That's for a reason with nothing to do with camera limits. Film is telling a story through the eyes of a third party observer, and deliberately shows events from multiple POV to build up the whole story. It's much easier to understand and relate to a person when you can see them instead of inhabiting their body. Even at 120 fps, a first-person movie would likely be a bit poop.Although of course some have gone there too via the handycam movie, and cinema goers have enjoyed 24 fps horror. The low framerate probably helps with the confusion and visceral response.
I think you are missing my point. My point was more rather specifically, that film-makers are well versed in the limitations of their equipment, and use it to good effect. Good effect means in this context that a lot trickery involved in film-making (smokes & mirrors) are hidden by the low framerate. When watching a movie, the 24fps limitation is often not that noticable, since a lot scenes are usually dialog where the camera is on a steady surface, so the amount of movement is kept at a minimum. The exception where 24fps does become noticable is in scenes with lots of movement, mainly action sequences or fast moving objects (but not too fast) or landscape pans. The effect of judder is also dependant on screen size relative to viewing distance. Sitting up close in a movie theater exagerates the effect - watching it at home on a small(er) screen with further viewing distance, decreases it. Also, even in action sequences, 24fps is usually less noticable because you tend to focus on what the director wants you to. Depth of field effects can also be used to great effect in these instances, which are less possible in games because when gaming from the first person perspective (or other), the game-maker can't know on what the gamer/player is focusing on, hence why the entire image is usually sharp. It's like looking through a window into the virtual world you're playing.
The other point is that the 'cinematic' effect is far fetched because both mediums have entirely different purposes. You rarely watch a movie feeling immersed to the point that you see yourself playing the main character. Because the story, as you pointed out, is usually told from the 3rd perspective and there are multiple plot strings and angles told at once. In a game, this is usually different, because it's an interactive experience. You are controlling your character on screen, so there's already a level of immersion that is far beyond what you get while watching movies from within a passive role.
Also, as I said, a 24fps feed is far superiour in motion smoothness to a 30fps game where each individual frames represent perfect razor sharp images.
ThePissartist said:
This is an interesting point; How many knew KZ:SF was doing something creative with the resolution to enhance the framerate in multiplayer? How many noticed the visual difference? Perhaps some more technically minded who know that a framerate improvement can only come at a certain sacrifice and thus, went looking. The majority of people though, I'm willing to bet, would rate the multiplayer visuals on par with the campaign visuals - which was sort of the point I was trying to make in the DriveClub topic. Assuming you are well immersed into playing the game at high speed, I'm willing to bet that a hypothetical game that took a few tradeoffs to achieve 60fps would be close to what we are marveling over in the 30fps version we'll be getting.
At this point, all we are doing is marveling over screenshots and some youtube videos. Sure the graphics are impressive. That's all we have to look at, at the moment. Once you're playing the game however, the graphics tend to lose significance and the immersion and gameplay factors increase.