What Makes Graphics?

[semitope]

What about animation? Animation is part of the visual experience, and it is impacted by frame rate. I'm sorry, but frame rate is part of what you're seeing on screen. You can't judge a games visuals from still shots alone

Anyway, obviously we're aren't going to change each others minds, and this argument has happened a billion times on this forum.

But is animation automatically linked to framerate?

I don't think so, because for instance the animations of the foes in KZ2 (~30fps) easily excells the animations of the foes in MW2 (~60 fps) .
(in my opinion of course )

For me it seems to be contradicting, because a game with 60fps has less resources available to spend for animations (of course if we are considering here in this thread a limited platform and not PCs...)

If you're referring to me, you're going a bit too far to prove your point. Any game is made so it's at least playable. To simplify my point, if KZ2 ran at 1080p at 30fps, IMHO, it would look better than KZ2 at 720p running at 60fps, assuming everything else was the same like lighting etc.

We were talking here about the impact of framerate on graphics before the gods that be interrupted with a very loud voice.

My response to the mention of animation is similar to the one I quoted. High Framerate doesn't make animation great and it should be noted also that realistically we are not talking about 1fps games. Like the other quote says, games are usually targetting 30 or 60fps and our arguments should keep that in mind.

IMHO, framerate and graphics do belong in the same sentence and a game that sacrifices graphics for framerate should not be excluded from a "best graphics" discussion. To simplify the argument, if a game that run at 30 fps at X amount of things going on, texture budges - the whole lot and another game with identical art-direction but ran at 60 fps but with half of X, I would probably give the award to the latter, 60 fps game.

Of course, we don't have an ideal world and there's no equal playing field in that sense. Some games end up sacrificing more to achieve 60 fps, like for instance resolution or less things going on on screen, while others make other sacrifices like framerate to achieve nicer visuals. Then you have games that benefit from higher framerates more so than others.

yes they belong in the same line because they affect each other, it doesn't make one an element of the other. I agree with most of your post though

 

[function]

Real time graphics provide information over time, and it is not possible for sampling frequency to not be a consideration when evaluating them.

Otherwise just throw a ray-tracer at the CPU and use Terrabytes of data off the harddrive and render 1 frame per day/week/year. Bingo! Best reel time grephec EvAh!!!

 

[ShadowRunner]

I consider graphics everything i can see. Framerate i can see, animation i can see, effect of physics i can see, all of these thing have a part to play in graphics imo. I dont see how anyone can refuse to take these things into consideration.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

good Framerate shouldn't improve the graphics score, but gameplay instead and only when the better framerate makes a difference. Better framerate certainly doesn't make the graphics better. That's like saying that when I play Crysis on medium and then turn it very high and say that the graphics quality stayed the same, because of better framerate.

 

[Scott_Arm]

good Framerate shouldn't improve the graphics score, but gameplay instead and only when the better framerate makes a difference. Better framerate certainly doesn't make the graphics better. That's like saying that when I play Crysis on medium and then turn it very high and say that the graphics quality stayed the same, because of better framerate.

I'm not even arguing that. I'm just saying that frame rate is part of the visual experience. Having a low or inconsistent frame rate can be detrimental to the visual experience of a game; It breaks the illusion.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Graphics are a representation of internal program data in a visual form, invariably in a form that parallels our own existence to create an experience that is easier to interpret or relate to. Where that data is changing over time, there is a need for the visual representation also to update to reflect the changes if the person experiencing the graphics is to be made aware of the changes. The faster the visual updates, the easier it is for the person to follow the changes, up to a certain threshold that I don't think anyone has ever identified. In the scope of gaming, due to display technology legacies, this generally caps out at 60 fps for consoles. Now rendering information twice as fast will necessitate either a doubling of resources or a reduction of image features. For people who are happy with a frame update of 30 fps, this could be considered wasteful, but for some (me!) the improved ease of following 60 fps information changes is well worth it.

So in answer to the thread question, yes, framerate is part of graphics - a visual feedback mechanism for representing program data that is updated in discrete steps necessitating a visual update of suitable frequency to make for comfortable, effective feedback.

 

[semitope]

Graphics are a representation of internal program data in a visual form, invariably in a form that parallels our own existence to create an experience that is easier to interpret or relate to. Where that data is changing over time, there is a need for the visual representation also to update to reflect the changes if the person experiencing the graphics is to be made aware of the changes. The faster the visual updates, the easier it is for the person to follow the changes, up to a certain threshold that I don't think anyone has ever identified. In the scope of gaming, due to display technology legacies, this generally caps out at 60 fps for consoles. Now rendering information twice as fast will necessitate either a doubling of resources or a reduction of image features. For people who are happy with a frame update of 30 fps, this could be considered wasteful, but for some (me!) the improved ease of following 60 fps information changes is well worth it.

So in answer to the thread question, yes, framerate is part of graphics - a visual feedback mechanism for representing program data that is updated in discrete steps necessitating a visual update of suitable frequency to make for comfortable, effective feedback.

whaaaaA?? My head hurts

Feedback isn't what graphics are about is it? Put down the controller, just sit back and watch; does the 60fps matter to you then?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A game without feedback isn't a game!

What good is a game without any visual representation? Games are nothing more than numbers getting crunched, modelling some behaviour or other. Perhaps a simple reference is D20 role-playing. Some RPG computer games use the D20 rules, only the dice are 'rolled' inside the computer and the results calculated. Those outcomes are then shown to the user through the graphics. If the random number generator spits out a 17, you play the "Hit Goblin" animation. If instead it roles a 3, you run the "Miss Goblin" (sister of Mr. Goblin?) animation. Now the game shows the outcome with graphics because they are 'pretty' (easier for people to process), whereas exactly the same information can be represented in numbers.

The game itself doesn't need the visual element, but the user does. A screen full of vector coordinates and status values is hard for us to process. A graphic of a tank pointing in a direction with its healthbar half full is very easy to understand. So if you are playing a 'tank' game and you want to shoot right, instead of holding the joystick right until "Bearing = 1.57079633" (90 degrees in radians, the usual metric for computer geometry) you would rather see a graphic of a tank that visually shows you which way it is pointing then a table of yout tank's properites.

Now if the game engine is updating 60 times a second, calculating cause-and-effect, the user needs to be able to see this to be able to input parameters as they want. Let's say the tank is facing up. Bearing = 0.0. I want the tank to face right, which as far as the computer is concerned (it has no idea of the context or meaning of these numbers. In fact they are meaningless apart from whatever meaning we give them!) means a bearing value of 1.57etc. I hold the thumbstick right which adds an amount to the bearing each fraction of a second. I need to know when bearing=1.57 to know to stop holding the thumbstick. I need the visual representation to show me that information. This is where framerate comes in. If the information is updated only once every second, I may well pass the point I actually wanted. I need the visual changes to happen fast enough that I can respond to conditions that I'm looking for. The faster they are, the easier it is to gauge when a response is needed. It's also easier to process visually if the changes from one scene to the next are slight, wich the onlooker experiences as smoothness or comfortable viewing.

 

[Rodéric]

I was so tempted to answer either "artists" or "maths"...
But I won't ^^

 

[Scott_Arm]

whaaaaA?? My head hurts

Feedback isn't what graphics are about is it? Put down the controller, just sit back and watch; does the 60fps matter to you then?

Feedback is a big part what graphics are about. The entire game is visual information. Whether you need around 30fps or 60fps depends on the title.

Frame rate may not be the most important aspect of graphics, depending on the title, but it is an aspect and I don't think it can be ignored. We consider screen tearing a negative in terms of graphics. I think poor frame rate is a negative as well. They both distract the viewer, ruin the illusion and muddle the information that is being presented. Now if you're talking stable 30fps vs stable 60fps, it isn't cut and dry which is the better choice, but I think in general 60fps is a positive, depending on the trade offs that are made.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

A game without feedback isn't a game!

Personally, I think THIS is where the problem is coming in. This is a discussion about graphics. It just so happens that these graphics are a major part of games, but this is purely about graphics (as the title suggests in BOTH threads). Graphics can and do exist outside of the realm of games, therefore it can exist outside the realm of feedback. If this was a debate, specifically, on the impact of graphics IN TERMS OF feedback in games, your point would be perfectly suited for it. However, that's not the case here.

CG movies are rendered around 1 fph or less at times, but that's not what is presented as a final product. What the consumers see is 24 fps and we love the...graphics (the graphics that have 1 fph beginnings).

One of my main points is that graphics and framerate CAN work extremely well together, but graphics can stand alone. Since the topic, in these two threads, is about graphics; framerate can only be a parasite looking for a host (graphics would be the host). In other words, graphics can exist without framerate, but framerate can not exist without graphics.

In the context of the other thread, they seem to be talking about real-time graphics (which includes framerate within reason, but NOT really as a qualifier). That makes all the difference.

good Framerate shouldn't improve the graphics score, but gameplay instead and only when the better framerate makes a difference. Better framerate certainly doesn't make the graphics better. That's like saying that when I play Crysis on medium and then turn it very high and say that the graphics quality stayed the same, because of better framerate.

I believe this to be a great example and goes a long way in proving that better graphics can and do exist outside of framerate.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Surely if there are no tradeoffs then it better fps would always be a positive? I doent matter if it improves graphics for a certain game it is an integral part of graphics no matter what. Aiming for 1080p may have a negative effect on graphics for everyone except those with 100" screens (not that i think this personally), but resolution is of course an integral part of graphics aswel.

There are tradeoffs with every graphical effect, saying it is a negative tradeoff in this or that case doesnt matter it doesnt suddenly stop being part of what you see on screen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Personally, I think THIS is where the problem is coming in. This is a discussion about graphics. It just so happens that these graphics are a major part of games, but this is purely about graphics (as the title suggests in BOTH threads). Graphics can and do exist outside of the realm of games, therefore it can exist outside the realm of feedback. If this was a debate, specifically, on the impact of graphics IN TERMS OF feedback in games, your point would be perfectly suited for it. However, that's not the case here.

I didn't mean feedback exlusively in terms of event+response. It's feedback in terms of communicating to the onlooker the calculations that the computer is doing. That is, the game is nothing but maths. Maths is boring. That maths is translated and communicated in terms of pictures - the feedback to the user of what the computer is doing. You could just as readily watch a game in Attract mode where there is no user but the game is still rendering graphics to communicate what the game is doing.

CG movies are rendered around 1 fph or less at times, but that's not what is presented as a final product. What the consumers see is 24 fps and we love the...graphics (the graphics that have 1 fph beginnings).

Why are the consumers shown 24fps if framerate isn't important? Why not release the frames once per hour as they are rendered and let the consumer experience a slideshow?

There is information within that film, information about characters and motivations and choices. For the person to experience/understand that information, they need that information to be supplied at a suitable framerate. It is beyond us to look at a snapshot once every hour and piece together an accurate and natural understanding of what is happening in the story. We need the framerate to be fast enough to match a near real-world rate of events. The calculations that are beyond realtime used to represent that universe inside the computer are sped-up to supply the human onlookers with something that matches our required information format (audiovisual).

You can think of audio sampling as an analogy. We can't record on computer an analogue signal. We need to digitize it. For this to sound convincing, we need to sample at a suitable frequency (analogous to framerate). If the frequency is low, the quality sounds poor and the signal loses clarity. If it drops too low, it becomes meaningless. Audio data is provided at a frquency that matches our perception. Video signals are also provided at a frequency that matches our perception. We can't allow either to drop too low without consequences, whether a person is interacting with audio/visual data or just spectating.

 

[function]

You can think of audio sampling as an analogy.

a)"How good is the audio?"
b)"16-bit, 44khz"
a)"24-bit, 22kHz is better then!!"
b)"I prefer 16-bit, 44kHz because it ..."
a)"No!! kHz don't matter! I'm talking about how good the audio is!!"


But yeah, for any game the "graphics" are a solution to the problem of passing the desired visual information to the end user(s), and doing so at the desired frequency.

Trying to disregard the performance / frame rate aspect of this is judging the graphics out of context. Which is fine if you want to do that, just don't insist that everyone else should do this too.

Besides, out of context and up against offline renderers all games have relatively crappy graphics.

 

[semitope]

I'm not so sure that audio analogy applies. If the current argument was about the impact of resolution on graphics then it would be a great comparison.

If you were to plot a graph of the importance of framerate to graphics what would it look like? I believe once u reach around 25-30fps the graph would plateau. I understand some of you are framerate sensitive so your arguments favour around 60 or above but is the impact really significant above 30?

btw the thread isn't just about framerate in graphics, its just what brought the topic about. Can always go on to resolution, physics (those "stiff" games for example), the soft look in some games etc

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not saying there isn't an impact. The same graph could be plotted for audio sampling frequency versus perceived quality. For some people, the quality difference would plateau earlier than others. The point here is not to quantify a threshold above which greater framerate is worthless, but to highlight that frame-rate is a part of the graphics equation, just as is resolution, AA, texture filtering, etc. Higher qualities of all this things improve the perception of the content for the end user up to a threshold. eg. AA is good, but above 64x supersampling, is there any point in more AA? Mesh complexity is good, but above 1 million triangles per model is there any point (and I'm sure Laa-Yosh could point to a far lower threshold here actually!)?

If you helps you understand, you can think of framerate as resolution in the fourth dimension. Would you rather look at a screen at resolution of 100,000 x 100, or of a resolution of 1280 x 720? the former would look terrible, despite having more more pixels. The unequal distribution of information to greatly favour one dimension and starve the other would leading to atrocious aliasing. Well, framerate is samples in the fourth dimensions, and 1280 x 720 x 60 is a lot more resolution than 1280 x 720 x 30. The above extreme case of 100,000 x 100 would be analogous to a resolution of 4000 x 2000 x 1; completely lopside information distribution that may look fabulous in stills but cannot effectively convey motion or emotion or fine detail (half a second of raised eyebrow or a quick glance of the eyes), whether a game or a film.

 

[L. Scofield]

Just like a different lighting or shadowing model, a certain framerate has a different feel than another. Take for example a 24 fps movie VS 30 fps. It seems like nothing but both FEEL different independently of any other visual trick. A game can feel visually quite different depending the framerate. Try it with a PC game and you can see what I mean.

As such, framerate is an important part of graphics.

 

[PARANOiA]

When talking about graphics, the argument semitope is putting forward appears to be "how good to screenshots of the game look?" as part of the "best graphics of the year" showcase. I think the other side is more interested in how a game looks as an overall visual package - not just screenshot-wise, but is it smooth, well-animated and keeps you involved in the overall visual experience.

Graphics != screenshots. Pushing any other case will give us lots of crappy-performing games over time

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Why are the consumers shown 24fps if framerate isn't important? Why not release the frames once per hour as they are rendered and let the consumer experience a slideshow?

The answer to that question is because progression is needed to convey certain elements of a story without written words.

My follow-up question to that would be as follows:
Why aren't consumers shown 60fps, if it is so important?

 

[Scott_Arm]

The answer to that question is because progression is needed to convey certain elements of a story without written words.

My follow-up question to that would be as follows:
Why aren't consumers shown 60fps, if it is so important?

What exactly do you mean? In some games they are, where the developer deems it important. Shifty isn't arguing that every game needs to be 60fps, but that frame rate is an important aspect of graphics, whether it's at 24fps, 30fps, 60fps, more or less.