PGR2: confirmed 30fps only.
- Thread starter Ug Lee
- Start date
Qroach:
I'm not here to argue how many games on each console run at 60 fps, although I do agree with what london-boy pointed out. I guess we can debate all day long how many people notice that difference, but to me, it's strikingly obvious, especially in a racing game or platformers where precision is required. (read on to my next paragraph on precision)
Jason Rubin would strongly disagree too. In fact, I can find you a interview where J. Rubin does state that this is the reason why they aim for 60 fps in their games. Let me explain though: in a 30 fps game, the screen gets updated exactly half the amount it would at 60 in a second. In other words, every movement taken by the controller and the response/feedback you'll get on screen is exactly half. This is very noticable when playing Jak & Daxter compared to other platforms that run at half the framerate. Responce time is perhaps less important in racing game, but a 30 framerate is very noticable especially on objects like houses, buildings etc. Take a good look at how "smooth" they move past you in a game such as NFS or Apex. Taking quick turns is another area where a faster framerate is always a benefit.
Of course, although I'm hoping you aren't about to argue that a slideshow can enhance the experience over a smooth game with even half the detail.
1. Most average consumers aren't as unaware as you make them to be - or else, probably every developer would concentrate of getting the most out of 30 fps.
2. Even on interlaced screens, a 30 framerate will give you exactly half the outputed pixels than it would at 60 framerate.
Qroach, Honestly, are you implying that you can't notice the difference between a 30/60 framerate on interlaced displays?
I'm not here to argue how many games on each console run at 60 fps, although I do agree with what london-boy pointed out. I guess we can debate all day long how many people notice that difference, but to me, it's strikingly obvious, especially in a racing game or platformers where precision is required. (read on to my next paragraph on precision)
Qroach said:
Jason Rubin would strongly disagree too. In fact, I can find you a interview where J. Rubin does state that this is the reason why they aim for 60 fps in their games. Let me explain though: in a 30 fps game, the screen gets updated exactly half the amount it would at 60 in a second. In other words, every movement taken by the controller and the response/feedback you'll get on screen is exactly half. This is very noticable when playing Jak & Daxter compared to other platforms that run at half the framerate. Responce time is perhaps less important in racing game, but a 30 framerate is very noticable especially on objects like houses, buildings etc. Take a good look at how "smooth" they move past you in a game such as NFS or Apex. Taking quick turns is another area where a faster framerate is always a benefit.
Qroach said:
Of course, although I'm hoping you aren't about to argue that a slideshow can enhance the experience over a smooth game with even half the detail.
1. Most average consumers aren't as unaware as you make them to be - or else, probably every developer would concentrate of getting the most out of 30 fps.
2. Even on interlaced screens, a 30 framerate will give you exactly half the outputed pixels than it would at 60 framerate.
Qroach, Honestly, are you implying that you can't notice the difference between a 30/60 framerate on interlaced displays?
which also means that Qroach will be fine if the next generation of consoles outputs at 30fps.... errr....
60fps and its benefits make games more playable and that is unarguable. if u could play the games currently running at 30fps in full 60fps, would u not? or would u just go: "oh well, there's no difference, might as well stay at 30fps..." ????
the reflections on the cars in the first PGR really stood up and gave the game an artificial feel, while in GT3 everything was running smoothly at a more than stable 60fps giving it a more realistic feel. that and the fact that it was a better game altogether....
also, i can't believe u're arguing the fact that ps2 uses multitexturing in most games where in other threads it's been taken as a "normal" thing....
:?
60fps and its benefits make games more playable and that is unarguable. if u could play the games currently running at 30fps in full 60fps, would u not? or would u just go: "oh well, there's no difference, might as well stay at 30fps..." ????
the reflections on the cars in the first PGR really stood up and gave the game an artificial feel, while in GT3 everything was running smoothly at a more than stable 60fps giving it a more realistic feel. that and the fact that it was a better game altogether....
also, i can't believe u're arguing the fact that ps2 uses multitexturing in most games where in other threads it's been taken as a "normal" thing....
:?
As I said once, I'll say it again. 30 fps in a racer ( as long as it's stable ) is acceptable on a console running on a TV. As I've said, the average consumer "won't" notice the differece if the framerate is stable.
So you're taking some (as in a small number) exampes of games on PS2 out of it's incredibly HUGE library and saying that MOST PS2 games use multi-texturing? I still think what I mentioned stands. MOST PS2 games do NOT use Multi texturing.
marconelly!
Veteran
Huh? I notice that *outright* (LOTR:TT does that) but most PS2 games, from what I've seen, run in 24bit color. There's very few of them that run at 16 bit + dithering.
Well, I guess Criterion developers would strongly disagree, as they not only got the specular maps running in their Burnout 2, but they also made the specular bloom effect, where the maps 'bleed' out of the highly lit area. SH3 also uses multitexturing in a way where an animated texture is applied over the base texture, etc. GT3 clearly uses specualar highlites on the road surface (no trick with gouraud could achieve that) and also has that reflection mapping on it's night tracks (I forgot the actual name for that type of mapping) (so it's base+'masked reflection'+specular just on the track)
I guess you just didn't see too many PS2 games if you think multitexturing is not often used in them
I don't think *most* PS2 games use it, but most good looking ones do.As for 60fps/30fps difference, I guess it's a matter of one's perceptivity to such things, but for me the difference is like night and day, especially in games with fast motion on the screen.
Qroach said:
oh dear.... really, i cannot believe what u r saying...
every game AT LAUNCH already had multi texturing. even the crappy cheapo ones. that is, TTT, SSX, RRV, even Wild races (or something like that) which was probably the worst game at launch had multi texturing....
if u need proof, go look them up. i aint gonna do that for u, i already know i'm right...
and from launch we know ps2 games only got better, so i guess your argument is useless.
want me to give u some names? gosh that would be a hell of a long list...
GT3+concept
MGS games
Burnout games
GTA games
SH2+3
all the racing games really
all the fighting games really
i mean come on this is ridiculous........
Qroach:
And as I already answered, the average consumer is not as unaware of different framerates as you make them to be. If this were the case, most developer would aim for the 30 fps and those "extra details". Also, I named you specific examples in which the framerate is very well noticable, even for the averga consumers. Put up two games running side by side, although one with the double framerate and the difference becomes even more obvious.
On another note, if that were true that the average consumer is that unaware, then thank god for the fact that there are still developers ready to push the envelope to get those extra benefits. Besides, bringing this to Halo, another 30 fps game, are you ready to argue that the most people aren't able to notice the framerate or the difference to say TimeSplitters?
BTW; perhaps you missed it, but I'll kindly ask again: are you honestly implying that you can not notice the difference between a 30/60 framerate on interlaced displays? If so, I'm really glad that most developers (at least on PS2) target a different 'average player' that does notice these differences as I'd be very disappointed if everyone would subsitude framerate for 'extra details' and thus reduce the gaming experience as it's strikingly obvious to me and many other gamers.
He gave you a list of games that are heralded as some of the most impressive ones on PS2. At least he contributed a list of games, opposed to you who still deny it without any form of prove. Where's your prove Quincy?
Qroach said:
And as I already answered, the average consumer is not as unaware of different framerates as you make them to be. If this were the case, most developer would aim for the 30 fps and those "extra details". Also, I named you specific examples in which the framerate is very well noticable, even for the averga consumers. Put up two games running side by side, although one with the double framerate and the difference becomes even more obvious.
On another note, if that were true that the average consumer is that unaware, then thank god for the fact that there are still developers ready to push the envelope to get those extra benefits. Besides, bringing this to Halo, another 30 fps game, are you ready to argue that the most people aren't able to notice the framerate or the difference to say TimeSplitters?
BTW; perhaps you missed it, but I'll kindly ask again: are you honestly implying that you can not notice the difference between a 30/60 framerate on interlaced displays? If so, I'm really glad that most developers (at least on PS2) target a different 'average player' that does notice these differences as I'd be very disappointed if everyone would subsitude framerate for 'extra details' and thus reduce the gaming experience as it's strikingly obvious to me and many other gamers.
Qroach said:
He gave you a list of games that are heralded as some of the most impressive ones on PS2. At least he contributed a list of games, opposed to you who still deny it without any form of prove. Where's your prove Quincy?
wazoo said:
I think the point was to justify the "extra details" being made in substitude of framerate and he wanted to show that on PS2, many games have made sacrifices for the benefit of a faster framerate (opposed to the few xbox game examples named). Marconelly, london-boy and I have tried to point out that this is incorrect, at least for multi-texturing, as even most 60 fps games do make use of this.
And Quincy, another thing:
I still stand firm on my initial argument that there should be no substitude for framerate, especially in genres such as racing, platformers etc.
Actually that wasn't the point I wanted to make at all, but sure I'll go along. Hw about less gemoetry, used, smaller textures, less textures used, using less graphically demanding effects like NOT attempting to use dot 3 bump mapping on PS2, or normal mapping, or in general multi texturing.
You can stand firm but that won't change what tradeoffs developers will make.
marconelly!
Veteran
That was my quote, not London Boy's. That's what I said at the beginning: 'Most good looking/high profile games' I never claimed 'most games overall' use it, as I have no means of checking it.
Obviously, you can do more visuals at 30FPS, but for fast moving games (*especially* racers) 60FPS should be a norm IMO, especially considering that we can get very nice looking games at 60FPS on today's consoles (and each console has couple of such titles to prove it!)
Quincy:
Well in that case, it makes it quite difficult to argue as every individual perceives it different as to what tradeoffs can be made and at what cost. I would agree with you in almost every genre, except racing and platformers aswell as shooters and some 3rd person games. These two genres especially require high precision and have meany objects that move fast over the screens which make the difference in framerate strikingly obvious.
I strongly disagree with your argument that the average consumer does not notice the difference between the two framerates in those genres. Surely many have experienced the difference between a MGS2 and a Tomb Raider - or Timesplitters and Halo. Even Apex and Gran Turismo or Rayman/Jak&Daxter. Sure, there are individuals that fail to notice it - but, between us, would you rather have that all developers aim at those specific individuals just because they fail to see it and allow them to be more competitive in screens, rather than the experience as a whole?
I see the reason behind the substitude of framerate for 'extra details' merely as a reason to stay competitive (in this case, PGR2 competitive with GT4 on a graphical level) which is quite sad indeed. It's done that way, so that the marketing can hype it on those 'extra details' and hope that everyone who buys the product won't notice the drawback.
Qroach said:
Well in that case, it makes it quite difficult to argue as every individual perceives it different as to what tradeoffs can be made and at what cost. I would agree with you in almost every genre, except racing and platformers aswell as shooters and some 3rd person games. These two genres especially require high precision and have meany objects that move fast over the screens which make the difference in framerate strikingly obvious.
I strongly disagree with your argument that the average consumer does not notice the difference between the two framerates in those genres. Surely many have experienced the difference between a MGS2 and a Tomb Raider - or Timesplitters and Halo. Even Apex and Gran Turismo or Rayman/Jak&Daxter. Sure, there are individuals that fail to notice it - but, between us, would you rather have that all developers aim at those specific individuals just because they fail to see it and allow them to be more competitive in screens, rather than the experience as a whole?
I see the reason behind the substitude of framerate for 'extra details' merely as a reason to stay competitive (in this case, PGR2 competitive with GT4 on a graphical level) which is quite sad indeed. It's done that way, so that the marketing can hype it on those 'extra details' and hope that everyone who buys the product won't notice the drawback.
As PGR2 was to be a 2004 game for some time (and Halo 2 was to be a xmas 2003 game), anyone think that the reason for the 30fps lock was to get the (now flagship) game out the door for the holidays?
I do
Seriously, I'd love to get a technical explanation as to why Xbox games seem to hover around 30fps, without the conspiracy theories
Someone a while back said it pretty much had to do with the weak CPU and display lists..
I do
Seriously, I'd love to get a technical explanation as to why Xbox games seem to hover around 30fps, without the conspiracy theories
Someone a while back said it pretty much had to do with the weak CPU and display lists..
well, can't think of any technical bottlenecks which would prohibit it from doing 60 fps in most games - but I do think one of the reasons is that the games tend to be graphic driven, or at least, aimed to look better than PS2 games. Dunno. Tecmo can do it (respect to them), so I fail to see why others can't. I just think it's sad - games should be driven by the gameplay/playability and not just by the graphics. In this sence, framerate is just as important. :?
Sega has also done it (PDO), IIRC.
Anyway, I think the "you can´t notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps" to be ridiculous IMO. Even my father, who doesn´t know a thing about games, notices at first glance when a game looks smoother.
As for me, it´s much more preferable to have 60fps. The motion of everything in a game is smoother, and really makes a difference. It really stands out in almost everything, i mean, just seeing the cars turning, or watching the world rotate smoothly (not to mention the input) and how the characters animate are obvious improvements in 60fps games. I can overlook it in some genres (like RPGs), but 60 fps are always preferable.
I don´t like the fact that PGR2 will stay at 30fps. It makes me think of sloppy/lazy programming and the "extra detail" gained would be great, if those details didn´t look somewhat jerky in comparison to 60fps games.
Anyway, I think the "you can´t notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps" to be ridiculous IMO. Even my father, who doesn´t know a thing about games, notices at first glance when a game looks smoother.
As for me, it´s much more preferable to have 60fps. The motion of everything in a game is smoother, and really makes a difference. It really stands out in almost everything, i mean, just seeing the cars turning, or watching the world rotate smoothly (not to mention the input) and how the characters animate are obvious improvements in 60fps games. I can overlook it in some genres (like RPGs), but 60 fps are always preferable.
I don´t like the fact that PGR2 will stay at 30fps. It makes me think of sloppy/lazy programming and the "extra detail" gained would be great, if those details didn´t look somewhat jerky in comparison to 60fps games.
Why does it seem that MANY high calibur Xbox games run at 30hz?
Halo
halo2
brute force
pgr2
PGR?
Splinter Cell
And what's more? These are all american games, whereas most of the japanese games(PDO, JSRF and more) look just as amazing and run at 60? Seems odd.
But on the other hand many high calibur ps2 games run at 60? I never realized why this is the case.
Halo
halo2
brute force
pgr2
PGR?
Splinter Cell
And what's more? These are all american games, whereas most of the japanese games(PDO, JSRF and more) look just as amazing and run at 60? Seems odd.
But on the other hand many high calibur ps2 games run at 60? I never realized why this is the case.
Chris123234
Regular
london-boy said:
60fps on halo is NOT a must. Sustained 30fps on halo is a must. Halo is a slow paced FPS. The only FPS's that need 60fps are fast paced ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of you seem to be confusing "noticability" with "unplayability".
30fps is just as "playable" as 60fps but at 60fps you "notice" that its smoother.
You people REALLY need to stop exagerating things to get your points across...
In racing game the only thing that you will really notice the difference in 30 vs 60 is the stuff flying past you at 100mph. So they arent the type of game that absolutely need 60fps. (BTW the reflections on the backs of the cars look funny on Gotham City Racing. Why is it like that?)
And that stuff about response time being cut in half at 30fps as opposed to 60fps is well...bullshit... After upgrading my video card and going from 30fps to around 80fps its smoother but not more "precise" as you like to say. The only time the response time was "unplayable" is when the fps dips down like like 10-15.
And on a tv the 30fps -> 60fps smoothness difference will be less than it would be on a monitor.
