For those who don't want to click the link, it's talk about the Hobbit the issue of progressive frames vs. old school 24 with and without motion blur, here is the image:
I think the image gives the idea on why all this talk about 'cinematic' feel is malarkey, you still need to put in effort to make it look good, especially for a game, where the hardware isn't a camera and never advertised as one.
People are working with extremely limited memory on consoles, and I can understand they where they are coming from (512MB memory ain't easy), but to outright play and make excuses on a pseudo-technical level is just down right silly.
It's pretty simple
Film is 24 frames per second, that's the way it's been,...
...
The claim that 30 fps is cinematic is bullshit. there are no films at 30 fps. It's a scapegoat for companies because the hardware they're partnered with is weak.
Arent you contradicting yourself...you just said 24fps is the cinematic standard and then you say "there are no films at 30fps". 30 is pretty close to 24 so its pretty close to the cinematic standard so people can cram more beautiful graphics in a game at the expense of framerate and still have a cinematic game, if thats what the games art direction requires. So yes it is a matter of choice, a balance of gameplay smoothness versus graphic quality.
On a barely related note, I don't know about you all, but I personally can't help it : every time I play or even watch a game running at 60fps it triggers a nice, pleasurable feeling. Even after years of gaming it still happens every time, which is great !
It must be something about the excitement of playing a game with tight controls and precise gameplay, combined with the sweet memory of marveling at Dreamcast and arcade games running silky smooth back in the days. I remember playing Quake for the first time on my cousin's PC and enjoying just staring at a corridor corner because the game ran much more smoothly there.
At the end of the day I feel kind of bad for next-gen console owners who cannot experience that soothing feeling consistently. The framerate of a console game is actually one of the deciding buying factors for me (don't blame me - I am one of these guys who react to this kind of stuff a lot, to a point where some movies are actually hard to watch when they pan/flicker too much), and it's pretty awesome to see that many (if not all ?) first party WiiU games stick to a high standard in that regard. By comparison it does make most PS4 and XBox1 games look quite obsolete ...
in cinema, the reason 3d need motion blur because they need to be consistent . with the cinematic and live footage counterpart . otherwise you can tell pretty clear .. oh its 3d ...
motion blur DOES exist in real world. dont tell me its not realistic .
try to move your hand really fast you can see motion blur
try to burn a stick of wood , and move it really fast, and yes thats a trail of light , it is a motion blur in action ..,
maybe the reason people hate motion blur in games, mostly because of really bad frame rate, ( under 30 fps)
it is overly boosted . ( some recent racing game over did it ) also in several build in UDK
and doesnt behave like in 3d space motion blur ( ex : screen spaced ) ...
One very legitimate reason to dislike motion blur in games is its very nature : full screen motion blur requires interpolation between multiple motion states, meaning that the effect basically comes bundled with input or display lag ...
Now of course there are different clever ways of achieving it, but this is all expensive stuff, most likely hard to pull off under a 60th of a second.
This is so much nicer anyways (and lag-free !) :
when im loooking at 25 fps ball moving, I would choose without motion blur at anytime , when it comes to 60 fps , slight motion blur somehow became natural.
It is if the game can't maintain 60. A consistent 30 is better than a jumpy 60.
That's a good point--the drops/peaks probably hurt a player's performance much more than lower-but-constant...but there's a reason competitive FPS players used to turn off all the bells-and-whistles to maximize framerate--30fps dances really close to the line of affecting a player's skill.
I was showing off a shooter at a tradeshow, and had two machines: one was hitting 100fps, another was a much less beefy machine and only hit 24-26. Neither had much in the way of drops/peaks but at the end of the day I could see the stats on both machines: the players seemed to "win" the demo MUCH more often on the 100+fps machine.
Now, that experiment wasn't super scientific..and whether the 100fps machine won out because players were able to "play better" or because they simply "enjoyed" the higher FPS more (and didn't quit/abandon it) I can't say...but that 100fps machine had SOME sort of definite advantage.
As for that Lord of the rings video, it wasn't shot in 60fps so it's pointless.
That's not completely true. The camera panning is so much smoother at 60 hz, I haven't read enough about the software but it must do a good job of tracking the tracking the camera and movement of specific areas of the screen.
My only point is 60 FPS didn't make that trailer any less cinematic.
I'm really starting to hate 24 fps in movies, any panning shot that is over 1 second looks horribly choppy, any long and consistent movements too. I think that's why a lot of fast action scenes change cameras a lot. Other wise the quick motions would look choppy.
Arguing that 30 fps is needed to fix the plasticky look of game graphics is kinda similar to arguing that you need film grain, dirty lens effects, chromatic abberation etc to achieve more realistic graphics.
I feel like these are all band aid fixes that are missing the actual issues with game graphics, which are mainly primitive surface shading, simplified lighting and material interaction, stiff animation (especially on cloth), or just bad art . The list goes on. Graphics are getting better, but we still have a long way to go .
And yeah I'm with Pior about 60 fps giving me that "feeling". Something about the increase in clarity of a smooth framerate gives a very pleasant feeling. I remember playing half life on my crappy pc back in the day, running at 20-30 fps, then my dad got a new pc and seeing it run at a smooth 60fps was just mindblowing, it looked so real! Even though if you compared screenshots it would look pretty much identical.
Honestly for films i really prefer the 24 / 30 look. 60 just looks too natural and almost ugly...The Hobbit in 60 fps was awful...and that was not JUST the movie (eventhough the movie was horrible).
Honestly for films i really prefer the 24 / 30 look. 60 just looks too natural and almost ugly...The Hobbit in 60 fps was awful...and that was not JUST the movie (eventhough the movie was horrible).
Hobbit is 48, not 60... FYI.
And actually i found the 48fps experience to be way better than the 24fps. I saw both.
I remember V-Sync on my good old 100 HZ CAD CRT screen how wonderful that was, so yeah 60 fps or more very appreciated thank you very much. And push A-Sync please another step forward.
funny story about Quake (well, actually Quake3: Arena)... My kids bet me they could kick my ass at any shooter i chose.
so i chose quake 3, and annihilated them. they're too used to modern shooters with aim helpers, slow gameplay and "vertical progression" rewards for playing for a long time (ie: better guns just for playing).
funny story about Quake (well, actually Quake3: Arena)... My kids bet me they could kick my ass at any shooter i chose.
so i chose quake 3, and annihilated them. they're too used to modern shooters with aim helpers, slow gameplay and "vertical progression" rewards for playing for a long time (ie: better guns just for playing).
I hear a lot of people, especially old grumpy type of gaming reviewers (Ben Yatzhee of Zero Punctuation for example) bashing Quake 3 and iam feeling like absolutly baffled by that. Come on Q3, for me, is THE arena shooter. Yeah iam not old enough to have played Q2 but Q3 came right around when i was 15 or something and i freaking loved it.
But hey iam one of the few who still prefer TFC over TF2 just for the chaos the grenades added.
I too remember 125 FPS being a magical number in quake 3, and only now was I curious enough to google why.
Apparently in q3 (but not Quake Live) the physics engine was framerate-dependent and due to the way it calculated gravity and movement, having certain framerates actually provided an advantage to movement and jumping.
I hear a lot of people, especially old grumpy type of gaming reviewers (Ben Yatzhee of Zero Punctuation for example) bashing Quake 3 and iam feeling like absolutly baffled by that. Come on Q3, for me, is THE arena shooter. Yeah iam not old enough to have played Q2 but Q3 came right around when i was 15 or something and i freaking loved it.
But hey iam one of the few who still prefer TFC over TF2 just for the chaos the grenades added.
Well the choas the nades added and some crazy jumps and moves everyone could do with concussion jumps and bunny hopping.
What's wrong with a reviewer not enjoying a certain kind of games ? Everybody has different tastes and that's fine ... Yatzhee doesn't *hate* multiplayer FPSs, he simply seems to enjoy games with a strong single player narrative ... and it just so happens that games with both a campaign and a multiplayer mode tend to always follow the same tired formula for the campaign. In itself there is nothing wrong with that, but it is totally fair for someone to be unimpressed by this.
Plus I don't remember Yatzhee bashing on Q3A in the first place ... When did that happen ? I'd actually love to hear his reasons, as they must be well-informed.
There's no way to be completely objective, story is a matter of taste, art aesthetic is a matter of taste, people have gameplay preferences, etc. I follow particular reviewers because I know their preferences, and if they don't like a genre as much as I do, I still can tell if I will like a game based off how they talk about and review a game.
Hehe yeah - I am personally much more interested in reviews by people with strong individual tastes than in the cookie-cutter style of reviews made by IGN or Gametrailers. I don't want objectivity, I want passion and excitement
Yeah I'd much rather have an opinionated asshole review a game if the speak well, avoid buzz words and marketing bs, and can really break down a game to it's fundamentals.
I find it funny that people think they can objectively review a piece of art. The person experiencing the game will always bring along their bias and experiences. Reviews/Let'sPlayers should embrace this and not try to sterilize their reviews. I want to know what the game made the person feel, I want to know why the felt it, and like Pior said, I want them passionate about that. Through their writing I should be able to extrapolate how I feel about a game.
I feel this 'I want objective game reviews" comes from people inner most desire to have their views legitimized, rather that to have 'unbiased' reviews.
Example of objective game review below:
"A white man has a gun."
"He is seeking vengeance."
"He shoots things with the right trigger."
"There are Quick Time Events."
"The resolution is at 1080p."
9/10
What's wrong with a reviewer not enjoying a certain kind of games ? Everybody has different tastes and that's fine ... Yatzhee doesn't *hate* multiplayer FPSs, he simply seems to enjoy games with a strong single player narrative ... and it just so happens that games with both a campaign and a multiplayer mode tend to always follow the same tired formula for the campaign. In itself there is nothing wrong with that, but it is totally fair for someone to be unimpressed by this.
Plus I don't remember Yatzhee bashing on Q3A in the first place ... When did that happen ? I'd actually love to hear his reasons, as they must be well-informed.
Objective reviewing is still possible to a certain extent honestly, just to give an example, lets talk about side scrolling games, there are 2 kinds, fast paced and slow paced (ei: old school).
Many of the slow paced side scrollers tend to do the animation-follow upon your attacks, meaning you cannot break out of them once executed at the initial cast point, usually to balance this, the animations tend to be jabby, fast, and have very few frames in between points.
So if you character does a combo that ends up with them spinning in the air, you cannot cancel the process, unless you cancel the combo before the next animation starts, there is no break, you have to think before hand to cancel the combo itself (different fight games do their own version of this tech). It works, because the game is slow paced enough and telegraphed that it suits it well.
This system is very sticky, and absolutely terrible for faster paced side scroller games, if you have game, in which you have 10 ninja's who can 3 hit you flying all over the screen, having a flashy-sticky combat system is literally a death sentence to your user.
A more recent example is Dark Souls, imagine if the game had to play out every section of the animation on your moves fully, before allowing your dodge, roll or raise your shield, even if you held a tiny knife, how silly would that be? How hellish would it be is Dark Souls used sticky animation for every part of the game, locking you in cast points of your animation? There is no opinion in here, it would be terrible design if the environment isn't compensated for it.
Art-style may be up to debate, but lets be honest, bad camera's are bad, bad audio is bad, bad textures are bad, and bad cell-shading is bad, not everything is subjective, we're not living in a world created by Soren Kierkegaard.
A more recent example is Dark Souls, imagine if the game had to play out every section of the animation on your moves fully, before allowing your dodge, roll or raise your shield, even if you held a tiny knife, how silly would that be? How hellish would it be is Dark Souls used sticky animation for every part of the game, locking you in cast points of your animation? There is no opinion in here, it would be terrible design if the environment isn't compensated for it.
this is completely off-topic, but this is exactly the way darksouls works... thats one of the reasons why the game is so hard.
I personally WANT a game reviewer to review a game based on his/her tastes and tell me why rather than trying to review a game for everyone..
For me that defeats the whole reason for reviewing a game!
Might as well just say "yeah it looks and sounds pretty, controls are solid and its not riddled with bugs.. end of review."
Over the years I have learned which reviewers have similar tastes as I do, by you know.. Reading their reviews.
This makes their reviews more relatable for me and I´m more likely to actually believe what they are saying rather than some random guy dancing in the grey area of blandness and reviewing a game based on what I said in the beginning.
Complaining that a reviewer actually does his job and reviews a game based on opinion, experience and his own point of view is just downright idiotic to me.
If every reviewer approached every game on the same basis, we would only need one review per game.
"Looks pretty, plays pretty good, did not crash too much and the controls were decent.. 8/10"..
GameInformer, or some other game related mag, specifically did that Gusti. It had 3 reviewers per game at the end of the magazine, called something like "Flash Review", where it took 3 people with 3 different tastes, and had them review 3 different games (I don't think the same people reviewed all 3 games, just 3 people per game).
The same game got all the way from 3.5 to 9.0 score from 3 different people, and they also specifically cited what this person liked and what they have in terms of personal taste in gaming. It was fun to read why and FPS lover didn't enjoy DoW or vice versa.
Sadly, I cannot find any reference to this method of reviewing or if they keep on doing it, but I remember liking it because that was the first time I had a point to relate from, in which opinion was bench-marked on background, rather then single opinion.
Replies
http://blog.unionfilms.org/2012/12/23/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-a-technical-review/
For those who don't want to click the link, it's talk about the Hobbit the issue of progressive frames vs. old school 24 with and without motion blur, here is the image:
I think the image gives the idea on why all this talk about 'cinematic' feel is malarkey, you still need to put in effort to make it look good, especially for a game, where the hardware isn't a camera and never advertised as one.
People are working with extremely limited memory on consoles, and I can understand they where they are coming from (512MB memory ain't easy), but to outright play and make excuses on a pseudo-technical level is just down right silly.
Arent you contradicting yourself...you just said 24fps is the cinematic standard and then you say "there are no films at 30fps". 30 is pretty close to 24 so its pretty close to the cinematic standard so people can cram more beautiful graphics in a game at the expense of framerate and still have a cinematic game, if thats what the games art direction requires. So yes it is a matter of choice, a balance of gameplay smoothness versus graphic quality.
It must be something about the excitement of playing a game with tight controls and precise gameplay, combined with the sweet memory of marveling at Dreamcast and arcade games running silky smooth back in the days. I remember playing Quake for the first time on my cousin's PC and enjoying just staring at a corridor corner because the game ran much more smoothly there.
At the end of the day I feel kind of bad for next-gen console owners who cannot experience that soothing feeling consistently. The framerate of a console game is actually one of the deciding buying factors for me (don't blame me - I am one of these guys who react to this kind of stuff a lot, to a point where some movies are actually hard to watch when they pan/flicker too much), and it's pretty awesome to see that many (if not all ?) first party WiiU games stick to a high standard in that regard. By comparison it does make most PS4 and XBox1 games look quite obsolete ...
motion blur DOES exist in real world. dont tell me its not realistic .
try to move your hand really fast you can see motion blur
try to burn a stick of wood , and move it really fast, and yes thats a trail of light , it is a motion blur in action ..,
maybe the reason people hate motion blur in games, mostly because of really bad frame rate, ( under 30 fps)
it is overly boosted . ( some recent racing game over did it
and doesnt behave like in 3d space motion blur ( ex : screen spaced ) ...
Now of course there are different clever ways of achieving it, but this is all expensive stuff, most likely hard to pull off under a 60th of a second.
This is so much nicer anyways (and lag-free !) :
I found a comparison . 15/30/60 with and without motion blur , + really bad exaggeration example
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
( unfortunately no example for 3d motion blur )
when im loooking at 25 fps ball moving, I would choose without motion blur at anytime , when it comes to 60 fps , slight motion blur somehow became natural.
That's a good point--the drops/peaks probably hurt a player's performance much more than lower-but-constant...but there's a reason competitive FPS players used to turn off all the bells-and-whistles to maximize framerate--30fps dances really close to the line of affecting a player's skill.
I was showing off a shooter at a tradeshow, and had two machines: one was hitting 100fps, another was a much less beefy machine and only hit 24-26. Neither had much in the way of drops/peaks but at the end of the day I could see the stats on both machines: the players seemed to "win" the demo MUCH more often on the 100+fps machine.
Now, that experiment wasn't super scientific..and whether the 100fps machine won out because players were able to "play better" or because they simply "enjoyed" the higher FPS more (and didn't quit/abandon it) I can't say...but that 100fps machine had SOME sort of definite advantage.
That's not completely true. The camera panning is so much smoother at 60 hz, I haven't read enough about the software but it must do a good job of tracking the tracking the camera and movement of specific areas of the screen.
My only point is 60 FPS didn't make that trailer any less cinematic.
I'm really starting to hate 24 fps in movies, any panning shot that is over 1 second looks horribly choppy, any long and consistent movements too. I think that's why a lot of fast action scenes change cameras a lot. Other wise the quick motions would look choppy.
http://www.svp-team.com/
hope it helps
Some LG, Sony TVs includes this cheap "technology", so you will end enjoying your BDs much more.
I feel like these are all band aid fixes that are missing the actual issues with game graphics, which are mainly primitive surface shading, simplified lighting and material interaction, stiff animation (especially on cloth), or just bad art
And yeah I'm with Pior about 60 fps giving me that "feeling". Something about the increase in clarity of a smooth framerate gives a very pleasant feeling. I remember playing half life on my crappy pc back in the day, running at 20-30 fps, then my dad got a new pc and seeing it run at a smooth 60fps was just mindblowing, it looked so real! Even though if you compared screenshots it would look pretty much identical.
Hobbit is 48, not 60... FYI.
And actually i found the 48fps experience to be way better than the 24fps. I saw both.
Sorry yeah 48 fps.
so i chose quake 3, and annihilated them. they're too used to modern shooters with aim helpers, slow gameplay and "vertical progression" rewards for playing for a long time (ie: better guns just for playing).
fuck i love quake.
that was a great game
But hey iam one of the few who still prefer TFC over TF2 just for the chaos the grenades added.
Apparently in q3 (but not Quake Live) the physics engine was framerate-dependent and due to the way it calculated gravity and movement, having certain framerates actually provided an advantage to movement and jumping.
Source
Well the choas the nades added and some crazy jumps and moves everyone could do with concussion jumps and bunny hopping.
Plus I don't remember Yatzhee bashing on Q3A in the first place ... When did that happen ? I'd actually love to hear his reasons, as they must be well-informed.
I feel this 'I want objective game reviews" comes from people inner most desire to have their views legitimized, rather that to have 'unbiased' reviews.
Example of objective game review below:
"A white man has a gun."
"He is seeking vengeance."
"He shoots things with the right trigger."
"There are Quick Time Events."
"The resolution is at 1080p."
9/10
/offtopicrant
It's in the Rage Review.
Many of the slow paced side scrollers tend to do the animation-follow upon your attacks, meaning you cannot break out of them once executed at the initial cast point, usually to balance this, the animations tend to be jabby, fast, and have very few frames in between points.
So if you character does a combo that ends up with them spinning in the air, you cannot cancel the process, unless you cancel the combo before the next animation starts, there is no break, you have to think before hand to cancel the combo itself (different fight games do their own version of this tech). It works, because the game is slow paced enough and telegraphed that it suits it well.
This system is very sticky, and absolutely terrible for faster paced side scroller games, if you have game, in which you have 10 ninja's who can 3 hit you flying all over the screen, having a flashy-sticky combat system is literally a death sentence to your user.
A more recent example is Dark Souls, imagine if the game had to play out every section of the animation on your moves fully, before allowing your dodge, roll or raise your shield, even if you held a tiny knife, how silly would that be? How hellish would it be is Dark Souls used sticky animation for every part of the game, locking you in cast points of your animation? There is no opinion in here, it would be terrible design if the environment isn't compensated for it.
Art-style may be up to debate, but lets be honest, bad camera's are bad, bad audio is bad, bad textures are bad, and bad cell-shading is bad, not everything is subjective, we're not living in a world created by Soren Kierkegaard.
this is completely off-topic, but this is exactly the way darksouls works... thats one of the reasons why the game is so hard.
For me that defeats the whole reason for reviewing a game!
Might as well just say "yeah it looks and sounds pretty, controls are solid and its not riddled with bugs.. end of review."
Over the years I have learned which reviewers have similar tastes as I do, by you know.. Reading their reviews.
This makes their reviews more relatable for me and I´m more likely to actually believe what they are saying rather than some random guy dancing in the grey area of blandness and reviewing a game based on what I said in the beginning.
Complaining that a reviewer actually does his job and reviews a game based on opinion, experience and his own point of view is just downright idiotic to me.
If every reviewer approached every game on the same basis, we would only need one review per game.
"Looks pretty, plays pretty good, did not crash too much and the controls were decent.. 8/10"..
The same game got all the way from 3.5 to 9.0 score from 3 different people, and they also specifically cited what this person liked and what they have in terms of personal taste in gaming. It was fun to read why and FPS lover didn't enjoy DoW or vice versa.
Sadly, I cannot find any reference to this method of reviewing or if they keep on doing it, but I remember liking it because that was the first time I had a point to relate from, in which opinion was bench-marked on background, rather then single opinion.