Games and 60 FPS : It's not all that good...
polycounter lvl 9
OK ok, risky thread here but a very interesting one if you think about it.
60 frame per second! Ha! The famous 60 frame per second that most PC gamers acknowledge daily in their games. The same thing can't be said for consoles users knowing that most games nowadays on consoles can't catch constant silky smooth 60 frame per seconds due to technical limitations. As a matter of fact, some people even think that 60 frame is useless since human eye can't see past 24 fps (which of course is bullshit, 24 fps has been used in cinema because that's where the motion is consistant enough ,otherwise, the human eyes will see the gap between images).
Now anyway, some poeple won't agree with me here but I think that games, or at least, the realistic one should keep their cinematics in 24 maybe 30 fps and keep the 60 frame thing only for gameplay. Often, I think that games cinematic in 60 fps always seems OFF for some reasons. Acknowledge it yourself with this 60 FPS test of MGS V ( Metal Gear Solid is a serie known for the excellent work on the cinematogaphic styles of cutscenes).
(YOUTUBE NOW SUPPORTS 60 FRAMES HD VIDEOS YAY!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4u-5And3lE
sOMEHOW, don't you think it looks off, like the whole aspect of the sequence has lot its credibility? Don't get me wrong, when it's gameplay time, the games should be playable in full 60 frame motion for a smoother gameplay experiences but why do developpers put their cinematic in 60 frames?
Another 60 frames vide, here, The last of us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0_sPL03z_0
Once again, it's all pretty smooth and nice looking, but then again, it feels too much like I'm looking at animated plastic polymeshes and not actual characters.
The ''plastic'' look is another 60 fps is to blame for. Since frame transition is twice smoother, it's easier to see the cut-transitions between animation loops, but also the mistakes and rigidity in the characters motion (since vido games animation quality is usually of lower quality thant Animation feauture films and CGI movies).
So to sum things, when I'm playing action, swifty games that require high framerates to be enojyable ( super smash, Jak and Daxter, Mario Kart, Conuter Strike), I don't mind the 60 frame but when we're talking about cinematographic games which focuses alot on realistically accurate visuals, I'm not sure if 60 frame is good thing.
What do you think?
BONUS vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zPm3SSj6W8 (prettyyy)
EDIT: If you think about it, the subject of my thread reminds me that the hoobit film was shot and presented in theaters in 48 fps instead of the usual 24. Alot of people felt it looked off (like if you were looking at a documentary), so the same thing applies here.
60 frame per second! Ha! The famous 60 frame per second that most PC gamers acknowledge daily in their games. The same thing can't be said for consoles users knowing that most games nowadays on consoles can't catch constant silky smooth 60 frame per seconds due to technical limitations. As a matter of fact, some people even think that 60 frame is useless since human eye can't see past 24 fps (which of course is bullshit, 24 fps has been used in cinema because that's where the motion is consistant enough ,otherwise, the human eyes will see the gap between images).
Now anyway, some poeple won't agree with me here but I think that games, or at least, the realistic one should keep their cinematics in 24 maybe 30 fps and keep the 60 frame thing only for gameplay. Often, I think that games cinematic in 60 fps always seems OFF for some reasons. Acknowledge it yourself with this 60 FPS test of MGS V ( Metal Gear Solid is a serie known for the excellent work on the cinematogaphic styles of cutscenes).
(YOUTUBE NOW SUPPORTS 60 FRAMES HD VIDEOS YAY!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4u-5And3lE
sOMEHOW, don't you think it looks off, like the whole aspect of the sequence has lot its credibility? Don't get me wrong, when it's gameplay time, the games should be playable in full 60 frame motion for a smoother gameplay experiences but why do developpers put their cinematic in 60 frames?
Another 60 frames vide, here, The last of us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0_sPL03z_0
Once again, it's all pretty smooth and nice looking, but then again, it feels too much like I'm looking at animated plastic polymeshes and not actual characters.
The ''plastic'' look is another 60 fps is to blame for. Since frame transition is twice smoother, it's easier to see the cut-transitions between animation loops, but also the mistakes and rigidity in the characters motion (since vido games animation quality is usually of lower quality thant Animation feauture films and CGI movies).
So to sum things, when I'm playing action, swifty games that require high framerates to be enojyable ( super smash, Jak and Daxter, Mario Kart, Conuter Strike), I don't mind the 60 frame but when we're talking about cinematographic games which focuses alot on realistically accurate visuals, I'm not sure if 60 frame is good thing.
What do you think?
BONUS vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zPm3SSj6W8 (prettyyy)
EDIT: If you think about it, the subject of my thread reminds me that the hoobit film was shot and presented in theaters in 48 fps instead of the usual 24. Alot of people felt it looked off (like if you were looking at a documentary), so the same thing applies here.
Replies
This is an opinion I guess but games are computer programs. You want them running fast. If you want to simulate how a movie looks maybe hit 60fps and then downsample, lol.
Controller responsiveness is much more noticeable in twitch based games, particularly FPS.
Killer Instinct @ 60 FPS
/End Thread.
That video speaks volumes on why 60 is important.
Give people 60 fps long enough and they will like it. And will notice how much crappy and jerky anything less actually is.
I feel that the next generation systems over promised their capability. And now developers are finding the real limitations. That they can't turn on all the eye candy and have 1080p 60fps.
Console games should come with high med low settings.
this is the problem, also we are used to seeing a certain amount of motion blur due to 24 fps tv and when games approximate that same amount of motion blur it seems more "believable". So what we are doing is playing to people preconceptions.
Same applies to camera effects like dirty lens and lens flare effects and chromatic abberation, if we do them to just the right amount it makes the game seem more real because we are faking old crappy tv camera effects that people already have a frame of reference for. Unfortunately in games we sometimes put too much of this stuff in haha then its just a spectacle and a bit distracting.
Maybe in 3 years when 60fps tv shows are more common then games at 60 fps will seem more "real". Hard to say.
Developers need to take note and stop saying 24fps looks cinematic, this is really stupid to say and everyone else knows it, this is a gimmick nobody wants, pc's are already hitting 4k and pc's will hit 4k with smooth 60fps and vr will change the face of many things, meanwhile consoles will be stuck backwards in the past again.
While I totally agree with you on what you call the "plastic" effect, I think you are misplacing the blame : 60fps doesn't cause it, but just merely reveals it. I actually think this is caused by *high* quality mocap animations being applied to very simply rigged meshes. This is especially obvious on the limbs of the characters in The Last of Us : the models look fantastic, the body animations are as realistic as it can possibly get, yet the pants legs and sleeves of the outfits do not show any trace of interaction with the dynamic bodies underneath. Very smooth motion and high framerate seem to make it very obvious : the characters appear to be carrying plastic casts of pieces of clothing.
Now of course I don't think it would be fair to expect a game like TLoU to go all out and waste resources on such a detail. The return on investment would be pretty minimal.
Regarding the added cinematic feel of 24 fps game cinematic sequences : I think this is only true when binge watching cinematics independently from gameplay. I personally have a very hard time when a game switches from 60 to 24 fps between gameplay and cinematics, as it totally gets me out of the experience. I also personally really like the look of MGSV cinematics at 60fps as this look goes very well with the hand-held feel of the sequences.
At the end of the day I am really happy that Youtube now has this option, as a lot of games will highly benefit from it from a marketing standpoint- especially smaller indie titles running silky smooth.
On a (barely related) side note, I would highly recommend anyone to watch District9 through a video player with solid framerate interpolation. Since most of the movie is a fake documentary, it looks absolutely fantastic at a higher framerate. Quite an unforgettable experience really.
(also : quite the click-bait thread title you have there man !)
Ask any Dark Souls player who switched from PS3 to PC to play the game and they will tell you how 60fps matters a lot.
If you think it looks weird or something means you just aren't used to it. There's absolutely nothing "natural" or "cinematic" about 30fps, because in games FPS don't work like in movies.
This. You send a command to a game 60 times a second not 30. Games look matters too. 60 fps is smoother and more pleasant to eyes.
The only reason we event discuss it is because developers recently try to bullshit people by saying that 30 fps is better. It's not. Done.
Also movies vs games discussion doesn't hold up. Movies can be displayed in 24 frames because they compansate in other ways (like motion blur).
anything else, STFU
I don't know many games with consistent 30fps on consoles. It's always something like 22-30.
I love quake 3 but I think we are talking about different things, how a game feels and how it looks are two different things. Ive played games that feel great and run at 60fps plus(quake3) and Ive played games that look awesome but play at about 30fps(battlefield 3) having a game that does both is like some mythical holy grail that most devs want but in my opinion wont likely be able to achieve on current hardware and still meet expectations.
[ame="
I personally prefer 60fps on both single and multi-player, and I wish games would stop trying to be film. We are bad at being films, lets just be great games.
There seem to be many games that look like last gen and run worse than current gen though.. but that's just my personal opinion.
yeah I see what you mean, I just think its hard for devs to meet "next gen graphics" expectations and still run at 60fps, but if people dont mind it looking a bit trimmed down then its not such an issue, I think most of the general gaming public wants to have thier cake and eat it though if you know what I mean.
He's talking about cinematics, in which you typically do not have control.
SO SMOOTH
regardless, as soon as the gameplay ends and the cutscene begins and you're shunted from 60fps down to 30 it's going to feel like your eyeballs have glue behind them or something
anyone should instantly be able to tell the difference
When you're aiming for a particular FPS output, your animation content is usually authored with that output in mind. If your content is authored with 30fps in mind and then suddenly you start outputting 60, of course you're going to start seeing jagged movements and notice actual animation keyframes.
comment and question.
i think both fame rates will "look' better when the video card and monitor sync.
anyone tried that new nvidia monitor? its supposed to sync the refresh of the monitor to the
out put of the card preventing tearing..
oculous question (i dont know much about it,)
doesn't each eye need to be at least 60? so like 120 fps? because we need to git rid of motion blur etc, to get to a better motion model..
have you seen what Tripwire Interactive has done with Killing Floor 2? They've mocapped the weapons and the animations are 120fps so even in slow motion you get smooth animation, it's basically gun porn
As the quality standard for games raises (which it does, every year) console developers are going to have to prioritize since console hardware sticks around for a very long time. Personally, I'd rather have a game that doesn't gain any gameplay benefit from 60 FPS to look up to standard and run at a solid 30 FPS.
There's also the fact that some developers tie gameplay to framerate. With CoD games for example, the game runs as it is supposed to when you get exactly 60 FPS but if you play on PC and average even slightly above that, it will result in you running and shooting slower than others in multiplayer.
Locked Frame rate > motion blur > 60fps > 30fps
Locked frame rate should always be the standard. Don't care if a game is 999fps but it jumps to 1fps the moment your character starts walking. I prefer consistency, even if it means 30fps.
Motion blur is next. The smearing between frames is the better key to realism.
Then it's 60fps.
No more no and no.
Motion blur is terrible unless it is from a camera.
Also locked frame rates I generally find are when the hardware is struggling to handle it I.E on console. On PC when there is a bad port from consoles it generally has a locked frame rate
60 fps> Motion blur with 60>locked frame rate>30 fps
Anyways, with some games i can't play at 120+ fps, but i have an average of 80-90 fps and i dislike 60hz monitors, A LOT. The difference between framerates is quite noticeable for me, and god.. my eyes are now happy, as happy as when i had a huge CRT@120mhz
If you want to add extra to it, most studio dev's who vouch for 30FPS, are the same people who say 1080p is not needed, when PC's are already moving towards 1440p. If these same developers and publishers put the ounce of effort they do in PR to promote the idea that 60FPS is bad, we would have better shadow system by now that didn't need hacky shaders to emulate SSS.
Also, since people mentioned Blur and stuff, yeaaah, about that, unless Blur has a gameplay reason to be put in the game (Alien Isolation) I don't think forcing it as a locked effect is logical idea at all, my eye's already do the blurring and doo hickeys better then your Screen Shaders can, just ask my team-mates in Dota 2 whenever I lack map awareness.
Also, if 60FPS is bad, then I would argue loads of other things are too. Ambient Occlusion in most games is a joke, a character standing in the middle of the room shouldn't be casting AO on the tree's outside, nor should it look like their armpits are oozing the ooze from Power Rangers movie. Were are the complaints about that?
Overall, good game, but lacks polish. 2/10 ~ IGN
my main point is that if you want a filmic look shoot for 60fps and add motion blur, don't shoot for 24fps.
[ame="
SVP provides GPU acceleration and allows to watch FullHD 1080p-video recalculated to 60Hz in real-time using a mid-range CPU and almost any GPU hardware.
So you can.