases (unless it optionally stablises an unstable frame rate ala Titanfall 360, which is down to personal preference I suppose), more that it is more negligible in certain types of games. Playing Bayonetta in 30FPS would be horrid, in Tearaway it is significantly less noticeable given the overall style of the game and design - compromising to reach 60 FPS would arguably have been a waste of the developer's resources, especially given the game's stop motion art is well communicated in 30FPS. Again, it probably does go back to that point of compromising in terms of detail in exchange for higher frame rate or vice versa. I think we're all in agreement that when hardware restrictions apply, then there's a proper decision to weigh up depending on an individual title's needs. But I suppose my argument is that I don't think frame rate 'significantly' affects some types of game (whether it's higher or lower), and that in exceptional titles - and I mean serious exceptions - I could potentially see it gelling well with the overall art style or tone of the game. Of course in other cases the difference is night and day.

Retr0gamer

In every case where I've had the experience of a game running in 30 or 60 FPS it's been night and day which experience is better. Sure on consoles compromises have to be made but I just can't see any argument for 30 FPS being in anyway better than 60. It's not even some games benefit more than others, even the slowest menu driven games benefit from increased responsiveness of the menus.

cloud493

wes

Weird that they included a 30fps mode, seems completely pointless. I don't really understand why anyone would reduce the fps, with 0 to gain for it.

cloud493

Captain Chaos

wes wrote: »

Weird that they included a 30fps mode, seems completely pointless. I don't really understand why anyone would reduce the fps, with 0 to gain for it.

Because it really changes how a game plays, feels and looks, and playing it at 30fps will be keeping with how the game was designed in the first place. If players want the 60fps experience they can go right ahead but it's not how the developers designed the experience to be played in the first place.

Bluray players have an option to limit playback to 24fps for a more traditional cinematic feel for example for movies that were not shot at 24fps but faster like US soaps.

wes

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because it really changes how a game plays, feels and looks, and playing it at 30fps will be keeping with how the game was designed in the first place. If players want the 60fps experience they can go right ahead but it's not how the developers designed the experience to be played in the first place.

Playing at 30 fps is inferior, when 60 fps is available at 0 cost. Sorry, it make no sense at all that they bothered to include a mode that down grades the game for no benefit at all. A smoother better controlled game is always better.

Surely purist would also want a graphical downgrade as well, seeing as the newly improved graphics are not how it was designed in the first place? Sure they may as well play the PS3 version instead, and not the remastered version......

This reminds of the Halo remastered version graphic downgrade, which I turned on for 30 second out of curiosity and then turned of just as quick. IMHO, such modes are a waste of time.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Bluray players have an option to limit playback to 24fps for a more traditional cinematic feel for example for movies that were not shot at 24fps but faster like US soaps.

Movies and games are not comparable.

johnny_ultimate

No one's denying games and films are significantly different mediums, at least I hope they aren't :pac:

I've tried to come up with a hypothetical game where 30 FPS would serve a purpose. Say a developer wants to create a 'game noir', something that homages the feel and look of 1930s-40s film noir classics. Let's not worry about what the game plays like - could be a point and click game or an open world one or whatever. To capture the mood and make things era-authentic, however, this fictional designer decides to make everything black and white with dramatic lighting / shadows, layer some artificial film grain over the visuals and have it all run it at 30 FPS. Now, the argument isn't that this is 'better' than the choice to go with 60 FPS - it's merely that in choosing this aesthetic the developer has determined that the game's art and visual design will communicate something specific, and this will have some sort of effect on the mood and tone of the game (as well as affecting response times and all that). Again, not arguing whether this made-up designer is right or wrong, merely tying to illustrate that a lower frame rate could, hypothetically anyway, have an impact on a game's aesthetic identity.

tok9

I'm not going to complain if a Dev offers more ways of consuming a product whether I use it or not.

cloud493

Naughty Gods lead programmer Jason Gregory talks to Gamespot.

Quote:
Why is 60fps important?

"It was a toss-up before; people were saying that you lose quality and graphics and what not," Gregory said when asked why Naughty Dog feels that it's such an important component for the game. "But being able to compare apples to apples like we have now with The Last of Us, going back and playing the 30 Hz version feels, to quote some people in the office, 'broken.' There's something that can't be captured in screenshots and playing an adventure game where you just walk around and experience the world at the smooth 60 Hz.

"There was an internal debate just over the artistic-ness of going 30 or 60, and whether or not it would feel weird. Pretty much every person who had said, 'I'm a 30 Hz person, I don't know if I could play it at 60.' When they finally saw it, they said, 'Nevermind, I'm convinced.' We do so much with the animations of the character to convey emotion to the player so when you talk about what's going on with Joel and getting the player to empathize with him. At 60 frames, seeing his breathing change, or when a Clicker shows up and you hear that sound and the way he moves changes, because all the animations are that much more fluid, I think that comes across even more now. That's going to change the play experience just a little bit in the way the players experience that."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-last-of-us-remastered-devs-discuss-making-60fp/1100-6421147/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uar42MMFA3o

ShadowHearth

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because it really changes how a game plays, feels and looks, and playing it at 30fps will be keeping with how the game was designed in the first place. If players want the 60fps experience they can go right ahead but it's not how the developers designed the experience to be played in the first place.

Bluray players have an option to limit playback to 24fps for a more traditional cinematic feel for example for movies that were not shot at 24fps but faster like US soaps.

Oh god, it is wrong on so many levels.

Designers don't design game to be at 30fps. They just have to use 30fps, because of the hardware limitations, optimisation issues or just plain laziness.
There is no benefit to 30fps. There is not a single game where developers decided to go for 30, even if they could push to 60.
TLOU will be plain better in every single aspect at 30 FPS.

Retr0gamer

Well I don't see anything wrong with a 30fps option. It's an option so you don't have to use it and its there for the stubborn people that have convinced themselves that 30 FPS is better and they can play the game while being wrong

J_E

It's a cinematic experience. The game is telling a story and is as close to a film as it gets with gaming from a visual perspective.

Kirby

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Oh god, it is wrong on so many levels.

Designers don't design game to be at 30fps. They just have to use 30fps, because of the hardware limitations, optimisation issues or just plain laziness.
There is no benefit to 30fps. There is not a single game where developers decided to go for 30, even if they could push to 60.
TLOU will be plain better in every single aspect at 30 FPS.

I agree that some developers (the order 1886) come off as idiots when trying to explain 30 fps. It's usually a hardware deficiency. You are right.

But to say there is no benefit to 30 fps is just plain wrong. Go watch the Hobbit in 48 fps. You will have to endure a mediocre movie but it will enlighten you that more is not always better. It looks unnatural and odd. Most other movies operate at half the framerate and look much better.

kunst nugget

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Oh god, it is wrong on so many levels.

Designers don't design game to be at 30fps. They just have to use 30fps, because of the hardware limitations, optimisation issues or just plain laziness.
There is no benefit to 30fps. There is not a single game where developers decided to go for 30, even if they could push to 60.
TLOU will be plain better in every single aspect at 30 FPS.

There was a time when 8 bit was as powerful as it got and designers had to work within those limitation. Technology quickly moved on and that aesthetic became a thing of the past. But to this day people still use the art style, not because they have to but because they want to. Not necessarily saying that this is what's going to happen with 30fps but there are times where people make decisions on the art style not on what they can do but on what they want to do. Although any game at the moment that says they are using 30 fps because they are going for a certain aesthetic, like The Order, is going to be treated with suspicion.

Randall Floyd

kunst nugget wrote: »

There was a time when 8 bit was as powerful as it got and designers had to work within those limitation. Technology quickly moved on and that aesthetic became a thing of the past. But to this day people still use the art style, not because they have to but because they want to. Not necessarily saying that this is what's going to happen with 30fps but there are times where people make decisions on the art style not on what they can do but on what they want to do. Although any game at the moment that says they are using 30 fps because they are going for a certain aesthetic, like The Order, is going to be treated with suspicion.[/QUOTE]

That's what I thinking too, is the 30fps option there because the 60 is unreliable, I guess we'll have to wait and see some gameplay.

.ak

It only looks unnatural because your eyes aren't used it. It's like when Sony first brought out advanced digital motion on their TVs. We used to sell them in Peats and had a huge problem trying to shift them because people thought they looked weird. Now all TVs have it and most people are used to it.

ShadowHearth

Kirby wrote: »

I agree that some developers (the order 1886) come off as idiots when trying to explain 30 fps. It's usually a hardware deficiency. You are right.

But to say there is no benefit to 30 fps is just plain wrong. Go watch the Hobbit in 48 fps. You will have to endure a mediocre movie but it will enlighten you that more is not always better. It looks unnatural and odd. Most other movies operate at half the framerate and look much better.[/quote

We already discussed that movies and games fps works on your eyes differently. 48 fps sucks in movies, agreed. In games, it's more the better.

F1ngers

Randall Floyd wrote: »

That's what I thinking too, is the 30fps option there because the 60 is unreliable, I guess we'll have to wait and see some gameplay.

No, there is a tweet a little earlier to @yosp saying it's 60 fps, "solidly".

Riesen_Meal

F1ngers wrote: »

No, there is a tweet a little earlier to @yosp saying it's 60 fps, "solidly".

Yeah, will be solid, have a read of this :

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/07/16/feels-play-last-us-remastered-1080p60fps/

Retr0gamer

The only people ill believe about that are digital foundry.

johnny_ultimate

Could be like Mario Kart 8 and cheekily run at a miserable, unplayable 59 frames per second.

ONCE SEEN CANNOT BE UNSEEN

RobertFoster

No wonder Luigi's pissed.

Captain Chaos

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Oh god, it is wrong on so many levels.

Designers don't design game to be at 30fps. They just have to use 30fps, because of the hardware limitations, optimisation issues or just plain laziness.
There is no benefit to 30fps. There is not a single game where developers decided to go for 30, even if they could push to 60.
TLOU will be plain better in every single aspect at 30 FPS.

You should read the interview by ND developers on the issue. They didn't want to go to 60fps for the reasons I stated above that are "wrong" as you say. But when they saw it at 60 they became believers.

ShadowHearth

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You should read the interview by ND developers on the issue. They didn't want to go to 60fps for the reasons I stated above that are "wrong" as you say. But when they saw it at 60 they became believers.

So still the same issue and the same outcome: 30 fps sucks balls and 60 fps is always better.
Just because they though 30fps will suit better, as lower fps works for movies does not mean right. Everything is better with 60fps when it comes to games.

Even in that interview some people though that 30fps was part of design and part of why TLOU is a good game. They realised it was wrong and at least they had balls to admit it.
They did not go 60fps in the first place, because hardware was just not able. It looks a lot nicer from PR Point when you say: it's by choice, then: ancient hardware just can't do **** ( main sony developer at that too)

Retr0gamer

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You should read the interview by ND developers on the issue. They didn't want to go to 60fps for the reasons I stated above that are "wrong" as you say. But when they saw it at 60 they became believers.

I read more that the tech guys knew that 60 FPS was better, the more ignorant people on the team weren't convinced until they saw it.