*spin* another 60 vs 30 framerate argument

[owen]

1080p/30fps - not a single dip in frame rate !

why can't they just run the darn game at 60 fps? I mean why god why? At this point its just weird to keep it a 30 when you have so much extra power.

Oh and the cutscene swapping really helps because you don't have to do collision detection on the whole view space since everything is a canned animation. So CGI or polygons its still a movie on rails. "ohhh looks pretty" but thats pretty much it. It will happen the same way every time and your'll need more and more artists just to 3 minutes of footage. By the time this game is released I am betting it has a 5 hour single player.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

why can't they just run the darn game at 60 fps? I mean why god why? At this point its just weird to keep it a 30 when you have so much extra power.

Do a little math maybe.

1080p: 2,25 times the pixels to render
60fps: 2 times the pixels to render

So 1080p and 60fps: 4,5 times the pixels to render.

We're talking about maybe a 6-8x performance increase, so much of that would already be eaten away and in KZ's case the devs might not be able to do proper HDR, for example.

I think the larger audience wants prettier pixels more than higher frame rates. It's also easier to sell with images and movies, showing a more obvious jump in visuals.

 

[tuna]

I think the larger audience wants prettier pixels more than higher frame rates. It's also easier to sell with images and movies, showing a more obvious jump in visuals.

If that is the case why do they keep buying the CoD games?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

People keep buying 30fps games too, so that already makes your argument useless.

Also, COD games were getting prettier through the years and sacrificing frame rate for it, too. And the primary sales factors for COD games are the intensive SP campaign and the multiplayer anyway, and not the graphics. There's probably a 5 to 20% segment of the buyers who realize the importance of 60fps in quick reaction times, but the rest don't know and don't care.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Also, COD games were getting prettier through the years and sacrificing frame rate for it, too. .

All console cods on xbox360 are rock solid 60 fps. Ps3 the same but sometimes dropping frames. Both run on sub hd resolution to be able to reach this framerate. As such, I dunno what you mean by sacrificing frame rates?

 

[tuna]

People keep buying 30fps games too, so that already makes your argument useless.

They do not buy 30 fps shooters (Halo might be an exception).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

No, they are not.

As long-time Digital Foundry readers may recall, Call of Duty on console very rarely actually runs at the "rock solid 60FPS" that it is often lauded for. Performance drops are to be expected bearing in mind the mere 16.66ms of rendering time available per frame and the sheer amount of action and effects work that can kick off without warning at any given point. The trick is to ensure that frame-rate remains high enough to pass as the highest possible frame-rate - something that we like to call the "perceptual 60FPS".

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-modern-warfare-3

They have been adding to the engine's features and changing the architecture here and there through the years, then there are the increased poly counts and texture resolution, more complex scenery, more effects and so on. MW3 and BLOPS2 both look noticeably better than MW1, but run much less stable, so yes, the developers have sacrificed frame rate for prettier pixels.

 

[tuna]

Also, COD games were getting prettier through the years and sacrificing frame rate for it, too. And the primary sales factors for COD games are the intensive SP campaign and the multiplayer anyway, and not the graphics. There's probably a 5 to 20% segment of the buyers who realize the importance of 60fps in quick reaction times, but the rest don't know and don't care.

If you have (closer to) 60 fps things do not blur when you move the "camera" fast. All people with a healthy vision can see that. Or do you have any other data?

And if you think that people do not care you are of the opinion that game mechanics does not matter. Which is wrong.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

They do not buy 30 fps shooters (Halo might be an exception).

O really?

Killzones, Battlefields, Borderlandses, Resistances, Left for Deads and Orange boxes...
And we could include 3rd person shooters too, then we'd have Uncharteds, Gears and Metal Gears, Dead spaces, Resident Evils, GTAs, RDR...

The original argument was that people buy games for pretty pixels and not for high frame rates. The majority of games sold are 30 fps. COD is a rare exception and its success can not be tied to 60fps only, maybe not even in any way at all.

 

[tuna]

They have been adding to the engine's features and changing the architecture here and there through the years, then there are the increased poly counts and texture resolution, more complex scenery, more effects and so on. MW3 and BLOPS2 both look noticeably better than MW1, but run much less stable, so yes, the developers have sacrificed frame rate for prettier pixels.

The CoDs have much more stable frame rate in the multiplayer.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

A large percentage of gamers never even touches multiplayer.

Can we stop with this argument here please? KZ is going for 30 fps because it provides a better return of investment, end of story.

 

[tuna]

O really?

Killzones, Battlefields, Borderlandses, Resistances, Left for Deads and Orange boxes...
And we could include 3rd person shooters too, then we'd have Uncharteds, Gears and Metal Gears, Dead spaces, Resident Evils, GTAs, RDR...

The original argument was that people buy games for pretty pixels and not for high frame rates. The majority of games sold are 30 fps. COD is a rare exception and its success can not be tied to 60fps only, maybe not even in any way at all.

The CoD games has sold more than all the fps you mention.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

And yet noone else is willing to sacrifice prettier pixels for higher frame rates.

Can we stop with this argument here please????

 

[tuna]

A large percentage of gamers never even touches multiplayer.

Can we stop with this argument here please? KZ is going for 30 fps because it provides a better return of investment, end of story.

So how many CoD buyers touch the multiplayer? And if you don't want to argument you are in the wrong place.

 

[tuna]

And yet noone else is willing to sacrifice prettier pixels for higher frame rates.

I know, I do not understand why no other game developer does not try to compete with CoD. But Kotnik must be really happy.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Damn it now

going for 30 fps because it provides a better return of investment, end of story.

 

[tuna]

You have shown absolutely no data backing up that statement.

 

[Xbat]

one of the reasons call of duty does so well is brand reconigtion. Believe me if they released a 60 fps first person shooter that was exactly the same but called it boneyard or whatever and no one new who developed it. It would not get close to call of duty numbers.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

A large percentage of gamers never even touches multiplayer.

That is bull! Most CoD buyers never touch the sp!

In any case, just checking the career ps3 leader boards for blops2 I have some people on my friendslist that are ranked in the 13.8 millionth place.. I think that should settle any discussion that most people that buy cod do in fact play the multiplayer.


I have some people on this friendslist with 1100+ kills that are ranked 7.4 millionth place! Play time close to a day.

Phil from b3d is ranked 6.7 million with 20 hours logged

The story is the same with mw1&2&3...

Oh and the multiplayer is rock solid 60 fps..

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Did those 7+ million guys play up to 20 hours of multiplayer because the game is 60fps?