Importance of 60 fps in arcade/simulation racers *spawn
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
I find these arguments rather sad to be honest. As if Eye-candy is all that ever counts. Just take the Xbox-One vs. PS4 as an example. The Xbox One has around 2/3 the amount of processing ability that the PS4 has. Has this stopped anyone buying or playing Xbox One games? No. Have the games looked *this* much better? Arguably - but arguably not. The 1/3rd of a difference is visible in perhaps resolution, in some parts perhaps framerates, shader/texturing here and there or a combination of all this.
I'm willing to bet DriveClub would still look half as impressive if they had made 60fps a priority but were willing to sacrifice perhaps part of the resolution to the point any Xbox One owner is currently "happy with" in various multiplatform games where PS4 retains the full 1080p res.
The PS4 has the performance advantage, so a game striving for 60fps with perhaps a few compromises in resolution and anything other would still look well accoarding to what we expect from this generation from a visual "eye candy" point of view.
Your description of baked lighting, static/sprite crowds, average scenery, limited AA and low textures sounds as if any game that strived for 60fps would look like a PS3 game. It wouldn't. Just not as good as it does now, but if the slightly less pretty game we got and ever saw at 60fps is what we knew, no one would be begging for "more" and everyone would be appreciating with absolute certainty, the much better gameplay.
I thought that pushing a game to 60fps, especially a racing game with relatively complex physics simulations - which I have no idea whether Driveclub has or not - is not only a challenge for graphics but also those physics simulations needing to happen pretty darn quickly. As well as potentially demanding gameplay elements (online?).
Maybe it's not all about the graphics? Not sure about the innards of the game so I'm speaking hypothetically. Just putting it out there, maybe they weren't GPU bound after all.
Maybe it's not all about the graphics? Not sure about the innards of the game so I'm speaking hypothetically. Just putting it out there, maybe they weren't GPU bound after all.
No you are right. It's not a simple "half resolution to achieve double framerate". Where the bottlenecks are/would be in this game, is of course mere speculation. In order to achieve a better framerate though, something's got to give, and looking at how good DriveClub looks, one can only assume large part of that must be in the graphics department. I am also assuming that somewhere along the line, 60fps was an option, if only a unlikely best-case scenario.
Given it's their first game on PS4 - one that is widely used by the PS4 PR department to show cast it as a killer app, I also wouldn't be surprised if the game has been given so much focus, that there's no way they can back down on what they have shown (visually) so far.
My point was more directed as those that would always gladly subsitute framerate for even more eye-candy. We already have two current gen consoles with a performance difference. To suggest the games are better on PS4 because they offer higher resolution or slightly better graphics is IMO quite absurd. Take Fusion Trials - 900p (I think) on the Xbox One - 1080p on the PS4. Both rock solid 60fps. I would think both games are just as fun, addictive, - an amazing achievement visually and especially from a gameplay perspective, to equal terms on both consoles - despite the resolution difference. I'm pretty sure DriveClub, at 60fps but slightly lesser eye-candy (whatever it takes) would not be less impressive / pretty game (to the majority of anyone playing it) but a substantially better game gameplay wise.
It might be prettier in screenshots, or videos that we can sit back and take in frame-by-frame as most of us are doing right now - but when actually *playing the game*, being focused on getting the best out of the experience, the track and the challenge - 60fps would be a core feature in enhancing that game. In that state, the least of us would be worrying about any graphical substitutes that would have been necessary to achieve that framerate.
Given it's their first game on PS4 - one that is widely used by the PS4 PR department to show cast it as a killer app, I also wouldn't be surprised if the game has been given so much focus, that there's no way they can back down on what they have shown (visually) so far.
My point was more directed as those that would always gladly subsitute framerate for even more eye-candy. We already have two current gen consoles with a performance difference. To suggest the games are better on PS4 because they offer higher resolution or slightly better graphics is IMO quite absurd. Take Fusion Trials - 900p (I think) on the Xbox One - 1080p on the PS4. Both rock solid 60fps. I would think both games are just as fun, addictive, - an amazing achievement visually and especially from a gameplay perspective, to equal terms on both consoles - despite the resolution difference. I'm pretty sure DriveClub, at 60fps but slightly lesser eye-candy (whatever it takes) would not be less impressive / pretty game (to the majority of anyone playing it) but a substantially better game gameplay wise.
It might be prettier in screenshots, or videos that we can sit back and take in frame-by-frame as most of us are doing right now - but when actually *playing the game*, being focused on getting the best out of the experience, the track and the challenge - 60fps would be a core feature in enhancing that game. In that state, the least of us would be worrying about any graphical substitutes that would have been necessary to achieve that framerate.
But I'm not sure we can really compare Trials Fusion to Driveclub. Again, not an expert of what exactly is going on during a race in Driveclub, but with a few cars running, AI, online elements, physics etc etc... Perhaps they were just mostly CPU bound so decided to go for 30fps, and just added eye candy as the GPU was just available to take a beating, so to speak.
Maybe the argument is not about what they could have scaled down graphically to achieve 60fps, but how fare they've pushed the gameplay and CPU sucking elements...
I'm not, not to that extent anyway. In the end, it's a game, on a hardware with finite resources. Compromises have to be made. Developing on new, unshipped hardware is tricky and guestimates need to be made on where your game will hit when you start developing on the finished product. Fusion Trials demonstrates a team that made framerate their priority - they hit the target. EvolutionStudios perhaps overshot - or the 60fps was never a real priority. In any case, they showed off the game with stunning visuals and if they still wanted to achieve the 60fps, something would have to give. In the end, the game is probably "too big" to fail on the visual point - so settling for 30fps is the easy choice.
The main argument however is; that IMO it's the wrong substitute. Many might be obsessing about the awesome eye-candy, but when you're actually going to sit down while playing the game - any compromise that would have been made in order to achieve 60fps (may that be less resolution, less complexity etc) would not be noticable as you'd be completely immersed in playing the game and not necessary admiring the resolution on that texture or that spark on the tree flying past.
If you think Fusion Trials is the wrong game to compare it to - take WipEout on PS3. Sure, at 30fps it would have been a much prettier game - but it definately would have been a much worse game as well too. It's one of the games that doesn't have particularly nice textures or stunning visuals in screenshots - but it looks pretty damn good when playing and offers some of the best gameplay in a racing-style game.
The main argument however is; that IMO it's the wrong substitute. Many might be obsessing about the awesome eye-candy, but when you're actually going to sit down while playing the game - any compromise that would have been made in order to achieve 60fps (may that be less resolution, less complexity etc) would not be noticable as you'd be completely immersed in playing the game and not necessary admiring the resolution on that texture or that spark on the tree flying past.
If you think Fusion Trials is the wrong game to compare it to - take WipEout on PS3. Sure, at 30fps it would have been a much prettier game - but it definately would have been a much worse game as well too. It's one of the games that doesn't have particularly nice textures or stunning visuals in screenshots - but it looks pretty damn good when playing and offers some of the best gameplay in a racing-style game.
Last edited by a moderator:
But it shouldn't, as long as everyone is catered for. You and I might prefer simpler looking racers. Does that mean every game should be visually simpler and 60 fps? No. some people want over-the-top effects and photorealistic visuals and trickery. I don't begrudge them getting a game they like even if I personally don't like it. As mentioned in the 30fps vs 60fps thread, I'd be all in favour of every game being 60 fps, but I'm also in favour of developer choice.
I'll also add, perhaps in the wrong thread, that I've seen a few films on an LG TV that had framerate upscaling. It did an excellent job producing very sharp, smooth footage, and the end result was that awful, cheap, TV feel. For whatever reason, lower framerate can feel different and more epic. If a dev wants to go for that, let them and let the market decide if it's something it values. Certainly ND felt the market had decided that way.
Yeah, I can agree with that. BTW: the upscaled framerate footage you've seen - I'm wondering - that gives the awful cheap TV feel - is that due to the upscaling or is that simply an effect of your eyes seeing recorded TV footage at a higher framerate and it feeling "off"?
I'm asking this, because I do quite a lot of filming using a GoPro Hero3 camera at 1080p60 when I go to the track, or even driving moutain passes in our region. It takes a little getting used to seeing 60fps footage - especially when you're used to 30 or even 24 frames in movies. The movies I take, look unnatural - a bit like a video-game, but not.
The sensation of speed you can get with the 60 frames footage is extraordinary though - and watching these footages, driving over mountain passes or on the track, give you a sensation speed that is as close to the "real thing" as you can get.
But yes - of course, when watching footage, videos - even in-game footage of games, like we're doing now - or perhaps watching your mate play your game on the PS4 - it's a lot easier to take note of the graphical fidelity that is hitting you. Well, I guess that depends on the type of game you're playing - a game like "the Last of Us" or Uncharted is much better suited to 30fps gameplay as there are various instances where you will just be standing there, checking your surroundings for clues on what to do, where to go etc.
Try doing that in a game like Resogun, Super Stardust HD, WipEout, or, I'd argue, *any* driving game - irregardless of arcade or simulator, based on reality or science-fiction... IMO, in precisely these games, you are so immersed into what you're doing and the sensation of speed that you'll be hard put to effectively notice if the game is running at 720p, 900p or 1080p - or if the textures here and there are higher or lower res etc. Sure, at some point, you will notice - just as it's easy to notice if you're playing a last generation game or a current one. I'm going to make a bold claim though - and that is, the difference we're looking at DriveClub at what it is or a hypothetical DriveClub at 60fps - I'm not sure that - while playing and being immersed into the gameplay - that you'll be noticing *that* difference.
Actually, that would be quite a nice study for a blind-test. Create the best game you can at 60fps, then half the framerate and enhance it to the point it maximizes the hardware. Perhaps that would be still inferior to a game that targeted a 30fps from the beginning, but still. Then, conduct a blind study and see which people prefer which version of the game. I'm willing to bet, that "gamers" (not the average joe that picks up a joypad when his nephew is playing) will take the 60fps without noticing much of the visual difference.
Now, this might be different when you're simply a bystander, watching someone else play. Sure, then you've got all the time of the world to actually take in the visuals etc. But while playing? I don't think so.
I'm asking this, because I do quite a lot of filming using a GoPro Hero3 camera at 1080p60 when I go to the track, or even driving moutain passes in our region. It takes a little getting used to seeing 60fps footage - especially when you're used to 30 or even 24 frames in movies. The movies I take, look unnatural - a bit like a video-game, but not.
The sensation of speed you can get with the 60 frames footage is extraordinary though - and watching these footages, driving over mountain passes or on the track, give you a sensation speed that is as close to the "real thing" as you can get.
But yes - of course, when watching footage, videos - even in-game footage of games, like we're doing now - or perhaps watching your mate play your game on the PS4 - it's a lot easier to take note of the graphical fidelity that is hitting you. Well, I guess that depends on the type of game you're playing - a game like "the Last of Us" or Uncharted is much better suited to 30fps gameplay as there are various instances where you will just be standing there, checking your surroundings for clues on what to do, where to go etc.
Try doing that in a game like Resogun, Super Stardust HD, WipEout, or, I'd argue, *any* driving game - irregardless of arcade or simulator, based on reality or science-fiction... IMO, in precisely these games, you are so immersed into what you're doing and the sensation of speed that you'll be hard put to effectively notice if the game is running at 720p, 900p or 1080p - or if the textures here and there are higher or lower res etc. Sure, at some point, you will notice - just as it's easy to notice if you're playing a last generation game or a current one. I'm going to make a bold claim though - and that is, the difference we're looking at DriveClub at what it is or a hypothetical DriveClub at 60fps - I'm not sure that - while playing and being immersed into the gameplay - that you'll be noticing *that* difference.
Actually, that would be quite a nice study for a blind-test. Create the best game you can at 60fps, then half the framerate and enhance it to the point it maximizes the hardware. Perhaps that would be still inferior to a game that targeted a 30fps from the beginning, but still. Then, conduct a blind study and see which people prefer which version of the game. I'm willing to bet, that "gamers" (not the average joe that picks up a joypad when his nephew is playing) will take the 60fps without noticing much of the visual difference.
Now, this might be different when you're simply a bystander, watching someone else play. Sure, then you've got all the time of the world to actually take in the visuals etc. But while playing? I don't think so.
We were discussing this in some other thread not too long ago - whether movies look 'weird' at higher framerates because we've been used for so long to watch them at 24fps. Some really good theories and opinions on there but I can't remember for the life of me which thread it was.
Indeed. Well, for what it's worth - I think for movies, 24 frames has its validity. For videos, I film, extreme-sports with high speed, or like I do, for driving, 60 frames delivers exceptional footage. Back when I had a Hero2 it was either 720p60 or 1080p30. I took 30 for any filming by hand (landscape) or diving - driving or where sensation of speed was key, 60 all the way, even at the expense of resolution. Even now, on a Hero3 that is capable to deliver 60 at fullHD resolution, I'd still take 30fps for slower-paced filming.
In games, I must admit, I'd prefer 60 even for games like Uncharted or Last of Us, but given the type of game and that you will often be standing still and having plenty of time to admire your surroundings, I can understand why you would want to dedicate more resources to how it looks rather than how smooth it plays.
In a game where 70% of the pixels (yes, I'm pulling that out of thing-air) are fast moving and the rest are at medium moving and the goal is to immerse with speed - 60fps (IMO) is a must - and anything else, to me, simply doesn't make much sense, unless you are trying to sell the game on the premise on the best graphics irregardless the consequences, screenshots and wowing people through videos.
IMO - DriveClub to me isn't intruiging because of the graphics, but because of the online aspect the team has worked so hard on. THAT to me, is what makes this game special. The graphics is something I admire now, but while playing will hardly be the reason I keep playing it.
In games, I must admit, I'd prefer 60 even for games like Uncharted or Last of Us, but given the type of game and that you will often be standing still and having plenty of time to admire your surroundings, I can understand why you would want to dedicate more resources to how it looks rather than how smooth it plays.
In a game where 70% of the pixels (yes, I'm pulling that out of thing-air) are fast moving and the rest are at medium moving and the goal is to immerse with speed - 60fps (IMO) is a must - and anything else, to me, simply doesn't make much sense, unless you are trying to sell the game on the premise on the best graphics irregardless the consequences, screenshots and wowing people through videos.
IMO - DriveClub to me isn't intruiging because of the graphics, but because of the online aspect the team has worked so hard on. THAT to me, is what makes this game special. The graphics is something I admire now, but while playing will hardly be the reason I keep playing it.
Let me summarize it for you:
"The sweet irreplaceable nostalgia of good old naturally motion blurred 24fps cinematography"
I do not know if what you wrote is true....
Those that create the game are those that decides how the game should feel. And it's obvious that your opinion is not the universal truth since those that actually create the games differ. They have the luxury of being able to tweak their game to their liking in pretty much every aspect and end up with a fast super controllable game that plays awesome no matter what framerate.
I dumped I don't know how many hours into pgr2, amongst other 30 fps racers, and never had any problems with the "feel"/handling or sensation of speed, I definitely did not feel like I was riding a lawnmower, and given the number of 30 fps racers released the market as a whole certainly doesn't seem to really care one way or the other (dunno if actual sales figures would provide any hint?).
And surely the 30/60 thing has been done to death enough times already? Further [strike]arguing[/strike] discussion seems as relevant as additional posts about 14+4...
24fps ot - Side-by-side is an interesting doc about film/digital movie making, there's *nothing* intrinsically more "filmic" or aesthetically pleasing about 24fps, iirc it was chosen purely because that was the lowest, and therefore cheapest (it's always about money after all), number of frames they could use to get an accurate sound sync.
And surely the 30/60 thing has been done to death enough times already? Further [strike]arguing[/strike] discussion seems as relevant as additional posts about 14+4...
24fps ot - Side-by-side is an interesting doc about film/digital movie making, there's *nothing* intrinsically more "filmic" or aesthetically pleasing about 24fps, iirc it was chosen purely because that was the lowest, and therefore cheapest (it's always about money after all), number of frames they could use to get an accurate sound sync.
This is crazy. Do you mean that every game is great because every game was created by someone? It is possible for people do be wrong, stupid and idiotic. And I look forward to our awesome 1 fps racing games.
Inuhanyou
Veteran
I thought the point was that the devs that intentionally choose 30fps as a trade off, deemed acceptable by a majority of parties, were simply lazy jobheads who didn't care at all about their game?
Ahh i almost forgot why you used to live on my ignore list
Do you honestly think that was my point?
This might just be a minor point, but games are not only created with "how they feel" in mind - there are many more variables to consider: What are the trademark features of the game? Gameplay limits and bounderies? How good should it look, perhaps in order to give it an advantage (in PR terms) over its competition to achieve more sales? etc.
It's at the end a triangle of visuals / framerate / logic complexity (AI, physics, gameplay) and a studio has to decide which compromises it makes to get the best out of these 3 areas. A game dedicated on framerate and logic complexity will make shortcuts in the visual department, a game on the opposite end the other way around. That's why they are called trade-offs. You're effectively trading-off "gameplay aspects" for either graphics or framerate, "feel" (framerate) for visuals or any other combination.
Just because a game is 30fps does not mean the game wouldn't feel or play better at 60fps. It's more likely that the team felt the "tradeoff" of settling for 30fps was "good enough" for the majority as long as they can play the hype card of having the prettiest racing game on the market. If they can get more sales by doing this, fair play to them.
The biggest issue I have with 30fps games is that games are being sold on the premise of foremost graphics. If the majority of devs go for graphics over framerate, it makes it more difficult for other devs to ever seriously consider 60fps because it would probably mean their game would look substantially worse (in screenshots) than the competition, perhaps resulting in less sales ultimately. That's why I think it's great that sites like DF devote their analysis to framerate - a feature in games that can't be seen in 30fps Youtube captures or screenshots, but is an integral part of any game. It's important to raise this awareness IMO.
I like to believe that especially on this forum, where the majority of posters can be considered to be "hardcore" to "above average" gamers, we don't want our games to be dumbed down and sold on the premise of better graphics at any cost. This might be a bit harsh considering I'm sure EvolutionStudios made a terrific game, but there should also be a line at some point that should not be crossed.