Final Fantasy XIII would like to have a word.
[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles
- Thread starter Bigduo209
- Start date
Final Fantasy XIII would like to have a word.
FF XIII is better on Xbox.
If you like your game with half the pixels, half the frame rate and blurry video
You were supposed to ask "how?"
Third time in a row my FF XIII joke setup fails. I will stop trying.
If you can not see and process the visual cues then you get a very different game. Try playing BF3 att 100X100 res at 10 fps and see if you can execute the game mechanics.
You cannot separate the mechanics and the "execution", they are intrinsically linked.
I have to disagree. One of my friend plays FPS games (such as Counter-Strike) competitively. He was first in the line to buy a high frequency gaming mouse when those became available, and we he was first in the line to buy a 120 Hz monitor when they became available. Low latency is the most important thing in FPS gaming. It enables you to react fast, and aim fast/accurately. Competitive FPS gamers tend to reduce the resolution and game graphics settings until the game runs at stable 120 fps. I personally wouldn't even think about playing a FPS game at 30 fps, and that's why I don't play FPS games on consoles. It just feels wrong. I don't have the feeling of being in control. No wonder COD/MW is so popular (selling more than all the other FPS games combined), as it's the only console FPS that runs at 60 fps (albeit not a stable 60 fps all the time).
I personally applaud DICE about making a great choice. 60 fps is just so much better for FPS games. Game play should always be the priority no. 1.
You were supposed to ask "how?"
Third time in a row my FF XIII joke setup fails. I will stop trying.
Trying to joke in the same thread I am raging on people not getting the importance on frame rate is probably not a good idea
You are wrong here. Try playing the same type of game at different frame rates (I would recommend Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time and Full Frontal Assault/QForce). Then experience the difference in moving in the world and moving the camera.
A higher frame rate lets you move the "camera" faster without everything becoming blurry.
This is very much true for some game genres. Our physics based Trials game has always been running at locked 60 fps. We tested how the game plays at locked 30 fps, and it's just awful. It feels like you don't have control over the bike. You are always a bit too late in all your actions, and this leads to overcompensation when you try to balance yourself. Jumps are harder to time properly (and quick back-forward flicks sometimes do not even register properly). 60 fps is important for fast paced physics based games that are feedback (reaction) loops. You could do a game like this on 30 fps, but it should then run at much slower pace in order to be fun. But that change might damage the learning curve. Now players who have more than 1000 hours of play time are still (slowly) learning to be better. This is a really important thing for game longevity.
Fighting games' mechanics are equally affected by 60 fps (and the lack of it). Reaction time plays a key role here as well. Timing is another thing. Best players can time their inputs in a single frame precision (required for some advanced techniques). 30 fps would double the length of the frames, and thus make some techniques considerably easier to execute. There would also be likely problems in missing inputs (in some fast buffered sequences), if the controls are polled at 30 fps (the rate of the game play). Of course all these problems could be solved one way or another, and you could release a 30 fps fighting game. However a game tuned for 60 fps game play would not directly be perfect at 30 fps, unless all the necessary game play adjustments are made.
So how does that work with mice that are polled at up to 1,000 fps ?
You do not use a mouse to play fighting games.
Delta9 said:
So what?
Look at the prettiest games this generation.
NONE ARE NATIVE 1080p
We have a whole thread looking at that. There's a big difference between competitive gamers and Joe Gamer. If everyone playing Battlefields or any other online game is playing at 30 fps, there's no gameplay difference to them all playing at 60 fps. The issues one has with aiming or running or reacting are the same for everyone, in stark contrast to competitive gamers on PC.
I'm also making a clear distinction in use of the term 'gameplay' as...'ruleset' or mechanics which is what tuna said. It will be harder to aim, say, or reactions may be slowed at 30 fps, but the mechanics of how you move your pieces and what actions you execute remain the same. If one player would prefer higher resolution over higher framerate, surely that's a matter of subjective opinion rather than gameplay (game design, given tuna's point that designing for lower framerates means changing the game design)? Resolution and framerate are on a progressive sliding scale. You can have anything from 100x80 at 1000 fps to 4k at 1 fps. Surely a person's preference is entirely personal? I can imagine someone who likes a huge FOV may prefer resolution to spot distant snipers over framerate to react quickly, especially if they don't get the control feedback benefit that others feel from higher framerates. Not everyone is sensitive to higher resolutions, and not everyone is sensitive to higher framerates.
I'm pro 60 fps. I just fundamentally disagree that a lower framerate would change the game mechanics of Battlefield. Play testing will probably decide 60 fps feels better than 30 fps, but I seriously doubt the mechanics of moving, jumping, aiming and shooting are designed around an extra 17 ms per frame and fundamentally break at lower framerates. It's not like a fighting game where you have only 60 ms time to counter and 30 fps isn't enough. Closest Battlefields would get would be seeing a muzzle flash in the distance and ducking before the bullet hits your head, which is very much a fringe case.
Putting it another way, what game mechanics are going to different in a 60 fps Battlefield 4 over the current 30 fps Battlefield 3?
I disagree with Shifty's definition of game play and game mechanics. The mechanics are not just the "ruleset", it is the interactions between the player(s) and the game. You could have a board game version of BF3 and it would not in any way feel the same. Speed is a very important game attribute.
Until you reach the perception threshold everyone is sensitive to both these attributes.
I know, but controller polling issues arnt genre specific and can apply to other fast paced games, also usb polling doesnt just apply to the mouse
That's a discussion on semantics. Wikipedia has separate articles for gameplay and game mechanics, and I've read a little ludology material to have a different definition for both. But that matter can be comfortably ignored if we just address the subject from a different angle. Like I say, what would be different in the game by design in a 60 fps Battlefield versus the current 30 fps Battlefield? Will the game be tweaked to be more run-and-gun in close corridors where the higher framerate will have more over more measured and tactical progression along a street or field? (I haven't played BF BTW, so don't know what the gameplay is). Or will it remain the same troops, weapons, squad tactics and whatever?
Biologically, yes, but they might not care. I've know people see the same game at different framerates and not respond with a positive feeling as others of us do. I like the smoother framerate, but plenty of people really don't care. Unless you consider keenism a liar, he personally prefers higher screen resolution to higher framerate. That's personal preference and you can't argue against that. The only legitimate objective argument against higher resolution is one that 60 fps would change the nature of the game he'd play, and by aiming for 60 fps, BF4 will give him a better (different game) experience than targeting 30 fps. If the game mechanics (dual stick aim+shoot, run, duck, environmental damage, different weapon types, yada yada) are the same, and the only difference is resolution and framerate, and he prefers resolution over framerate, that objective argument fails.
Just out of interest,
pjbliverpool resurrected an old thread from the pc gaming forum about Max Payne 3 since he just started playing it.
Above his post is a post from me from 02-Jul-2012 in reply to the previous post about various max payne 3 directx versions comparisons and benchmarks
from the review webpage
my reply
pjbliverpool resurrected an old thread from the pc gaming forum about Max Payne 3 since he just started playing it.
Above his post is a post from me from 02-Jul-2012 in reply to the previous post about various max payne 3 directx versions comparisons and benchmarks
from the review webpage
my reply
