The Great Framerate Non-Debate

ultragpu said:
Wish they would also add a 30fps option with more graphics features just like TLOU remastered :). I think this is the best move ND has made for TLOU.
Click to expand...

Well I think the 30fps option in TLOU is the worst thing ND could do:

- Many people thought (and will still think for many years to come) that the 60fps mode is fluctuating like Infamous & Killzone SP (that are in fact real 30fps games and had never being advertised as 60fps games). But you can't really blame those people when 2 important Sony games before TLOU RE are 30fps games with a very fluctuating 60fps option, TLOU is here the third important Sony game released with the same 30fps/60fps option as the 2 previous...the message is really confusing from ND.
- Many people will not even try the 60fps mode in TLOU and those people will ask the devs to make all future games on PS4 at 30fps only.
- It's not encouraging the players to try 60fps gaming if they have the reassuring possibility to play their game in their nostalgic way, here 30fps.

I understand that options are good, but not here IMO. The future is 60fps (and more) and the devs should have the courage to embrace this bold future without giving this confusing 30/60fps choice to gamers.
 
Globalisateur said:
Well I think the 30fps option in TLOU is the worst thing ND could do:

- Many people thought (and will still think for many years to come) that the 60fps mode is fluctuating like Infamous & Killzone SP (that are in fact real 30fps games and had never being advertised as 60fps games). But you can't really blame those people when 2 important Sony games before TLOU RE are 30fps games with a very fluctuating 60fps option, TLOU is here the third important Sony game released with the same 30fps/60fps option as the 2 previous...the message is really confusing from ND.
- Many people will not even try the 60fps mode in TLOU and those people will ask the devs to make all future games on PS4 at 30fps only.
- It's not encouraging the players to try 60fps gaming if they have the reassuring possibility to play their game in their nostalgic way, here 30fps.

I understand that options are good, but not here IMO. The future is 60fps (and more) and the devs should have the courage to embrace this bold future without giving this confusing 30/60fps choice to gamers.
Click to expand...
I know this is off topic, but I agree with this. I think Naught Dog should have stayed strong. There is a lot of ignorance when it comes to 30fps>60fps and Naughty Dog giving us the option for 30fps perpetuates the idea that 30fps has any advantages at all. If the game looked significantly better at 30fps, we can have a conversation, but in this case it doesn't.
 
I think the opposite. 60 vs 30 allows you to compare and see for yourself which is better. I think that's a good thing.
 
Globalisateur said:
Well I think the 30fps option in TLOU is the worst thing ND could do:
Click to expand...
Actually it's presenting a worst-case for 30 fps. Instead of a true 30 fps game that's maxxed the visuals with double the frame time, you get the 60 fps option running at half framerate. If people choose 30 fps over 60 fps in this case, it's clearly because they prefer the subjective feel of 30 fps. It's the best, normalised test we've ever had! It's giving your beloved 60 fps the best chance of reaching people because they'll be presented the game at 30 fps, and then the same game at 60 fps, with the only difference (apart from shadow quality) being framerate. They won't have to sacrifice eye candy to have 60 fps in this game. The end result, which I expect ND will get metrics on, is a fair measure of what proportion of TLoU gamers prefer 30 fps feel to 60 fps.

In the interests of science and measuring people's opinions instead of trying to force one's personal beliefs on people, I applaud ND!
 
Arwin said:
I think the opposite. 60 vs 30 allows you to compare and see for yourself which is better. I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

I've just seen Gamersyde HQ The Last of Us PS3 (30fps) vs PS4 (60fps) - thank you, good samaritan! - I now know I'm playing at 60fps. No contest for me - it's so much smoother, particularly when moving about, which you do a lot in that game.

I've seen a few PS4 30 vs 60 screens and the differences in graphics quality are marginal-to-undetectable to my eyes.
 
Arwin, Shifty and Dsoup I understand your point, I even thought about it.

But considering the special situation with the 2 previous most important Sony exclusive games, ND only confused a lot of people just in order to give satisfaction the a small minority that were allegedly sick at 60fps.

If their purpose was to show people how good the 60fps is vs 30fps was they could have better reached this goal by given us the 30fps option some time after the release of the game with some PR that the 30fps mode was to convince people how good the 60fps mode comparatively is etc.

It would have at least spared us the confusion.
 
Globalisateur said:
It would have at least spared us the confusion.
Click to expand...
Or they cater to everyone from day one without people sick of 60 fps having to endure it before eventually getting a patch. It's hardly the most taxing situation in games! The only confusion was after calling it 60 fps announcing a 30 fps mode which is now nicely cleared up. Everyone following the game knows they have the choice. Everyone else will just play what they're given maybe poking around with the settings. It's also not a big deal as some seem to think. Console games like the Lego games have had the option to vertical sync or not. Choosing 30 fps or 60 fps is little different to choosing to play as Donut Drake or in black and white.
 
Globalisateur said:
ND only confused a lot of people just in order to give satisfaction the a small minority that were allegedly sick at 60fps.
Click to expand...
Were many people actually confused, or is this an aftershock of the PSA posts across the internet during the RAD firestorm?

I'd be surprised if the typical player kicked off PS4 TLoU by switching from the default to 30fps lock and never look back.

If their purpose was to show people how good the 60fps is vs 30fps was they could have better reached this goal by given us the 30fps option some time after the release of the game with some PR that the 30fps mode was to convince people how good the 60fps mode comparatively is etc.
Click to expand...
That would work, but ensuring that people would hate 30fps by shoving them through heavy acclimation pains would make the result (which will likely be very strongly in 60fps' favour anyway) less interesting. It would turn the whole thing into just a PR demonstration.
 
Well, consistency is the reason for 30fps modes in KZ, TLOU... Now dynamic res to 900p to lock in 60fps when there is heavy load. And not the "bad" solution of droping vsync permanently.
 
brunogm said:
Well, consistency is the reason for 30fps modes in KZ, TLOU... Now dynamic res to 900p to lock in 60fps when there is heavy load. And not the "bad" solution of droping vsync permanently.
Click to expand...

Maybe for some games, but not TLoU. I don't want the game blurrier 100% time to solve a few unnoticeable drops that occur 2% of the time.
 
AlNets said:
He mentioned "dynamic".
Click to expand...
Even if its dynamic there still is the problem of knowing in advance that you wont meet the target (-frametime) and have to scale down. Due to alot of variables this cant be more than a heuristic, and I would expect this will be more crude and innacurate the more complex your scenes and materials are.

In short you either have to be pessimistic, and scale down when you could have reached the target. Or you are optimistic and get missed targets occasionally. Every method has its drawbacks, be it 900p, 1080p or some more complex dynamic system which has to predict how the GPU will react.
 
Quite so. Can't really think of a game that's implemented a bulletproof dynamic res, but there's always considerations to be had for the algorithms. KZ:M was pretty good IIRC. Other games have weird stuff happen, dropping at times for no on-screen reason.

It certainly isn't dropping res "100% of the time" for dynamic though, unless your maximum was something approaching infinity (for whatever reason)... or your title never would have hit the target resolution @ acceptable framerate anyway.
 
I misred his post, fully agree with you. I thought the meant its better to live with 1080p and 2% frameratedrops than using a dynamic approach - which costs performance aswell and drops you more often to a lower res than a "pure" 1080p would miss frames, might still miss frames or annoy you with switching resolutions in an otherwise still image.

With consoles you could atleast expect a given GPU and driver-behaviour, on a PC this would be rather messy.
 
No worries. :)

But yeah, seems a rather messy thing to handle in practise. Definitely would not be good to have the res dropping when it's not even a GPU issue too. XD

Just gotta hope they have the time to do the usual performance profiling etc.

Anyhoo.
 
I missed the dynamic part, but still I'd take occasional drop to 56fps than drops to 900P. To me an occasional duplicate frame is less obtrusive than a drop in res.
 
Npl said:
I misred his post, fully agree with you. I thought the meant its better to live with 1080p and 2% frameratedrops than using a dynamic approach - which costs performance aswell and drops you more often to a lower res than a "pure" 1080p would miss frames, might still miss frames or annoy you with switching resolutions in an otherwise still image.
Click to expand...

Human Visual System is less sensitive at moving objects pursuit in spatial drop than temporal drop. Also horizontal res is less important than vertical res. 1600x900 used only to illustrate as is popular because saves 30% pixels and has the same aspect ratio.

So to correct a 54fps maybe 1728x1080, 10% less pixels but the loss is only in horizontal. The simplest solution in Intel docs is just the frametime difference.

The control scheme is basic: a resolution scale delta is calculated proportionally to the dimensionless difference in the desired frame time and the current frame time.
Click to expand...
 
Cjail said:
The Lord f The Rings was filmed in 24fps and yet I could spot quite easily the fake rocks, the fake trees, the fake water, the fake snow, the "fake" CG characters etc...the flaws in short.
My suspension of disbelief was "broken" even if it was shot in 24fps.

Really poor makeup, poor visual effects and/or practical effects and above all poor acting still are the main reasons why many movies look "fake".
Click to expand...
I'm more than a little skeptical of the whole "30 fps is enough thing" when it's obvious that 60 fps is like the Holy Grail for many genres, but that being said, I just gotta say that Lord of the Rings have excellent acting overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top