If you are looking for ways to support the channel or to join our Discord, you can find those links here! Ko-Fi ► ko-fi.com/sidalpha Patreon ► Patreon.com/SidAlpha Discord ► discord.gg/sidalpha
30fps is more "cinematic"? Wasn't this settled already when The Order: 1886 released and flopped? Let's be real here. They're only saying this to hide the fact that their game can't run above 30fps.
So much for having performance patches this generation, after Starfield it seems like Microsoft threw up their hands and declared all games to be 30fps again. I'm so tired of being stuck at this framerate every single generation, we haven't had a lot of 60fps games since the SNES era.
This is a long debunked argument that fails to consider 1 thing. You don't control anything in a movie. You passively watch it. It's a whole different ballgame when you are watching the results of your inputs live. Any dev claiming 30 FPS is more cinematic is basically saying "we couldn't make it run at 60 fps so we gave up."
That's why the "cinematic" excuse always fails. In a film, the film maker has 100% of the control over the experience. In a game, the player takes an active part in the experience and frame rate enhances that experience. I can't believe that devs still use that excuse nowadays. Every gamer knows it is BS and it has literally become a joke. It was a joke almost 10 years ago. Even if a dev said something like, "we want to give you the best visual experience possible and we could only achieve that at 30fps." that would at least be honest and garner at least a little respect for that honesty. Giving the tired, old, "cinematic" excuse is just disingenuous and cowardly.
Sid. You missed out the key difference between film and video game generated images, and why a film can get away with 24fps and look fine, whereas a game looks jerky. When a film is recorded light passes through the lens and impacts the film which then "records" that moment in time onto the film. If an object is moving across the lens it will be in a different position at the start of that process then at the end. This causes natural motion blur. If you film a ball falling, each individual frame will show the ball not as a sphere but as an ellipse. That's why when you pause a film during movement it will be all blurred out. When a GPU/Console generates an image it is a perfectly still representation of the position of each object at any given moment. This lack of blur is what causes the perception of jerkiness at lower framerates. The mind uses that natural blur captured by film at 24 fps and interoperates it as movement. When that is missing or altered the brain gets confused. Game Devs try to compensate for this by adding motion blur in artifactually in the post processing stack but it always looks awful. To make things look smoother when generating perfectly still images as a GPU does it is better to give the brain as much information as possible, hence higher frame rates looking smoother. The upper limit of this is ridiculously high where the brain can detect changes in motion higher than 1,000 frames per second. 24fps for film being the cheapest/least amount of film needed is also not the only reason. When "real" film increases it's fps the natural blurring is then shortened do to objects moving a shorter distance during the film exposure process. That shortening of the motion blur looks weird to our brains which is why some film at 30 or 60 fps ends up falling into the uncanny valley. Since the rise of digital video recording this effect has been lessened, but I'm not totally sure why... The mismatch between screen refresh rate (htz) and the fps generated by the gpu/console generally has very little to do with if the end result looks smooth or not. That mismatch predominantly effects things like screen tearing rather than fluidity.
I remember a long time ago when this cool and really popular youtuber who often argued for consumer rights in gaming and possibly had a tophat looking avatar... was arguing that the standard for games should be 60 FPS on average hardware and that there was no excuse for not meeting that benchmark. We are surely at least a decade and a half removed from this generally agreed upon standard. Somehow, there are still companies, and executives who are trying to argue that 30 FPS is acceptable. Clearly, we have not been doing a good enough job of setting expectations and raising the bar to where it probably should rest. Maybe instead of the decade and a half old standard of 60 FPS; we should be pushing that at 1080P, on perfectly average middle of the line PC hardware, 144 FPS without dips; without AI upscaling; should be the norm. 60 Should be looked at as the absolute bare minimum that even a potato could manage for most games.
Fun fact, the Oppenheimer 70mm IMAX film reel is 11 miles long and weighs 600 pounds! As for 24fps in game cinematics, that doesn't make sense, it's a digital creation, there's no physical media like film that takes up room. Just give me all the frames the GPU can push, please and thanks.
Helldivers 2: Makes cinematic kabooms at any framerate with many other moments that the game simply creates a movie feel. Hellblade 2: Locks things 30 and calls it more cinematic. Time will tell, I guess, but history suggests otherwise. I sure hope the game is actually optimized and put together well. That's worrying me more now.
It’s worth noting that film projectors run at a refresh rate of at least 48 refreshes per second. Each image is shown twice. This is to prevent the audience from noticing light stutter flashing
Watching a film is a passive experience so 24fps is totally acceptable. Video games require active engagement from the player, therefore frame rate affects the experience. And higher frame rate makes it easier for players to react. A lower frame rate would never be preferable in a video game, unless it is some fmv game with little to no gameplay. Calling a low frame rate game, "cinematic" is such an old excuse that no one buys it anymore. It is literally a joke every gamer knows by now.
Lol. I remember when Total Biscuit debunked the 30 fps being "more cinematic" nonsense long ago. The reality is that Ninja Theory is trying to spin low framerates into something positive. The truth is they chosen Unreal Engine 5 which is notorious for poor performance especially when you want to take advantage of all the eye candy it can offer. They have chosen to make a graphically impressive game and that game just cannot be delivered at 60 fps on current consoles without turning down the details.
Ive been using for nearly 2 years and yup, it runs like dog shit. Resorting to reducing resolution scale and using TSR to upscale equally looks like dog shit. Optimise your damn games!
You can get a more 'cinematic/stylized' feel with lower framerates. But not to the game rendering. Do it in the animations. This is especially true when your game is animated or has anime style art. Still run the game at 60/120 to avoid camera stutter. But the characters themselves can have their animations updated on specific frames to get a certain 'look'.
"We don't have enough left in the tank to really optimize our game so it'll just have to be locked to 30 fps." is what they're saying. "30 FPS is more cinematic" is just BS. Even the cutscenes in games look more cinematic at 60fps than 30. I'm on an old rig, I see the difference between 60 and 30 all the time. 30FPS in games is just not the same as 24 film. Anyone saying that it is just doesn't know what they are talking about. 60 FPS is the bare minimum for a quality viewing experience now, not 30. 30FPS was fine back when I was growing up, sure. But so was a phone stuck to the kitchen wall. Times change, we can do a lot better, and I'm tired of publishers calling poor optimization an "artistic" choices.
Yeah, it reminds me of the devs of The Order 1886 claiming that adding horizontal black bars was to make the game more cinematic. In reality, the game could barely reach 24fps full screen.
And no one's talking about ALL of the footage being in 21:9 - lowering the frame rate AND resolution to be more "cinematic." I love UW monitors on PC, but if I'm playing on my TV I want my game to fill the screen!
Good video, but it missed the fact that higher frame rates "tend" towards decreasing input lag, along with what has been discussed. Besides, I am one of those who sees the flicker from 24fps. It can give me migraines. Not fun.
Games: GPU renders a moment in time per frame Movies: Cameras record a span of time during exposure of the sensor/film per frame -> movies have physically perfect motion blur as part of the acquisition method So as soon as games can do like 240 fps and then interpolate 10 frames into one to create 24 fps, then we can talk about the "cinematic look". Until then, this is not a debate.
Since my internet connection is too slow to deliver videos at the resolutions that UA-cam allows to run at 60 fps, all of Sid's examples come across like the desperate ravings of the protagonist at a the end of cosmic horror story. . . . . "His mind was quite gone, yet he spoke nothing but truth."
There's also player response time. More FPS/screen updates gives finer control for the player. Mouse control in a 30fps shooter will generally lag more than in 60fps. Having said that I DO understand the '30fps is cinematic' thing. As someone who grew up in the 80's/90's (when game fps was never 60) a high frame rate makes me feel rushed, it feels artificial somehow, it's too clean. Obviously in the end players should be able to decide for themselves. I play twitch fps games in 60fps and it's great. Some adventure games I play in 30fps, probably for nostalgia reasons, but I simply like the feel.
As a PC gamer, 90fps is my minimum single player and 120fps multiplayer shooter. That's why I gave up on the console. It's expensive but it makes me happy 😂
60 fps on a console feel close to 90 fps on PC though. I feel like both platforms complement each other, different games are best played on one or the other.
So it took them all these years to make this walking sim and yet they couldn't manage to make it run at 60fps minimum? I wish the Xbox division of Microsoft would actually care about hiring talented devs and creatives for their studios. Also let's not forget that if a game runs at 30fps (or less), you can expect a lot of disgusting motion blur.
30 frames being more "cinematic" is all good en well but i don't want to go to the cinema i want to play a GAME. For games 30 fps is jarring it doesn't look smooth.
@TWDub That was then, this is now. Noone cared if Settlers 1 ran at 24fps. Noone cared if Doom ran at 30 fps (it ran just fine at 48fps if you had a DX2 processor until you entered one of those "you die" rooms). Doom was revolutionary for its time. But that was then, hardware improved, we got the addon 3D card, and then it replaced the normal gfx card. We got rid of the 3600 rpm harddrives and now even storage drives have 7200 rpm. We had the internal speaker then the adlib midi card, then the soundblaster card and now integrated stereo sound on all motherboards. Having your game locked to 30 fps is not an excuse when the harddrive is readily avaliable to support higher frames WHILE keeping the graphical fidelity. The same line of reasoning you try to make could be applied to sound, the amount of disks needed per game and switching between disks like an old Sierra game, the amount of games we can have per harddrive, the loading times of the games - C64 had up to 15 minutes load time IF it loaded properly - why should we need to have faster load times? Why bother with an SSD? The Internal speaker (jokingly called Eternal speaker) is good enough, no need for stereo sounds, 8 bit colors is all we need "since we can't see more colors anyway and we can offset them with a simple &H71 assembly command anyway", 640*480 is good enough resolution (and having a 800*600 interlaced resolution was considered cheating when playing Red Alert since you could see more on your screen). The games back then gave you as many frames your computer could push. Having a DX2 processor made a big difference from having an SX processor, later you had the advantage in games depending on which brand of 3D card you had in Quake (which btw ran just fine at 60 fps with a proper rig so your "golden age" argument falls flat here) - some 3D card supported OpenGL's transparent water and some didn't, making you invisible submerged but letting you see up/down through the water, same with halo light effects. What golden age are we talking about? Which games? What computer system? Because you could run Doom on 48 fps, Quake & Neverwinter Nights on 60 fps, I know many people who got motion sick and we figured out it was their computers, they weren't up to snuff, so those SX processors became DX processors and DX became DX2 (no reason to get a DX4 since the DX2 ran at 33MHz cycles but the DX4 ran at 25MHz cycles). The graphics cards were a jungle to sort through but we relied on a big friend group who bought different ones, and in the end it came down to "does it support OpenGL or not?" In this day and age with the tech avalibable we can expect devs to actually put some effort into optimization. We've got screens that support 144Hz, processors that 20 000 times faster than back then, some of us amateur audiophiles have 7:1 head sets for crying out loud while the "real boys" thinks that is aged and even 8.1 is old and 9.1 is much much preferable. But I guess having a crystal clear recording of a song with no buzzing or scratches is bad too? You want the soft humm from the unshielded speaker wires and the pops from the LP player needle jumping whenever a piece of hair or dust blocks its path?
@TWDubI was born in the early 90s and grew up with games that run like 10 frames or sth. It was ok then but a NEW game coming out in 2024 without 30 fps is not acceptable anymore. I still play old games in 30 fps if theres no 60fps patch out there. But I dont support a new release that feels like I´m playing on a potato again.
Oh my god. How are we still having this debate? Technical limitations of consoles do not make a game more cinematic. How are Devs still using this excuse?
I think it started many years ago with Ubisoft who said the eyes can't see beyond 30 frames per second but that was easily debunked but people did eat it up.
I remember a big deal was made over the Hobbit movies being shot in 48 FPS. Hasn't happened much since as far as i know. As for 30 vs 60, I say the closer you can make the FPS of the game to the monitor you're working with the better. If the PS5 Pro being rumored about is real, maybe a steady 60 FPS for everything will be one of the new features.
hahaha, such a clownish argument guys, we didn't bother optimizing the game, all for your cinematic experience next time we will make the game run at 12 fps for you to get authentic TV anime experience
I’m so sick of this debate. Low frame rates bother me less than developers coming up with lame excuses for their incompetence or laziness. If you can’t manage 60, 90, 120 FPS, that’s fine. Just say that. Don’t convince me that lower is better. Even if it is “better,” the lack of choice is a negative.
Tbh I'll take low fps over having flickering lights and shadows in the distance for games. Still just as minor and doesn't affect gameplay at all; I just like shine and shadows to look less jagged on the edges (I'd even take a blur method tbh) and lack of flickering keeps the immersion in the game. It's often far off in the distance but with things like wooden planks, it's very distracting; since the gaps and lines between them work the same way as light and shadows. But that's just my personal take. Edit : Typed 60fps instead of "low fps" >.< Mistake fixed!
i will forever mourn the death of MSAA + alpha to coverage, i'll go back in time to forward-rendering engines instead of deferred-render if it means devs can't just use DLSS as a crutch to barely limp to the 30FPS mark
I mean, the industry standard for film is just under 24 fps. Its like 23.9 or something like that. But games aren't films. I'm fine working with 30 fps but i understand why people want higher than that.
4:12 ok the one on the left is actually starting to make me feel sick so if my more cinematic you mean watching the human centipede then I agree that 24fps is more cinematic, but if we are talking more realistic then the 60fps is far better and smoother. Back when my old PC setup was in need of a drastic upgrade I could run games at an average of 25fps or above (this was for batman Arkham city) if it dropped below 25fps I would count that game as unplayable, after the first upgrade (getting a better graphics card) I was getting a low of 40 (with my old system it was an average low of 21 but in a few places would drop to 10 for a second or two) and this new higher lowest FPS was so much better. If you think that 24fps is a better gaming experience I feel sorry for I’ve been that poor that you can’t afford to get a better system but you NEED to quit the copeium it’s not healthy for you.
Using the absolute minimum to fool the human brain, isn't something to be proud of. I can't even play most of my console games anymore, as i'm so used to the smoothness of PC.
This is a commandment from on high, plain and simple. The xbox cant handle the game, but ninja theory is owned my microsoft, and so they have to put it out on xbox. Theyre not allowed to say the hardware sucks, they need to turn a bug into a feature, thats all this is.
The reason devs want to push higher "fidelity" instead of frame rate is because they want people to look at their game, not enjoy playing it. The less FPS you get, the more time you have to appreciate every frame.
i will forever mourn the death of MSAA + alpha to coverage, i'll go back in time to forward-rendering engines instead of deferred-render if it means devs can't just use DLSS as a crutch to barely limp to the 30FPS mark
It's been something said for years now. It was said about The Evil Within as well. 30FPS isn't the worst thing ever, but this just seems lazy to not give us another option. I wish game companies were not obsessed with 4K. Let us change it to 1080 if we want to to get 60FPS.
30 fps is too much. Everyone knows the human eye is only seeing 5 fps. :P Anyone claiming that [insert low fps number here] is more "cinematic" is talking nonsense especially considering that in video games fps isn't just visual as it impact input latency.
Not really the standard for console tho , many singleplayer titles lately just cap their game at 30fps due to 60fps don't work that good. Ex DD2 on ps5 run terrible in 60. On the other hand PC with 360hz or something, you can play this game uncapped anyways.
@@thraxberserker9960 Last year I played Alan Wake 2 and Baldur gate 3 on ps5 is at 30fps quality mode and performance mode can't really run constant 60fps when both of them ran far better on my brother pc . They are still great games and goty contenders, same goes for Dragon Dogma 2 and Hellblade 2 here.
It's not that the frame rate is important it's more so game devs don't want to put the effort into the game to optimize it or the fact the older Xbox models might not be up to par to run it.
It's definitely not the same. I'm very familiar with dark room stuffs, so yeah... That said, the differences in Fallout 4's comparisons were not something I could see beyond that of the AI's actions. It was definitely visible in the NFS Payback comparisons; looked a lot cleaner at 60 FPS. I had to rewatch the P.U.B.G. comparisons because I was paying a bit too much attention to what I found silly and ended up laughing at (that buggy was still going after losing a tyre (but not uphill🤣🤣), but most of what I notices was the presence of dithering at close-range view, there being more of it at 24 FPS but present all the same. Eh, not great.
When Cyberpunk2077 first came out, I was using a 10 year old 3rd gen I7 still. I couldn't get the game to run at anything more than 20FPS, because of CPU bottle-necking; And it was damn near unplayable. Those who say "Lower FPS = Better", have never seen what actual lower frame-rates look like, and how much worse they are.
It sucks that UA-cam only allowed you to do 60 FPS and so your 30 v 60 v 120 there was no difference in the 60 v 120. Yea UA-cam. Unless I am missing something.
The fundamental difference is that a generated frame for a video game is a single time point while for a movie captured with a camera, a frame is everything that happened during that 1/24 seconds. So the movie inherently has motion captured in each frame making fast moving objects blurry while for the video game they appear as stationary in each frame. That's why video games looks choppy at 30 fps while a movie is fine at 24 fps.
The input lag is the biggest gripe I have with low fps Since going 144hz I can't go back My pc isn't powerful enough to run modern games at 144fps, but even 90fps feels like a significant improvement even upon 60fps When it hits the max fr of my monitor omlll The "soap opera effect" is something I'm frustrated in hearing as an excuse not to film higher fps. It can be done. It has been done I can't stand fight scenes where the camera is moving fast as the frame rate makes it waaay to choppy Those fight scenes work better in animation as they have full control of the framing and frame timing, making them easier to watch A camera guy who is slipping on ice is not a good viewing experience at low fps (it's more tolerable at higher fps as yt has taught me). 24fps should be left to animation imo It's outdated. Ok, Idm it being used stylistically, but not for every movie. I don't like action movies as they give me headaches But action scenes in games are fine
Yeah. Unless it's some ol' CRT crapbox, 60 Hz is pretty much the standard these days. In gaming, 60 is getting outdated (or already outdated for some, like me) just like 30 was. I usually like saying, "who the hell will play Dark Souls 3 at 60 FPS when we all own 480 Hz monitors in 2040?" when trying to make a point in terms of future-proofing video games. You can insert any game that has an FPS lock in that statement.
That 'cinematic' 30fps is going to look and feel like utter dogshit on high refresh OLED displays that are designed for fast and responsive games. This 'more cinematic feel ' bs doesn't cut it anymore.... and the devs know it. If that was the case, then they would lock it at 30fps on PC surely? It's just a nonsense excuse. They would be better of just being transparent about cpu limitations with these consoles. unreal 5 and reytracing are not really viable on SX imop. This game will only be worth playing on a 4090 or until the next consoles play catch up.
"We decided aiming for 30 fps was the best balance of graphical fidelity and performance achievable on this platform " Just be honest and people won't be mad
some thoughts: classical cinema projectors shows every frame twice, so pretty close to regular monitors doubling the 30fps to 60 (with vsync) However: film stills are captures of motion (hence motion picture) with every ups and downs: blurs, aliasing, lens-flare....but the game frames stills are made up right there, usually with no reference to motion (that would tax the system more than rendering more frames) thus making the movements just jerky AND less responsive (don't forget also that games are interactive, so the less time it takes from button-to-render/screen (higher fps), the faster the response _can_ be)
The NFS comparison is really good because of the white dash lines in the middle. You can clearly see how much smoother they are at 60, whereas at 24 they almost seem to jerk. Of course we want 60 fps and this excuse certainly doesn't hold water.
This entire debate is just silly and nonsensical. 30fps being best or even good is just console copium. I spend a lot of money on my PC because i get dizzy from low fps. The higher the fps in a game is the more direct and natural the input feels. I don't care about movies because i rarely watch movie anymore.
what you forgot to mention, is that movies that have upped framerate to 48 or 60 look worse, compared to 24 frames. Ever notice this odd look these soap operas, sport, reality tv show have? When I saw home alone and Rambo 4 with upscaled video to 48/60 FPS - it felt awful. So is with most of 60FPS videos on youtube. Sure I like playing quake at 60FPS, but watching it at 60FPS is giving off that similar effect. Also, I play old version of Resident Evil 4 PC port that is locked to 30 FPS. It feels fine. One thing is to make game optimized for 30 FPS, and purposefully locking framerate to 30 because you failed to optimize it for 60+ FPS.
I'd sigh over this, but to be honest this is the "Red Headed Step Child" syndrome in action yet again. Video Games have always "forced" to play the 4th fiddle behind Movies, Books, and Comics. However that was way back in the day when it was such a novel thing that most refused to take it seriously or acknowledge there was art or even passion to it. Movies suffered that, Comics did as well. Books were a good way to "Melt your brain to mush" back in the late 1800s....then again the term "Penny Dreadful" comes from that time period due to the sheer volume of dime novels that were disjointed messes In fact Video Games mirror Books in some ways, the great crash of the 1980s do to many, many Saturday Night Specials thrown together with little care or direction to cash in on a Movie Release, with E.T being the biggest one and the one often (not unjustly) credited with being the fatal bomb. So with that context, and the fact that many in the industry either have bought into their own insecurities over the years about being the Bastard Child that not even Big Brother Hollywood pretends to like, or just sheer ego that makes some of Hollywood's big egos seem tame. We get the "Well, actually 30fps is more Cinematic" line. Bare with me. 24fps is considered the *Golden* FPS for a movie because it looks natural on film and even in Animation, weather 2d or 3d, 24/30fps is the normal because in that style of media it is the most natural looking and has the added benefit of not straining the viewers eyes. The first time I ever saw a Movie that was in 60fps, and I had to process if it was just me and something was wrong with my eyes or the movie, only to find out that it was in fact the version of "National Treasure" being shown on that TV Channel was a 60FPS version. and it hurt everyone in the rooms eyes and head trying to process it. Even worse it was a early 60fps version of a movie so the voices were off sync with what was going on. Now the big point. *60FPS* is better than 30 in Video Games do to the way a Video Game works and behaves and even interfaces with the end user, there is no excuse for settling for 30fps, and even less so for making excuses about only one system having to deal with it because it is quote "Impossible to do 60fps on the Series S"......looking at a few devs of late. Allow me to translate what "It is impossible to do 60fps on the Series S" means. It means "Across the board, this game looks like hammered arseshite compared to a game on the PS3/360, yet for some reason either via Deadlines or by us being insanely lazy and stupid managing to waste most of the deadline time on trying to shove this hamfisted pet project of one of the dev leads into the game, so we never could optimize it because we are retarded and lazy" "30fps is more Cinematic" is no different than Actvision's reasoning behind why "We can't optimize Call of Duty to be a reasonable size", made around the time Modern Warefare 2019 was pushing the near 300gb mark, and has forever made me view any and all SSDs as completely suspect full stop because I sensed an industry wide *Bullshit* marketing stunt/point due in direct part to that statement which was and I quote "Until the industry standardizes on SSDs". Well that has happened as the Series S/X and PS5 both come with one by default, Black Ops Cold War on a full install is over 300GB, MW2 from what I hear is still in the unreasonably high 200s, I can't be bothered to figure out how big Vanguard and MW3 is. The 30fps people within the games industry are nothing more than the same conmen that we've been increasingly stuck with since the "Crash we keep refusing to admit was a industry crash" back around 2011-2013 when THQ bite the bullet, most of the Middle-market devs vanished into thin air, and Ubisoft damn near died on the street as a result of a near fatal hostile takeover (in hindsight....that might have been a better outcome for Ubisoft). Long rant over, I could keep going but these non-debates like this piss me off given they are from a group of asshat devs that blame the end user rather than place blame on theirselves for failing at their jobs.
and they pushed this BS since they PR those consoles as 1080p\720p consoles ... they could only do Subpar 600p\900p , PS3 to trick people even had a build in Upscaler to trick the resolution like PS4Pro did it could do 4k
depends on gamegenre a more static scene don't need 60 fps. 4x games which are usually top down and mostly in menues don't need 60 fps allthough they are never fps locked as those aren't consolegames. crpgs that are top down or third person can get away with 30 fps too. Baldurs gate combat scenes for example don't need a 60+ fps refresh but again baldurs gate 3 isn't fps locked. first person shooters, fighting games and racing games on other hand definately needs the frames if possible thanks to rapid changing scene. That is the key really ...if the scene don't rapidly change 60 fps isn't a must, turnbased. tactical games like x-com, puzzle games like terra nil, civ 5 ( mostly menue anyway ) fell seal/disgaea which is akin to final fantasy tactics don't dermand 60 fps either. Neither does city builders for most part allthough it do help with tracking moving objects like cars. Not that you need to track individual cars in city skylines but still. Minecraft have to few moving objects at the time for 60 fps to matter either allthough again no cap. Now games like wipeout, doom, counterstrike, apex or high detail cinema like last of us series the tearing is noticeable and the closer you are to your monitor refresh hrtz the better.
Good explanation. Currently we have systems that can imitate motion blur and other smoothing effects but at quite the processor cost, so they can make 30 fps look smoother, but it might be more efficient to just bump it up too 60 fps.
The cinematic feel also has to do with the cameras shutter rate being tied to the frame rate (doubled) and thus giving a certain level of motion blur that has come to be expected from film. There’s some sense in lower frame rate games being more cinematic for the same hardware though as you can spend more computing budget on visual fidelity.
Man I've been playing games on 60 FPS for years now. I would say 8 or 9 years on 1080p. And I still get decent 60 even on new games. I just have to tone down the graphics a bit.
Yeah in terms of video games 60 fps is indeed better because it is a lot smoother than at 24fps. Also there are high frame rate movies. Movies that are recorded at a least 48fps or more which improves the graphical look of the movie.
my eyes are stupid and the frame rates dont looks that much different to me the higher rate so look a bit faster and smoother but not enough to make a big difference to me.
I'm trying to recall if Ninja Theory has ever made a game at 60fps...I think the pc version of DMC: Devil May Cry is it. Console versions of that utterly meh experience were locked at 30. High frames seem to be something they just aren't capable of
To anyone who seriously believes 30 fps is "better" than 60fps or thinks there's no difference- Or if you know people who believe it. There's an ancient little site called "UFO Test: Multiple Framerates". Put the person who thinks thinks this silly thing infront of it and add 6 UFOs, put the damn speed to lowest, cover the left side and ask them which one looks better. it's always going to be the one at the top, it has the default of your screens refresh rate. Be it 144, 120 or 60 fps. And yes you WILL see difference between 144 and 120 if you've got a 144Hz screen.
once again "the most powerful consoles ever" cant manage to do anything over budget pc's that look slightly better running at 60fps. and within a pretty short timeframe too. the 360 when it came out was the most powerful thing on thhe market. the series x was already outdated on launch.
All consoles are outdated it's still the most popular console currently regardless. It's simple it's not 60 cause the devs didn't want it to be 60... games are always made with production goals in mine and 60 fps wasn't what they were trying for
you are missing an important point at 7:00 , a camera has a certain exposure time for the frame, then closes the shutter and goes to the next frame. an image in a video game doesn't have an exposure time. it's instant. the transition to the next frame is instant, all information between those frames is lost. on film it's a natural motion blur due to the exposure time and information loss is minimal. to imitate this in games, you'd need over 600fps. better yet 1000.
Well, to be fair,, more cinematic it may be, but it's also more shit. We're used to 60 fps these days, so when seeing a movie at 24 fps with motion blur is frankly awful. Let's face it , cinematic looks like crap by to days standards.
I always cap all of the games at 60 FPS, if I don't my Red Devil Graphics Card overheats and goes into thermal cut out. (It's a real pain in the neck when that happens)
If you are looking for ways to support the channel or to join our Discord, you can find those links here!
Ko-Fi ► ko-fi.com/sidalpha
Patreon ► Patreon.com/SidAlpha
Discord ► discord.gg/sidalpha
sony games running at 30FPS u sleep... xbox games running at 30 FPS u wake...
At 3:53 you tell that you will link to the video in the description, but looks like you forgot.
TB's "The great framerate non-debate" is almost a decade old. We really move in circles
I guess JUST enough people are foolish enough to believe them that they persist in the lie.
30fps is more "cinematic"? Wasn't this settled already when The Order: 1886 released and flopped?
Let's be real here. They're only saying this to hide the fact that their game can't run above 30fps.
"Cinematic" is the politically correct term for "unoptimized mess". Yandere simulator is very "cinematic".
So much for having performance patches this generation, after Starfield it seems like Microsoft threw up their hands and declared all games to be 30fps again. I'm so tired of being stuck at this framerate every single generation, we haven't had a lot of 60fps games since the SNES era.
If you can, save some money for a PC.
Algorithm food to help Sid alpha's channel
If i want cinematic i go to cinema.
Lmfao theaters dying breed my guy
@@Dontae_777the most idiotic comment ive seen in a while lmao
Or go PlayStation 🤣
@@blackvalio4060 smh. Im not wrong
@@Dontae_777 yes you are
Total Biscuit is rolling in his grave at this "cInEmAtIc" proclamation. He debunked this same claim over a decade ago.
This is a long debunked argument that fails to consider 1 thing. You don't control anything in a movie. You passively watch it. It's a whole different ballgame when you are watching the results of your inputs live.
Any dev claiming 30 FPS is more cinematic is basically saying "we couldn't make it run at 60 fps so we gave up."
That's why the "cinematic" excuse always fails. In a film, the film maker has 100% of the control over the experience. In a game, the player takes an active part in the experience and frame rate enhances that experience.
I can't believe that devs still use that excuse nowadays. Every gamer knows it is BS and it has literally become a joke. It was a joke almost 10 years ago.
Even if a dev said something like, "we want to give you the best visual experience possible and we could only achieve that at 30fps." that would at least be honest and garner at least a little respect for that honesty. Giving the tired, old, "cinematic" excuse is just disingenuous and cowardly.
Sid. You missed out the key difference between film and video game generated images, and why a film can get away with 24fps and look fine, whereas a game looks jerky. When a film is recorded light passes through the lens and impacts the film which then "records" that moment in time onto the film. If an object is moving across the lens it will be in a different position at the start of that process then at the end. This causes natural motion blur. If you film a ball falling, each individual frame will show the ball not as a sphere but as an ellipse. That's why when you pause a film during movement it will be all blurred out. When a GPU/Console generates an image it is a perfectly still representation of the position of each object at any given moment. This lack of blur is what causes the perception of jerkiness at lower framerates. The mind uses that natural blur captured by film at 24 fps and interoperates it as movement. When that is missing or altered the brain gets confused. Game Devs try to compensate for this by adding motion blur in artifactually in the post processing stack but it always looks awful. To make things look smoother when generating perfectly still images as a GPU does it is better to give the brain as much information as possible, hence higher frame rates looking smoother. The upper limit of this is ridiculously high where the brain can detect changes in motion higher than 1,000 frames per second. 24fps for film being the cheapest/least amount of film needed is also not the only reason. When "real" film increases it's fps the natural blurring is then shortened do to objects moving a shorter distance during the film exposure process. That shortening of the motion blur looks weird to our brains which is why some film at 30 or 60 fps ends up falling into the uncanny valley. Since the rise of digital video recording this effect has been lessened, but I'm not totally sure why... The mismatch between screen refresh rate (htz) and the fps generated by the gpu/console generally has very little to do with if the end result looks smooth or not. That mismatch predominantly effects things like screen tearing rather than fluidity.
I remember a long time ago when this cool and really popular youtuber who often argued for consumer rights in gaming and possibly had a tophat looking avatar... was arguing that the standard for games should be 60 FPS on average hardware and that there was no excuse for not meeting that benchmark.
We are surely at least a decade and a half removed from this generally agreed upon standard.
Somehow, there are still companies, and executives who are trying to argue that 30 FPS is acceptable. Clearly, we have not been doing a good enough job of setting expectations and raising the bar to where it probably should rest.
Maybe instead of the decade and a half old standard of 60 FPS; we should be pushing that at 1080P, on perfectly average middle of the line PC hardware, 144 FPS without dips; without AI upscaling; should be the norm. 60 Should be looked at as the absolute bare minimum that even a potato could manage for most games.
Fun fact, the Oppenheimer 70mm IMAX film reel is 11 miles long and weighs 600 pounds!
As for 24fps in game cinematics, that doesn't make sense, it's a digital creation, there's no physical media like film that takes up room. Just give me all the frames the GPU can push, please and thanks.
They need to admit they can't optimize it and need to cut corners somewhere. This "cinematic" excuse is pathetic
Helldivers 2: Makes cinematic kabooms at any framerate with many other moments that the game simply creates a movie feel.
Hellblade 2: Locks things 30 and calls it more cinematic.
Time will tell, I guess, but history suggests otherwise. I sure hope the game is actually optimized and put together well. That's worrying me more now.
It’s worth noting that film projectors run at a refresh rate of at least 48 refreshes per second. Each image is shown twice. This is to prevent the audience from noticing light stutter flashing
Watching a film is a passive experience so 24fps is totally acceptable. Video games require active engagement from the player, therefore frame rate affects the experience. And higher frame rate makes it easier for players to react. A lower frame rate would never be preferable in a video game, unless it is some fmv game with little to no gameplay.
Calling a low frame rate game, "cinematic" is such an old excuse that no one buys it anymore. It is literally a joke every gamer knows by now.
Cinematic aka we could not optimize our game well enough.
Lol. I remember when Total Biscuit debunked the 30 fps being "more cinematic" nonsense long ago. The reality is that Ninja Theory is trying to spin low framerates into something positive. The truth is they chosen Unreal Engine 5 which is notorious for poor performance especially when you want to take advantage of all the eye candy it can offer. They have chosen to make a graphically impressive game and that game just cannot be delivered at 60 fps on current consoles without turning down the details.
I still cant believe people said Unreal Engine 5 was supposed to heavily more optimized than UE4 lol so that was a freaking lie
Ive been using for nearly 2 years and yup, it runs like dog shit. Resorting to reducing resolution scale and using TSR to upscale equally looks like dog shit. Optimise your damn games!
You can get a more 'cinematic/stylized' feel with lower framerates. But not to the game rendering. Do it in the animations. This is especially true when your game is animated or has anime style art. Still run the game at 60/120 to avoid camera stutter. But the characters themselves can have their animations updated on specific frames to get a certain 'look'.
"We don't have enough left in the tank to really optimize our game so it'll just have to be locked to 30 fps." is what they're saying.
"30 FPS is more cinematic" is just BS. Even the cutscenes in games look more cinematic at 60fps than 30. I'm on an old rig, I see the difference between 60 and 30 all the time.
30FPS in games is just not the same as 24 film. Anyone saying that it is just doesn't know what they are talking about.
60 FPS is the bare minimum for a quality viewing experience now, not 30. 30FPS was fine back when I was growing up, sure. But so was a phone stuck to the kitchen wall.
Times change, we can do a lot better, and I'm tired of publishers calling poor optimization an "artistic" choices.
any excuse someone gives for how 30fps feels better in a game or compares it to a movie is just straight coping. 30 fps feels horrible.
Yeah, it reminds me of the devs of The Order 1886 claiming that adding horizontal black bars was to make the game more cinematic. In reality, the game could barely reach 24fps full screen.
And no one's talking about ALL of the footage being in 21:9 - lowering the frame rate AND resolution to be more "cinematic." I love UW monitors on PC, but if I'm playing on my TV I want my game to fill the screen!
Good video, but it missed the fact that higher frame rates "tend" towards decreasing input lag, along with what has been discussed.
Besides, I am one of those who sees the flicker from 24fps. It can give me migraines. Not fun.
Games: GPU renders a moment in time per frame
Movies: Cameras record a span of time during exposure of the sensor/film per frame
-> movies have physically perfect motion blur as part of the acquisition method
So as soon as games can do like 240 fps and then interpolate 10 frames into one to create 24 fps, then we can talk about the "cinematic look". Until then, this is not a debate.
Locking games to 30fps smells a lot like "It's not a bug, it's a feature".
Sid bringing us the news.
Since my internet connection is too slow to deliver videos at the resolutions that UA-cam allows to run at 60 fps, all of Sid's examples come across like the desperate ravings of the protagonist at a the end of cosmic horror story.
.
.
.
.
"His mind was quite gone, yet he spoke nothing but truth."
wow...... 30fps box
There's also player response time. More FPS/screen updates gives finer control for the player. Mouse control in a 30fps shooter will generally lag more than in 60fps. Having said that I DO understand the '30fps is cinematic' thing. As someone who grew up in the 80's/90's (when game fps was never 60) a high frame rate makes me feel rushed, it feels artificial somehow, it's too clean. Obviously in the end players should be able to decide for themselves. I play twitch fps games in 60fps and it's great. Some adventure games I play in 30fps, probably for nostalgia reasons, but I simply like the feel.
As a PC gamer, 90fps is my minimum single player and 120fps multiplayer shooter. That's why I gave up on the console. It's expensive but it makes me happy 😂
60 fps on a console feel close to 90 fps on PC though. I feel like both platforms complement each other, different games are best played on one or the other.
So it took them all these years to make this walking sim and yet they couldn't manage to make it run at 60fps minimum?
I wish the Xbox division of Microsoft would actually care about hiring talented devs and creatives for their studios.
Also let's not forget that if a game runs at 30fps (or less), you can expect a lot of disgusting motion blur.
Console arguments have always been a bit crazy feels more like trying to cope with a worse experience than one should accept.
30 frames being more "cinematic" is all good en well but i don't want to go to the cinema i want to play a GAME.
For games 30 fps is jarring it doesn't look smooth.
Film doesn't even run at 30fps. Film is 24. Ugly shot on video soap operas are 29.97fps
I´ll pass on this one then.
Was really looking forward to that game but 30 fps in 2024 is unacceptable for me.
@TWDub That was then, this is now. Noone cared if Settlers 1 ran at 24fps. Noone cared if Doom ran at 30 fps (it ran just fine at 48fps if you had a DX2 processor until you entered one of those "you die" rooms). Doom was revolutionary for its time. But that was then, hardware improved, we got the addon 3D card, and then it replaced the normal gfx card. We got rid of the 3600 rpm harddrives and now even storage drives have 7200 rpm. We had the internal speaker then the adlib midi card, then the soundblaster card and now integrated stereo sound on all motherboards.
Having your game locked to 30 fps is not an excuse when the harddrive is readily avaliable to support higher frames WHILE keeping the graphical fidelity.
The same line of reasoning you try to make could be applied to sound, the amount of disks needed per game and switching between disks like an old Sierra game, the amount of games we can have per harddrive, the loading times of the games - C64 had up to 15 minutes load time IF it loaded properly - why should we need to have faster load times? Why bother with an SSD? The Internal speaker (jokingly called Eternal speaker) is good enough, no need for stereo sounds, 8 bit colors is all we need "since we can't see more colors anyway and we can offset them with a simple &H71 assembly command anyway", 640*480 is good enough resolution (and having a 800*600 interlaced resolution was considered cheating when playing Red Alert since you could see more on your screen).
The games back then gave you as many frames your computer could push. Having a DX2 processor made a big difference from having an SX processor, later you had the advantage in games depending on which brand of 3D card you had in Quake (which btw ran just fine at 60 fps with a proper rig so your "golden age" argument falls flat here) - some 3D card supported OpenGL's transparent water and some didn't, making you invisible submerged but letting you see up/down through the water, same with halo light effects.
What golden age are we talking about? Which games? What computer system? Because you could run Doom on 48 fps, Quake & Neverwinter Nights on 60 fps, I know many people who got motion sick and we figured out it was their computers, they weren't up to snuff, so those SX processors became DX processors and DX became DX2 (no reason to get a DX4 since the DX2 ran at 33MHz cycles but the DX4 ran at 25MHz cycles). The graphics cards were a jungle to sort through but we relied on a big friend group who bought different ones, and in the end it came down to "does it support OpenGL or not?"
In this day and age with the tech avalibable we can expect devs to actually put some effort into optimization. We've got screens that support 144Hz, processors that 20 000 times faster than back then, some of us amateur audiophiles have 7:1 head sets for crying out loud while the "real boys" thinks that is aged and even 8.1 is old and 9.1 is much much preferable.
But I guess having a crystal clear recording of a song with no buzzing or scratches is bad too? You want the soft humm from the unshielded speaker wires and the pops from the LP player needle jumping whenever a piece of hair or dust blocks its path?
@TWDubI was born in the early 90s and grew up with games that run like 10 frames or sth.
It was ok then but a NEW game coming out in 2024 without 30 fps is not acceptable anymore.
I still play old games in 30 fps if theres no 60fps patch out there.
But I dont support a new release that feels like I´m playing on a potato again.
@@aeoncalcos7605 The guy is just some unhinged idiot spewing this garbage.
Oh my god. How are we still having this debate? Technical limitations of consoles do not make a game more cinematic. How are Devs still using this excuse?
Because they can't openly blame the hardware, so they say this garbage to cover their rear.
I think it started many years ago with Ubisoft who said the eyes can't see beyond 30 frames per second but that was easily debunked but people did eat it up.
I remember a big deal was made over the Hobbit movies being shot in 48 FPS. Hasn't happened much since as far as i know. As for 30 vs 60, I say the closer you can make the FPS of the game to the monitor you're working with the better. If the PS5 Pro being rumored about is real, maybe a steady 60 FPS for everything will be one of the new features.
hahaha, such a clownish argument
guys, we didn't bother optimizing the game, all for your cinematic experience
next time we will make the game run at 12 fps for you to get authentic TV anime experience
I’m so sick of this debate. Low frame rates bother me less than developers coming up with lame excuses for their incompetence or laziness. If you can’t manage 60, 90, 120 FPS, that’s fine. Just say that. Don’t convince me that lower is better. Even if it is “better,” the lack of choice is a negative.
Tbh I'll take low fps over having flickering lights and shadows in the distance for games. Still just as minor and doesn't affect gameplay at all; I just like shine and shadows to look less jagged on the edges (I'd even take a blur method tbh) and lack of flickering keeps the immersion in the game.
It's often far off in the distance but with things like wooden planks, it's very distracting; since the gaps and lines between them work the same way as light and shadows. But that's just my personal take.
Edit : Typed 60fps instead of "low fps" >.< Mistake fixed!
i will forever mourn the death of MSAA + alpha to coverage, i'll go back in time to forward-rendering engines instead of deferred-render if it means devs can't just use DLSS as a crutch to barely limp to the 30FPS mark
I mean, the industry standard for film is just under 24 fps. Its like 23.9 or something like that. But games aren't films. I'm fine working with 30 fps but i understand why people want higher than that.
"more cinematic." I cant wait to watch a 7 hour long movie at 30 fps.
Wow it's crazy that a lack of computational power to render at 60fps and a lower frame rate being cinematic just happen to line up so well.
sad times... sad times...
If its locked at 30 on PC I'm not buying it.
if i wanted more time for each visual statement to sink in i'd be reading, not playing something interactive
4:12 ok the one on the left is actually starting to make me feel sick so if my more cinematic you mean watching the human centipede then I agree that 24fps is more cinematic, but if we are talking more realistic then the 60fps is far better and smoother.
Back when my old PC setup was in need of a drastic upgrade I could run games at an average of 25fps or above (this was for batman Arkham city) if it dropped below 25fps I would count that game as unplayable, after the first upgrade (getting a better graphics card) I was getting a low of 40 (with my old system it was an average low of 21 but in a few places would drop to 10 for a second or two) and this new higher lowest FPS was so much better.
If you think that 24fps is a better gaming experience I feel sorry for I’ve been that poor that you can’t afford to get a better system but you NEED to quit the copeium it’s not healthy for you.
Using the absolute minimum to fool the human brain, isn't something to be proud of.
I can't even play most of my console games anymore, as i'm so used to the smoothness of PC.
This is a commandment from on high, plain and simple. The xbox cant handle the game, but ninja theory is owned my microsoft, and so they have to put it out on xbox. Theyre not allowed to say the hardware sucks, they need to turn a bug into a feature, thats all this is.
Can you feel that? It's not an earthquake, it's TotalBiscuit rolling in his grave.
The reason devs want to push higher "fidelity" instead of frame rate is because they want people to look at their game, not enjoy playing it. The less FPS you get, the more time you have to appreciate every frame.
Remember the time Ubisoft thought it would be a good idea to have "cinematic" framerates on Assassin's Creed: Unity?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
i will forever mourn the death of MSAA + alpha to coverage, i'll go back in time to forward-rendering engines instead of deferred-render if it means devs can't just use DLSS as a crutch to barely limp to the 30FPS mark
"It'S MoRe CiNiMaTiC"
Ok xbox just say having devs also make an S port is holding us back
If I recall correctly, the devs of The Order 1886 said the same thing and look how that worked out.
It's been something said for years now. It was said about The Evil Within as well. 30FPS isn't the worst thing ever, but this just seems lazy to not give us another option. I wish game companies were not obsessed with 4K. Let us change it to 1080 if we want to to get 60FPS.
30 fps is too much. Everyone knows the human eye is only seeing 5 fps. :P
Anyone claiming that [insert low fps number here] is more "cinematic" is talking nonsense especially considering that in video games fps isn't just visual as it impact input latency.
The human eye sees at a range between 8 and 16 FPS on average.
Yep, input latency. It's a PITA.
After Playing games at 144hz, 60fps should be standard. It's 2024 and 30fps is not acceptable.
Indeed it is not. But some devs persist in their way.
Not really the standard for console tho , many singleplayer titles lately just cap their game at 30fps due to 60fps don't work that good. Ex DD2 on ps5 run terrible in 60. On the other hand PC with 360hz or something, you can play this game uncapped anyways.
@@tranminhkhoi6498 its 2024. 30fps is not acceptable. Consoles are so restricting and underpowered.
@@tranminhkhoi6498almost every current generation game runs at 60fps or above wtf are you talking about
@@thraxberserker9960 Last year I played Alan Wake 2 and Baldur gate 3 on ps5 is at 30fps quality mode and performance mode can't really run constant 60fps when both of them ran far better on my brother pc . They are still great games and goty contenders, same goes for Dragon Dogma 2 and Hellblade 2 here.
It's not that the frame rate is important it's more so game devs don't want to put the effort into the game to optimize it or the fact the older Xbox models might not be up to par to run it.
It's definitely not the same. I'm very familiar with dark room stuffs, so yeah...
That said, the differences in Fallout 4's comparisons were not something I could see beyond that of the AI's actions.
It was definitely visible in the NFS Payback comparisons; looked a lot cleaner at 60 FPS.
I had to rewatch the P.U.B.G. comparisons because I was paying a bit too much attention to what I found silly and ended up laughing at (that buggy was still going after losing a tyre (but not uphill🤣🤣), but most of what I notices was the presence of dithering at close-range view, there being more of it at 24 FPS but present all the same. Eh, not great.
If you can't do things at more than 30FPS I just assume you're incompetent as a dev/director/whatever. Don't try and BS people.
More FPS smoother looks and gameplay.
30 is disgusting
When Cyberpunk2077 first came out, I was using a 10 year old 3rd gen I7 still. I couldn't get the game to run at anything more than 20FPS, because of CPU bottle-necking; And it was damn near unplayable. Those who say "Lower FPS = Better", have never seen what actual lower frame-rates look like, and how much worse they are.
It sucks that UA-cam only allowed you to do 60 FPS and so your 30 v 60 v 120 there was no difference in the 60 v 120. Yea UA-cam. Unless I am missing something.
@TWDub but in VR however...it is not really the refresh (well, kinda is...) but the faster response that can decide if you can tolerate it or not
@TWDub TestUFO. Go there and run the tests. You can ABSOLUTELY tell the difference. Stop spewing your BS everywhere.
Low fps is only acceptable if the art style was made for the fps.
Edit: I'm referring to the things animators using 2s.
The fundamental difference is that a generated frame for a video game is a single time point while for a movie captured with a camera, a frame is everything that happened during that 1/24 seconds. So the movie inherently has motion captured in each frame making fast moving objects blurry while for the video game they appear as stationary in each frame. That's why video games looks choppy at 30 fps while a movie is fine at 24 fps.
The input lag is the biggest gripe I have with low fps
Since going 144hz I can't go back
My pc isn't powerful enough to run modern games at 144fps, but even 90fps feels like a significant improvement even upon 60fps
When it hits the max fr of my monitor omlll
The "soap opera effect" is something I'm frustrated in hearing as an excuse not to film higher fps.
It can be done. It has been done
I can't stand fight scenes where the camera is moving fast as the frame rate makes it waaay to choppy
Those fight scenes work better in animation as they have full control of the framing and frame timing, making them easier to watch
A camera guy who is slipping on ice is not a good viewing experience at low fps (it's more tolerable at higher fps as yt has taught me).
24fps should be left to animation imo
It's outdated. Ok, Idm it being used stylistically, but not for every movie.
I don't like action movies as they give me headaches
But action scenes in games are fine
60 is the new 30. It's only natural for people who never used 100+ Hz monitors to not know about that.
Every TV is at least 60fps, so everyone should at least have some experience.
Yeah. Unless it's some ol' CRT crapbox, 60 Hz is pretty much the standard these days.
In gaming, 60 is getting outdated (or already outdated for some, like me) just like 30 was.
I usually like saying, "who the hell will play Dark Souls 3 at 60 FPS when we all own 480 Hz monitors in 2040?" when trying to make a point in terms of future-proofing video games. You can insert any game that has an FPS lock in that statement.
That 'cinematic' 30fps is going to look and feel like utter dogshit on high refresh OLED displays that are designed for fast and responsive games.
This 'more cinematic feel ' bs doesn't cut it anymore.... and the devs know it. If that was the case, then they would lock it at 30fps on PC surely? It's just a nonsense excuse. They would be better of just being transparent about cpu limitations with these consoles. unreal 5 and reytracing are not really viable on SX imop. This game will only be worth playing on a 4090 or until the next consoles play catch up.
Sounds like a tv issue then.. slower things should also look fine
@De1usionsofGrandeur you clearly don't understand how high refresh rate TVs work 😂
"We decided aiming for 30 fps was the best balance of graphical fidelity and performance achievable on this platform "
Just be honest and people won't be mad
some thoughts:
classical cinema projectors shows every frame twice, so pretty close to regular monitors doubling the 30fps to 60 (with vsync)
However: film stills are captures of motion (hence motion picture) with every ups and downs: blurs, aliasing, lens-flare....but the game frames stills are made up right there, usually with no reference to motion (that would tax the system more than rendering more frames) thus making the movements just jerky AND less responsive (don't forget also that games are interactive, so the less time it takes from button-to-render/screen (higher fps), the faster the response _can_ be)
The NFS comparison is really good because of the white dash lines in the middle. You can clearly see how much smoother they are at 60, whereas at 24 they almost seem to jerk. Of course we want 60 fps and this excuse certainly doesn't hold water.
welp, i think my eyes are shit and need to see any eye doctor for the life of my i couldn't tell the difference lol
Yeah if you don't see a difference between 24 and 60... you need to get some help on that one.
@@BeardGrizzly lol that’s what I said lol
This entire debate is just silly and nonsensical. 30fps being best or even good is just console copium. I spend a lot of money on my PC because i get dizzy from low fps. The higher the fps in a game is the more direct and natural the input feels. I don't care about movies because i rarely watch movie anymore.
Games are nothing like movies in this area. This lead dev is either talking out of his ass, or bullshitting everyone.
As long as those responsible for production don’t go firing their talent to afford their precious magic-bean FPS.
Oh we are back to CINEMATIC. Joy... yeah. Great.
That is, something else. Games that sell with that idea are well, we know what they usually are.
High refresh rate monitor + vrr = bliss.
Just a mook with a mike, and _almost_ always correct but each and every time reasonable.
If you just want to make your game "cinematic" then make a movie.
what you forgot to mention, is that movies that have upped framerate to 48 or 60 look worse, compared to 24 frames.
Ever notice this odd look these soap operas, sport, reality tv show have?
When I saw home alone and Rambo 4 with upscaled video to 48/60 FPS - it felt awful.
So is with most of 60FPS videos on youtube. Sure I like playing quake at 60FPS, but watching it at 60FPS is giving off that similar effect.
Also, I play old version of Resident Evil 4 PC port that is locked to 30 FPS. It feels fine.
One thing is to make game optimized for 30 FPS, and purposefully locking framerate to 30 because you failed to optimize it for 60+ FPS.
I'd sigh over this, but to be honest this is the "Red Headed Step Child" syndrome in action yet again.
Video Games have always "forced" to play the 4th fiddle behind Movies, Books, and Comics. However that was way back in the day when it was such a novel thing that most refused to take it seriously or acknowledge there was art or even passion to it. Movies suffered that, Comics did as well. Books were a good way to "Melt your brain to mush" back in the late 1800s....then again the term "Penny Dreadful" comes from that time period due to the sheer volume of dime novels that were disjointed messes
In fact Video Games mirror Books in some ways, the great crash of the 1980s do to many, many Saturday Night Specials thrown together with little care or direction to cash in on a Movie Release, with E.T being the biggest one and the one often (not unjustly) credited with being the fatal bomb.
So with that context, and the fact that many in the industry either have bought into their own insecurities over the years about being the Bastard Child that not even Big Brother Hollywood pretends to like, or just sheer ego that makes some of Hollywood's big egos seem tame. We get the "Well, actually 30fps is more Cinematic" line.
Bare with me. 24fps is considered the *Golden* FPS for a movie because it looks natural on film and even in Animation, weather 2d or 3d, 24/30fps is the normal because in that style of media it is the most natural looking and has the added benefit of not straining the viewers eyes. The first time I ever saw a Movie that was in 60fps, and I had to process if it was just me and something was wrong with my eyes or the movie, only to find out that it was in fact the version of "National Treasure" being shown on that TV Channel was a 60FPS version. and it hurt everyone in the rooms eyes and head trying to process it. Even worse it was a early 60fps version of a movie so the voices were off sync with what was going on.
Now the big point. *60FPS* is better than 30 in Video Games do to the way a Video Game works and behaves and even interfaces with the end user, there is no excuse for settling for 30fps, and even less so for making excuses about only one system having to deal with it because it is quote "Impossible to do 60fps on the Series S"......looking at a few devs of late. Allow me to translate what "It is impossible to do 60fps on the Series S" means. It means "Across the board, this game looks like hammered arseshite compared to a game on the PS3/360, yet for some reason either via Deadlines or by us being insanely lazy and stupid managing to waste most of the deadline time on trying to shove this hamfisted pet project of one of the dev leads into the game, so we never could optimize it because we are retarded and lazy"
"30fps is more Cinematic" is no different than Actvision's reasoning behind why "We can't optimize Call of Duty to be a reasonable size", made around the time Modern Warefare 2019 was pushing the near 300gb mark, and has forever made me view any and all SSDs as completely suspect full stop because I sensed an industry wide *Bullshit* marketing stunt/point due in direct part to that statement which was and I quote "Until the industry standardizes on SSDs". Well that has happened as the Series S/X and PS5 both come with one by default, Black Ops Cold War on a full install is over 300GB, MW2 from what I hear is still in the unreasonably high 200s, I can't be bothered to figure out how big Vanguard and MW3 is.
The 30fps people within the games industry are nothing more than the same conmen that we've been increasingly stuck with since the "Crash we keep refusing to admit was a industry crash" back around 2011-2013 when THQ bite the bullet, most of the Middle-market devs vanished into thin air, and Ubisoft damn near died on the street as a result of a near fatal hostile takeover (in hindsight....that might have been a better outcome for Ubisoft).
Long rant over, I could keep going but these non-debates like this piss me off given they are from a group of asshat devs that blame the end user rather than place blame on theirselves for failing at their jobs.
People who say 30 is good/better deserve pity.
Companies who say that deserve scorn.
Oh , they pushing this BS like they did in xbox360\\ps3 days ... hahaha... people forget N64\PS1\PS2\Xbox1\DreamCast games worked in 60fps !!!
and they pushed this BS since they PR those consoles as 1080p\720p consoles ... they could only do Subpar 600p\900p , PS3 to trick people even had a build in Upscaler to trick the resolution like PS4Pro did it could do 4k
sorry, 60 looks better.
depends on gamegenre a more static scene don't need 60 fps. 4x games which are usually top down and mostly in menues don't need 60 fps allthough they are never fps locked as those aren't consolegames. crpgs that are top down or third person can get away with 30 fps too. Baldurs gate combat scenes for example don't need a 60+ fps refresh but again baldurs gate 3 isn't fps locked.
first person shooters, fighting games and racing games on other hand definately needs the frames if possible thanks to rapid changing scene. That is the key really ...if the scene don't rapidly change 60 fps isn't a must, turnbased. tactical games like x-com, puzzle games like terra nil, civ 5 ( mostly menue anyway ) fell seal/disgaea which is akin to final fantasy tactics don't dermand 60 fps either. Neither does city builders for most part allthough it do help with tracking moving objects like cars. Not that you need to track individual cars in city skylines but still. Minecraft have to few moving objects at the time for 60 fps to matter either allthough again no cap.
Now games like wipeout, doom, counterstrike, apex or high detail cinema like last of us series the tearing is noticeable and the closer you are to your monitor refresh hrtz the better.
Good explanation.
Currently we have systems that can imitate motion blur and other smoothing effects but at quite the processor cost, so they can make 30 fps look smoother, but it might be more efficient to just bump it up too 60 fps.
The cinematic feel also has to do with the cameras shutter rate being tied to the frame rate (doubled) and thus giving a certain level of motion blur that has come to be expected from film.
There’s some sense in lower frame rate games being more cinematic for the same hardware though as you can spend more computing budget on visual fidelity.
So in summary, 24fps for a "cinematic" feel only really works with pre-rendered cinematics, not so much with gameplay...
Man I've been playing games on 60 FPS for years now. I would say 8 or 9 years on 1080p. And I still get decent 60 even on new games. I just have to tone down the graphics a bit.
>watching at 2x speed on a cell
It all looks the same from 3 feet away on a 2 inch screeen lmao
You really feel it in dragons dogma 2, things can get downright ugly
Yeah in terms of video games 60 fps is indeed better because it is a lot smoother than at 24fps. Also there are high frame rate movies. Movies that are recorded at a least 48fps or more which improves the graphical look of the movie.
I think I remember that Wo Long switched to 30fps for cut scenes. I found that annoying.
my eyes are stupid and the frame rates dont looks that much different to me the higher rate so look a bit faster and smoother but not enough to make a big difference to me.
I'm trying to recall if Ninja Theory has ever made a game at 60fps...I think the pc version of DMC: Devil May Cry is it. Console versions of that utterly meh experience were locked at 30. High frames seem to be something they just aren't capable of
To anyone who seriously believes 30 fps is "better" than 60fps or thinks there's no difference- Or if you know people who believe it. There's an ancient little site called "UFO Test: Multiple Framerates".
Put the person who thinks thinks this silly thing infront of it and add 6 UFOs, put the damn speed to lowest, cover the left side and ask them which one looks better. it's always going to be the one at the top, it has the default of your screens refresh rate. Be it 144, 120 or 60 fps. And yes you WILL see difference between 144 and 120 if you've got a 144Hz screen.
once again "the most powerful consoles ever" cant manage to do anything over budget pc's that look slightly better running at 60fps. and within a pretty short timeframe too. the 360 when it came out was the most powerful thing on thhe market. the series x was already outdated on launch.
All consoles are outdated it's still the most popular console currently regardless. It's simple it's not 60 cause the devs didn't want it to be 60... games are always made with production goals in mine and 60 fps wasn't what they were trying for
ironic how they say "the PC version wont have this limitation".
IS IT ARTISTIC CHOICE OR LIMITATION? decide it already.
It's very obviously BS. The consoles can't handle a steady 60fps on this game, simple as that.
TB must be turning in his grave.
you are missing an important point at 7:00 , a camera has a certain exposure time for the frame, then closes the shutter and goes to the next frame. an image in a video game doesn't have an exposure time. it's instant. the transition to the next frame is instant, all information between those frames is lost. on film it's a natural motion blur due to the exposure time and information loss is minimal. to imitate this in games, you'd need over 600fps. better yet 1000.
Well, to be fair,, more cinematic it may be, but it's also more shit.
We're used to 60 fps these days, so when seeing a movie at 24 fps with motion blur is frankly awful. Let's face it , cinematic looks like crap by to days standards.
I always cap all of the games at 60 FPS, if I don't my Red Devil Graphics Card overheats and goes into thermal cut out. (It's a real pain in the neck when that happens)
24fps next to 60fps makes me feel like my eyes are lagging