PGR2: confirmed 30fps only.

[Qroach]

Nick,

It is a FACT that a racing game running at 60fps will be more reponsive to inputs from the player. This will give the player increased control over his vehicle and improve his performance. Playing at 30 FPS is a backwards step. Drop your allegiancies and accept this FACT.

I this has nothing to do with allegiances, even faf can understand the tradeoff the PGR guys ar emaking and He's a dev workingon a PS2 racer! It's simple, when the game comes out nobody is going to notice and or care... A fast framerate isn't what makes a game fun.

 

[Phil]

Quincy:

It doesn't matter, I'm giving you an example where the framerate doesn't have an impact on controller imput. They aren't always and don't necessarily have to be linked to one another.

I am not suggesting that every game that does performe a 60 fps framerate, actually updates the controller imput that fast. My stance of arguing though is, that many games do, in which the difference to games that do not is very noticable indeed. So in short, you giving examples of possible scenarios do not equate to 'better responses' is invalid as potentially a faster framerate gives you exactly that and that is all I've been arguing. This is a common thing racing games and some developers even take it that far to go similar ways in platformers and other games (Jak & Daxter).

http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/march03/jak2/index2.shtml[/url]]GameSpy: Jak & Daxter ran at 60 fps, and Jak II will run at 60. Is there a certain design philosophy behind this?

Jason Rubin: The most important thing about running at a good framerate is that your button input is read at the framerate you're running. So when you're running at 30 frames per second, your character has the ability to change what he's doing 30 times per second. If you're 60 frames per second he has literally double the input, which is effectively saying he's twice as controllable. You have much more detail in what you're doing. Certain games do okay at low framerates, I tend to really steer away from slow framerate. I think as a company culture we don't like slow framerate games, so we always try to peg it at 60. (..)

If I read correctly, even Faf agrees with this. Why can't you? Or are you still trying to make up excuses?

Frame rate vrs better visuals are tradeoffs that are made on a daily basis with game development. You can argue your point all you want, but I don't see how that changes anything. Like I said before, and the dev team working on PGR2 agrees, the average consumer can't tell if a game is running at 30 or 60fps. Add motion blur at 30 fps and there's no point in running at 60.

You are making up excuses and you know it. That PGR2 is going to be 30 fps has little to do with the perception of the average consumer, but being able to deliver a racer graphically up to par with the promised screenshots Microsoft has been sending around and hyping the game for (or actually compeeting with GT4). If the average consumer, or even the entire market was as unaware and wouldn't notice the differences in framerate, any developer would go for the 30 fps framerate and push up all the 'details'. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold much ground, especially once you consider that still the most racing games in this gen use a 60 fps framerate - and that in itself proves that the majority of developers obviously do not believe in the "unawareness of the average consumer" or your speculation on what the PGR2 team is thinking.

The renderer is running at a rock steady 30fps with the rest of the game (AI, car dynamics, controller input etc) running at 60 Hz, which makes the gameplay is as sharp as it would be at 60 Hz. A solid frame rate is far more important that a high framerate that dips.

<sigh> If you can't see that these are all excuses, then I honestly don't know where to start. I agree that a solid framerate is more important than a higher one that dips, but given that both are constant, the higher one is always preferable. If you honestly think PGR2 team are going to be the first developer to ship a game at 30 fps that runs as quick and seamless as a 60 fps one, then you'll be in for a big shock, unless you decide to play the game drunk and thus would fail to notice any difference.

What I do find disturbing is the fact that you are arguing with me over what "average consumers" may be able to tell and what not. Is this not beyond3d? The majority of racing games this gen have always targeted the 60 fps framerate to a great benefit - but now as the most anticipated racing game for Xbox is downgraded to a lower framerate in turn for a better visual impact, suddenly the best argument one can come up with is

"the average consumer doesn't notice the difference anyway, so who cares?"?

Give me a break. Most average consumers might not know exactly what's wrong with the game running at a lower framerate, but they most definately do notice the difference between two games with different framerates. How you can argue against this is beyond me, really. The difference is strikingly obvious in games like GT3/Apex - or Jak & Daxter/[any 30 fps platformer]. The difference can not only be seen, but in the latter case also be felt. Everything you have presented thus far in this argument is nothing more than poor excuses for something so unacceptable.

I this has nothing to do with allegiances, even faf can understand the tradeoff the PGR guys ar emaking and He's a dev workingon a PS2 racer! It's simple, when the game comes out nobody is going to notice and or care... A fast framerate isn't what makes a game fun.

Of course, , but those 'extra details' obviously do.
LOL. I guess 'average consumers that prefer slideshows to smooth game experiences' must be a Xbox thing that I will never fully grasp.

 

[chaphack]

Give me a break. Most average consumers might not know exactly what's wrong with the game running at a lower framerate, but they most definately do notice the difference between two games with different framerates. How you can argue against this is beyond me, really. The difference is strikingly obvious in games like GT3/Apex - or Jak & Daxter/[any 30 fps platformer].

How to argue? Maybe like, unless the average consumers play the games side by side... i wonder which average consumers are that hardcore to play 2 games at a go... Even then, there is no gaurentee they will feel the difference...

LOL. I guess 'average consumers that prefer slideshows to smooth game experiences' must be a Xbox thing that I will never fully grasp.

-Firstly, its not a Xbox thing. Everyone wants higher fps
-Secondly, locked 30fps is surely no slideshow
-Thirdly, locked 30fps is smooth gameplay experience, no?



LASTLY, i dont see whats the deal with this PGR2 dieKillFlop! 30fps thingie...sure it be better at 60fps, but taking all circumstances known, it is still within limits for a somewhat "rushed" game. Well duh, there are others 60fps racers on Xbox yeay not? RSC/SGT2k2/MGP1/2/CMR/Nascar..

Its not like all Xbox racers run at 30fps...

 

[London Geezer]

well, to be honest, i was playing FFX one day and switched to wipeout fusion once. and the difference was *WOW*. i mean it's like ur brain works better i dont know if u get me...
and especially on sloppy PAL conversions where 30fps becomes 25fps, then u'd see the difference...

 

[sir doris]

Taking Wipeout Fusion as an example I would definatley rather have 60fps which drops here and there than locked 30fps, but then PGR2 will be quite a bit slower than WF

 

[Qroach]

If I read correctly, even Faf agrees with this. Why can't you? Or are you still trying to make up excuses?

If you read it correctly Faf also agrees that a more consistent framerate is also important. Who is making up excuses, you're just ignoring what people are telling you in order to support your point..

You are making up excuses and you know it.

It's not an excuse, it's reality. Sorry you don't agree, but I'm not going to stand on my head to try and prove you wrong because YOU have some idea about things that aren't based in reality.

If the average consumer, or even the entire market was as unaware and wouldn't notice the differences in framerate, any developer would go for the 30 fps framerate and push up all the 'details'.

The average consumer can't tell the differece. BC admitted that the E3 demo was ALREADY locked at 30fps, even though every single reviewer and article writter came out of E3 thinking it was 60fps.

http://www.bizarrecreationsforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3916&highlight=#3916
(look for IRobots post)


Why do you think that is? I'll tell you why, becuase they (the average consumer) didn't notice a difference. I didn't see any single person/reviewer complain about the framerate on this title after E3. Yet, some people that never saw the game running, are having a fit about it on the internet. Who is making excuses?

Did you also ever consider that in some cases some developers don't want or simply don't have any more room to push the graphics much further? Look at what they are adding in PGR2, graphically and show me a list of other racers that have added a number of effects like that (over previous versions) and still maintained 60fps. How many times did you hear polyphony claim they were using X amount of power in the PS2 with GT3? What if they are maxing it out for GT4, what then? If they want to push the graphics further, they are going ot have to make some sacrifices. You know what I'm goign to have a look and see what other sacrifices might have been made in GT4.

I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold much ground

Lol... whatever. You're like talking to a brick wall.

and that in itself proves that the majority of developers obviously do not believe in the "unawareness of the average consumer" or your speculation on what the PGR2 team is thinking.

You dont have any idea what the majority of developers think. I really don't see how you'd be in a postion to say anythign like that. I can't tell you what all developers think (and I've been working in development for 10 years) because they don't all think a like. All I can say is that tradeoffs are made like this all the time. My point (that the average consumer won't notice) still stands and it's backed by the fact nobody noticed the E3 demo was running at 30fps in PGR2. Everyone assumed it was 60.

<sigh> If you can't see that these are all excuses

Since when have you worked on a game, or even have any idea what developers do when it comes to making trade offs? Honestly, it's a valid question, because you're trying to tell me developers don't make these trade offs and that it's unacceptable. Well sorry but your wrong, it is perfectly acceptable, despite everything you "think" you understand.

What I do find disturbing is the fact that you are arguing with me over what "average consumers" may be able to tell and what not.

I guess 'average consumers that prefer slideshows to smooth game experiences' must be a Xbox thing that I will never fully grasp.

As I said before, please explain why the gaming press/media with their keen eye for anything running at "slide show framerates" thought PGR2 at E3 was running at 60fps when it was running at a locked 30? I'd really be curious to get an answer from you on this before you respond to anything else in my post.

 

[London Geezer]

To be diplomatic, i'll say that there can be some people who are less susceptible to the difference between 30 and 60fps. i do however care to digress. i do and will always be able to tell the difference and i am amazed to hear that "the majority of the press was sure it was 60fps" as u like to put it. i just cannot believe that. as stable as it is, 30fps is very different from 60fps unless the game is slow paced. racing games are all BUT slow paced so we're back to square one.

at the end of the day, if Qguy is happy to play his racing games at 30fps, good for him. in the meantime i'll be playing GT4 at 60fps and "lower detail" as u like to put it. funny that the game with "lower detail" still somehow manages to look better than the game at "higher detail".

to be honest the ONLY advantage i can think of that would make a hell of a difference is detail texturing which i assume will be in PGR2 but not in GT4. if GT4 had detail texturing then it would approach photorealism even more than it does now.

i can only begin to imagine how GT5-6-whatever will look on PS3

if, as u say, there was no need for 60fps, no game would run at 60fps, instead focusing on stable 30fps. that of course makes no sense therefore there MUST be some sizeable difference don't u think? if developers are ready to halve the detail just to obtain a stable 60fps, don't u think they do it for a reason?

 

[DeathKnight]

Maybe, just maybe they perceived that it was 60fps because it runs so smooth and controls extremely well, ie. like it was running at a higher framerate.

All this complaining really needs to stop. Unless you've tried the final game yourself you have absolutely no idea how the game plays or what the 30fps feels like with this game. Until then take a load off and stop worrying.

 

[London Geezer]

Maybe, just maybe they perceived that it was 60fps because it runs so smooth and controls extremely well, ie. like it was running at a higher framerate.

All this complaining really needs to stop. Unless you've tried the final game yourself you have absolutely no idea how the game plays or what the 30fps feels like with this game. Until then take a load off and stop worrying.

i aint complaining. as i said, i dont have an xbox and i dont plan on getting one. and games running at low frame rate are not really giving me any reason to buy one, especially since i cant even get it to output progressive scan since i'm in europe. and if i did have one i dont think i'd be getting this game anyway since GT4 will satisfy my needs for racing distractions for months.

 

[Phil]

Quincy:

Ah got to love it when one has to resort to taking posts apart just to keep up in the debate.

If you read it correctly Faf also agrees that a more consistent framerate is also important. Who is making up excuses, you're just ignoring what people are telling you in order to support your point..

You'r back peddling already? When did I deny this or state the opposite. I believe my post shouldn't be that hard to comprehend, yet you entirely missed (on purpose?) the part where I stated:

I agree that a solid framerate is more important than a higher one that dips, but given that both are constant, the higher one is always preferable.

Obviously meaning that sacrifices are being made in the wrong place with this title. You're also rather quick to forget that we were arguing over response-times, in which Faf did agree with me and that was all I was arguing. Not only that, but I have posted a direct quote of Jason Rubin re-stating what I've been saying since my first post. No need to twist the argument you obviously lost.

It's not an excuse, it's reality. Sorry you don't agree, but I'm not going to stand on my head to try and prove you wrong becuase YOU have some idea about things that aren't based in reality.

What isn't based in reality? That the majority of developers choose to target a 60 fps framerate? I wonder why...

The average consumer can't tell the differece. BC admitted that the E3 demo was locked at 30fps, even though every single reviewer ad article writter came out of E3 thinking it was 60fps.

So okay, so lets just judge the average consumer by what you're saying and some reviewers that didn't directly complain about the framerate. I'd rather judge my own eyes and the experience of present games that I have played in which the difference is strikingly obvious. I fail to see how your argumentation is any better. Do you have some more "prove"?

Did you also ever consider that in some cases some developers don't want or simply don't have any more room to push the graphics much further? Look at what they are adding in PGR2, graphically and show me a list of other racers that have added a numbe rof effects like that (over previous versions) and still maintained 60fps. How many times did you hear polyphony claim they were using X amount of power in the PS2 with GT3? What if they are maxing it out for GT4, what then? if thye want to push the graphics further they are going ot have to make some sacrifices.

It's sad to see you still have not grasped the whole point of this argument. For the very last time: there should be no substitude for framerate, especially in genres such as racing.

That's the problem of some developers: it should not be graphics driven, but gameplay driven. But hey, what's the point in arguing with someone who said
"A fast framerate isn't what makes a game fun [but better graphics do?]" - Qroach

You dont have any idea what the majority of developers think. I really don't see how you'd be in a postion to say anythign like that. I can't tell you what all developers think (and I've been working in development for 10 years) because they don't all think a like. All I can say is that tradeoffs are made like this all the time. My point (that the average consumer won't notice) still stands and it's backed by the fact nobody noticed the E3 demo was running at 30fps in PGR2. Everyone assumed it was 60.

And do YOU have any idea what PGR2 team thinks? After all, you were the one who started this by saying

Like I said before, and the dev team working on PGR2 agrees, the average consumer can't tell if a game is running at 30 or 60fps.

Ok, so you have no idea what the majority of developers think, but you do know that PGR2 agrees with you that the average consumer can't tell the difference.

Since when have you worked on a game, or even have any idea what developers do when it comes to making trade offs? Honestly, it's a valid question, because you're trying to tell me developers don't make these trade offs and that it's unacceptable. Well sorry but your wrong, it is perfectly acceptable, despite everything you "think" you understand.

And since when are my experties and work experience relevant to this discussion? Also, you're putting words into my mouth. When did I state or imply that developers do not make trade offs? If you are unable to comprehend the stuff I post, please let me know so I can perhaps use a simplified language to re-state what I've been arguing the last few pages.

As I said before, please explain why the gaming press/media with their keen eye for anything running at "slide show framerates" thought PGR2 at E3 was running at 60fps when it was running at a locked 30? I'd really be curious to get an answer from you on this before you respond to anything else in my post.

So, from "I didn't see any single person/reviewer complain about the framerate on this title after E3" it's now "thought PGR2 at E3 was running at 60fps". Do you have any prove of reviewers stating that the game ran at 60 fps, when in fact it did at 30 - and that they did not follow the claims of other reviewers who might not have seen it? Or that those few members of the press/media who did state 60 fps are equal to what the average consumer is able to differenciate/notice?

So Quincy, be honest here and for once, stop dodging the question: if you really believe that the average consumer is unable to tell the difference between a 30 fps and a 60 fps racing game - why are the majority of racing games targeting the higher framerate? It doesn't make any sense, after all, using your logic, framerate doesn't make a game fun, so everyone should just concentrate on 30 fps and go for those extra graphics.

 

[Paul]

i can only begin to imagine how GT5-6-whatever will look on PS3

Of course these are dev shots.

But I can't help but think maybe I picked a low bar...

 

[Phil]

To add something more to think about:

can the average consumer notice the different between multi-texturing, specular lights, bump mapping or true polygon bumps? Can he notice the difference in a game running a constant 30 fps framerate opposed to a game at 60 fps? After all, he has no idea what bump mapping is, never heard of dot3 or what specular lights are in that case. So, how would he be able to tell the difference?

To answer that question: the average consumer might not be able to distinctively say what exactly looks better, but he most definately can perceive the difference. He can judge things that don't look or don't move as realistic. In other words, if the average consumer really wouldn't notice a damn thing, there would be no demand for all these advanced algorithms to perform all these lovely pixel effects or run games at faster framerates. So to finish this off, the average consumer very well notices the differences and he can very well distinguish the difference in smoothness of a game running at 30 fps or 60 fps or the change in precision and responsiveness. Unless PGR2 team is using some very advanced motion blur that would give the perception of it running at double the framerate, I doubt the average consumer would not notice the difference to i.e. Gran Turismo 3.

 

[London Geezer]

well phil, i guess that that is what the average consumer percieve in the whole factor of "being a better game".

GT3 was, is and will always be a "better game" than PGR. same for the sequels.

be it for the hundreds of cars, the graphics or the fact that it plays better (and that includes handling, control response, smoothness) (notice how 2 out of 3 there are strictly connected to frame rate, and the fact that 60fps raises the bar when trying to perceive accurate control)...

so there u go. the average consumer doesnt know what frame rate is. the average consumer does know that game A "feels" better than game B. and frame rate is a main issue

 

[Qroach]

Look this is my last post on this topic as arguing somehting liek what framrate is important is completely different for every person. I say 30fps is fine if constant, MANY others out there agree. You say 60 fps is fine, many people also agree.

Or that those few members of the press/media who did state 60 fps are equal to what the average consumer is able to differenciate/notice?

Have you or have you not seen ANYONE complaining about the performance of the E3 version of PGR2. Please answer this, because I failt to see how 60 fps are a "must" if people tend not to notice! I saw it at the show and it looked real solid and i certinaly didn't see any of the many people lined up to play come away thinking, this game sucks I can tell it's running at 30fps.

If 60 fps are so required for ANY racing game, then why didn't people complain? why haven't there been a million threads about how the game sucks due to "slide show" framerates as you say? I'll tell ya why, nobody NOTICED!

So Quincy, be honest here and for once, stop dodging the question: if you really believe that the average consumer is unable to tell the difference between a 30 fps and a 60 fps racing game - why are the majority of racing games targeting the higher framerate?

The MAJORITY of games in development target a higher framerate, but that doesn't mean the end result will be achieving that goal. Every developer wants the game to run as fast as possible, but in every single case thiere's different trade offs made throughout the development. Be it graphics, sound, playablity, whatever you want to choose. A choice is made and people have to live with it. Just like you have to live with it!

It doesn't make any sense, after all, using your logic, framerate doesn't make a game fun, so everyone should just concentrate on 30 fps and go for those extra graphics.

Where did I say everyone should just concentrate on 30fps and improve graphics???? I did NOT say that. I said that every development team has different goals and makes trade offs. yet you can't seem to get that through your head.

You need to stop your crying about it since this won't cause anything to change. We should agree to disagree, because nothing you can say is going to change reality OR my opinion on the matter. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Deepak]

IMO in all FPS/Racing/Fighting games 60 FPS does a world of good to the gameplay!

 

[marconelly!]

Everyone seems to be so worried about average customer, as if that really matters to anyone. At the end of the day, it's all about if YOU'd like to have 30FPS racer with more graphical detail over the one running at 60FPS with less detail. Why to heck am I supposed to care if some kids in MS test room were able to see the difference or not? :?

ZOE2
MGS2 Substance

These two games run at 60FPS 99% of the time (especially MGS2 where you pretty much have to do something stupid to slow it down). What are they doing on that 30FPS list?

 

[wazoo]

Everyone seems to be so worried about average customer, as if that really matters to anyone. At the end of the day, it's all about if YOU'd like to have 30FPS racer with more graphical detail over the one running at 60FPS with less detail. Why to heck am I supposed to care if some kids in MS test room were able to see the difference or not? :?

agreed. MY money will choose the 60fps with less details racer, even more considering I do not consider it has less details

 

[Magnum PI]

i guess you can better sell a candy eyed 30 fps racer over a 60 fps.

maybe it's a choice b/w making a more marketable product or making a more enjoyable game and hope people will buy it.

unfortunately there seems to be lots of graphics whores.. and people putting all their faith in screenshots

i prefer a 60 fps game like burnout 2 over any 30 fps racer.

of course if its a lawnmower or a schoolbus race...

 

[cthellis42]

Yeah, but it's not as "shiny."

On the reviewer front, they're typically trying not to offend their patrons, and aren't going out of their way to over-criticise the game, and if PGR2 flows well, why would they throw out what may seem like over-criticism on an impressive title otherwise? How many reviewers actually took the time specifically TO compare many points with other racers? (I imagine a few mentions of the original PRG were all that would be brought up by most.) How many reviewers are going to be afficionados and looking to really evaluate it as a racer, versus how many are going to spend an hour with it--a spec sheet--and want to bash out a few paragraphs about the eye candy?

It's not like we should really be going to the MEDIA for our overall opinions here, and in the end it doesn't matter at all what Joe Q. Public wants or notices... The core question is effectively, for any driving game--for any fast-paced game emphasizing accuracy--should ANYTHING below 60fps really be tolerated at this point?

What impacts gameplay more, the action or the textures?

 

[zurich]

Everyone seems to be so worried about average customer, as if that really matters to anyone. At the end of the day, it's all about if YOU'd like to have 30FPS racer with more graphical detail over the one running at 60FPS with less detail. Why to heck am I supposed to care if some kids in MS test room were able to see the difference or not? :?

ZOE2
MGS2 Substance

These two games run at 60FPS 99% of the time (especially MGS2 where you pretty much have to do something stupid to slow it down). What are they doing on that 30FPS list?

Marc, ZoE2 is soooooooooo not a 60fps solid title! Unless you count the slowdown retaining its framerate but going into Matrix-style slo-mo as 60fps

After just playing it through a second time, I'd say ZoE2 holds it framerate/gamespeed maybe 50% of time. Still a wicked game though.