Um, 60fps vs 30fps, for me is very noticeable. On tv or not.
Am. Football games 2008 PS3/X360
- Thread starter Tap In
- Start date
Um, 60fps vs 30fps, for me is very noticeable. On tv or not.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
It has a big impact on control and responsiveness.
2 year old hardware!//joke
It's a joke that has the bitterness of reality to it. I can't help but suspect that Sony went with nVidia based on reputation/perception instead of an objective technical assessment of deliverables. ATI was also vying hard for Sony's business at the time, and would have tendered a proposal or two, but ATI was this scrappy Canadian company while nVidia had Silicon Valley sheen all over it.
I'm not saying good results can't be achieved with RSX, but it's just so boring for a console (i.e. closed-box) GPU. It's like throwing an automatic transmission into an exotic supercar.
(I'm also not suggesting that RSX is to blame for the 30fps/60fps fiasco on the current crop of football titles. I'm just commenting on the blandness of RSX in the general.)
download 720p 30/60fps (Madden PS3/X360) version
be sure to stop the vid and download the WMV or MOV files on the right side.
might it be that the PS3 textures are not as crisp either? seeing it at 720...
also just a refresher from one of Joker's posts in this thread.
be sure to stop the vid and download the WMV or MOV files on the right side.
might it be that the PS3 textures are not as crisp either? seeing it at 720...
also just a refresher from one of Joker's posts in this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
This makes it even more remarkable that the PS3 version isn't up to par.
Doesn't that somewhat depend on whether or not the control itself is also 30fps? I thought that the days of having the whole game clock linked to the fps were over, and we can have several aspects of the game at higher clocks (for instance, reading the controller).
Of course I don't put it past EA to not use such 'advanced' tech.
There was a video interview somewhere recently with Phil's reaction to this whole 30fps thing, and you could see his contempt and anger for EA ...
I heard that this guy (nathken) at GAF is a multiplatform developer and he says that 360's GPU advantage is the main reason games look better on it.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6727475#post6727475
he seems to believe that in reality (at least for mutliplatform games) the 360's gpu is superior but he doesn't seem to know much about using the CELL for graphics purposes.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6727475#post6727475
he seems to believe that in reality (at least for mutliplatform games) the 360's gpu is superior but he doesn't seem to know much about using the CELL for graphics purposes.
I just think of the big words that EA initially had about having a dedicated team for the PS3 platform. I'd be interested to know how many of those have been temporarily reassigned to other projects when the PS3's release was delayed. I seem to remember that EA publicly said they expected the delay, and therefore I really wouldn't be surprised if they basically just rescheduled their development resources accordingly.
It's purely a action->visualisation->action feedback latency issue.
30 fps equals 33.3ms per frame. 60 fps equals 16.6ms per frame. That's 16.6ms lower average latency from your input to seing the consequence of your action on screen.
For normal (casual) gamers it won't make much a difference, but for competitive gamers it will. As an example just try playing Forza vs Forza 2. Physics aside Forza 2 plays so much better than Forza thanks to the full framerate.
Cheers
Independent of whether 60 fps is necessary or not, there is no denying that 360 version is pushing at least twice more, that is something very positive for 360 hardware.
That said, the slowed down portions of the comparison video are highly inaccurate.
For example at 50% speed, the 360 version is still at 60fps for which the additional frames are interpolated.
That makes for each 4 successive frames, there are two real (and unique) frames and two interpolated ones properly interlaced, making a total of 4 unique frames.
The PS3 version however has 2 duplicates frames (being 30 fps originally and captured at 60 fps) and two interpolated ones. Naturally interpolation between two duplicate frames is same as the original two, making three successive identical frames followed by an interpolated one.
So in addition to irregular frame advancing on PS3 portion, the 360 version looks like three times faster (well, at least for the duration of three duplicate frames on PS3 version).
They should have duplicated all the missing frames instead of interpolation.
That said, the slowed down portions of the comparison video are highly inaccurate.
For example at 50% speed, the 360 version is still at 60fps for which the additional frames are interpolated.
That makes for each 4 successive frames, there are two real (and unique) frames and two interpolated ones properly interlaced, making a total of 4 unique frames.
The PS3 version however has 2 duplicates frames (being 30 fps originally and captured at 60 fps) and two interpolated ones. Naturally interpolation between two duplicate frames is same as the original two, making three successive identical frames followed by an interpolated one.
So in addition to irregular frame advancing on PS3 portion, the 360 version looks like three times faster (well, at least for the duration of three duplicate frames on PS3 version).
They should have duplicated all the missing frames instead of interpolation.
The PS3 version doesn't even seem to run at 30fps, more like 25fps... huh.
360 version doesn't seem to run steady either
2 year old hardware!
more like 4 year old judging by madden
With that said, 60 fps still doesn't make Madden a good game.
I have been enjoying 2K8 a great deal. I like the player system, and the team creation aspect. Its a great tiered system, and it leads to some interesting team building. I like the fact that you don't have a team full of superstars but also have some regular guys on your team as well.
Controls are very responsive Compared to Madden, you don't have the sluggishness while making your moves.
I thought the kicking game was a little wonky at first but just took a tad getting used to. I can't seem to get a kickoff in the endzone, but I don't ever recall having a starred kicker.
If I didn't know any better, I would of guessed this came out on xbox/PS2 graphics wise. Some of the stadiums are kinda cool, but who really cares? I miss the ESPN interface that 2K NAILED.
Glad to see 2K back in the football game. Madden had reached unplayable status for me, and it's nice to shed some tacklers with Barry. Heres to hoping NFL doesn't renew with EA!
I have been enjoying 2K8 a great deal. I like the player system, and the team creation aspect. Its a great tiered system, and it leads to some interesting team building. I like the fact that you don't have a team full of superstars but also have some regular guys on your team as well.
Controls are very responsive Compared to Madden, you don't have the sluggishness while making your moves.
I thought the kicking game was a little wonky at first but just took a tad getting used to. I can't seem to get a kickoff in the endzone, but I don't ever recall having a starred kicker.
If I didn't know any better, I would of guessed this came out on xbox/PS2 graphics wise. Some of the stadiums are kinda cool, but who really cares? I miss the ESPN interface that 2K NAILED.
Glad to see 2K back in the football game. Madden had reached unplayable status for me, and it's nice to shed some tacklers with Barry. Heres to hoping NFL doesn't renew with EA!
We're talking about EA.
Where have EA, especially in sports games, demonstrated graphics prowess?
Sony's first-party quickly put together a baseball game and released the first version at 60 fps. That game is the toast of hardcore sports gamers. The graphics could be better in MLB 07 The Show but Madden graphics are no better.
Oh and someone brought up NBA 07 running at 1080p60. As pointed out, indoor games are not as demanding as outdoor games. Well no other NBA or NHL games for that matter run at 60 fps yet on any console.
It should also be noted that NONE of EA's games ran at 60 fps on the PS2/Xbox era. I don't even think EA games ran at 30 fps locked either. But the MLB series ran at 60 fps for at least the last two PS2 releases. The simple fact of the matter is that EA never prioritized 60 fps before.
So again, don't judge the capabilities of a platform, even multiplatform games, by what EA does. They've never shown that they want to push graphics or technology (no next gen physics yet) and they've haven't needed to be cause despite the technological mediocrity of their games, they have huge sales.
So why did they go 60 fps out of the blue? If they stayed at 30 fps, their sales wouldn't have been affected. Perhaps one way to look at it is that they've now set expectations of 60 fps on their football games for the rest of this generation. That would mean we can probably forget about better graphics, such as those hinted at in the concept video commercial and the screens they circulated before they released Madden 06 on the X360.
Also like I said, they have some financial incentives to promote the X360 SKU. Beyond possible co-op advertising, they are also doing an in-game ad deal with Microsoft-owned Massive for the X360 SKU this year.
"We're talking about EA"
We're also talking about 2K sports, as they could only get the PS3 version of APF 2K8 to run at 30FPS as opposed to 60FPS on the 360.
We are seeing some very definite trends, of games getting delayed on the PS3, games running worse on the PS3 then the same game on the 360 and developers complaining about the problems developing on the PS3. It's not like this is an isolated incident.
We're also talking about 2K sports, as they could only get the PS3 version of APF 2K8 to run at 30FPS as opposed to 60FPS on the 360.
We are seeing some very definite trends, of games getting delayed on the PS3, games running worse on the PS3 then the same game on the 360 and developers complaining about the problems developing on the PS3. It's not like this is an isolated incident.
Are you disagreeing with the IMHO basic fact that it is easier to get a low-tech, non-demanding, basic and ugly renderer equally well running on two platforms, than it is to port well a honed, state-of-the-art renderer?
2K games isn't much better on tech either, compared to other games.
NBA2K7 got great reviews for gameplay but it was 30fps, while Sony's NBA game was 1080p60.
APF2K8 I haven't tried out. But some people are disappointed that they didn't use Morphine or Endorphin (whichever one that Take Two licensed).
NBA2K7 got great reviews for gameplay but it was 30fps, while Sony's NBA game was 1080p60.
APF2K8 I haven't tried out. But some people are disappointed that they didn't use Morphine or Endorphin (whichever one that Take Two licensed).
May be easier but like I said, EA hasn't demonstrated a desire to push either fps or rendering.
So it's a question of whether they want to. Sales are there for them no matter how much or how little they push their graphics.
So no economic incentive and it doesn't seem they care enough to push the technology either.
So you think the Xbox 360 version got running at 60 fps all by itself?
That a game developed with equal lack of desire for both platforms (because "they have the sales no matter what they do"?) gets running at 30 fps on the PS3 and at 60 fps?
