Hellblade 2 at 30fps on XBox: More Cinematic?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Recently the VfX Director from Ninja Theory explained how he believes that Hellblade 2 running at 30fps on the XBox is more cinematic. And so, as the great framerate debate kicks off once more, we explore the differences between framerates in film and how they do not translate into video games.
So once again, dive back in to one of the longest running gaming controversies with SidAlpha!
👾 Don't forget to hit that like button if you enjoy my content and subscribe for more gaming insights, reviews, and commentary. Your support helps me keep the gaming community informed and (sometimes?) entertained. Got thoughts on today's topic? Drop a comment below - I love hearing from you! 🎤
Background music: Unreal Tournament "Forgone Rejuvenation" by Phrakture
Outro music by Kenneth Hynes. Listen to the full song here: • Battletech Animated Se... and don't forget to drop him a comment telling him I sent you and reminding him of his pure unadulterated awesomeness!
ID: 9YXAdbrPMmxaxU54bwqhrFHtqt3fAH5T - Ігри
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.
"Cinematic" is the politically correct term for "unoptimized mess". Yandere simulator is very "cinematic".
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.
If i want cinematic i go to cinema.
Lmfao theaters dying breed my guy
@@DawnteHopes__559the most idiotic comment ive seen in a while lmao
Or go PlayStation 🤣
@@blackvalio4060 smh. Im not wrong
@@DawnteHopes__559 yes you are
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.
Total Biscuit is rolling in his grave at this "cInEmAtIc" proclamation. He debunked this same claim over a decade ago.
"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
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.
They need to admit they can't optimize it and need to cut corners somewhere. This "cinematic" excuse is pathetic
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’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.
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.
Console arguments have always been a bit crazy feels more like trying to cope with a worse experience than one should accept.
Cinematic aka we could not optimize our game well enough.
Algorithm food to help Sid alpha's channel
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'.
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.
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!
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
"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.
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!
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.
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."
Locking games to 30fps smells a lot like "It's not a bug, it's a feature".
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.
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.
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.
if i wanted more time for each visual statement to sink in i'd be reading, not playing something interactive
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
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.
Can you feel that? It's not an earthquake, it's TotalBiscuit rolling in his grave.
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.
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.
Sid bringing us the news.
If its locked at 30 on PC I'm not buying it.
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
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.
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.
wow...... 30fps box
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.
Remember the time Ubisoft thought it would be a good idea to have "cinematic" framerates on Assassin's Creed: Unity?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
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 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.
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.
sad times... sad times...
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)
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
Low fps is only acceptable if the art style was made for the fps.
Edit: I'm referring to the things animators using 2s.
"more cinematic." I cant wait to watch a 7 hour long movie at 30 fps.
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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
I can see in the future someone claiming, lower frame rate is good for the environment, because less energy is consumed 🤣
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
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
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.
I´ll pass on this one then.
Was really looking forward to that game but 30 fps in 2024 is unacceptable for me.
I guess you didn't grow up in the golden age of gaming where all the games were 30fps at MAX, and yet are still some of the most legendary and returned-to game titles in all of gaming?
@@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.
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.
>watching at 2x speed on a cell
It all looks the same from 3 feet away on a 2 inch screeen lmao
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.
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.
would 30 fps have been a more appropriate comparison?
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.
High refresh rate monitor + vrr = bliss.
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.
As long as those responsible for production don’t go firing their talent to afford their precious magic-bean 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
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.
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.
Even IF UA-cam allowed more than 60fps you wouldn't notice a difference. The difference is so minuscule the human eye wouldn't be able to detect it.
@@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.
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.
"It'S MoRe CiNiMaTiC"
Ok xbox just say having devs also make an S port is holding us back
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.
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.
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.
24fps next to 60fps makes me feel like my eyes are lagging
I think I remember that Wo Long switched to 30fps for cut scenes. I found that annoying.
You really feel it in dragons dogma 2, things can get downright ugly
Just a mook with a mike, and _almost_ always correct but each and every time reasonable.
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)
Learned a lot with this one! Wow! 😮
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 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
If you just want to make your game "cinematic" then make a movie.
Games look better at 60fps fact
not all games. The games which intent to look like a Movie (Uncharted, TLOU, Hellblade2) look in 30fps like a movie and in 60fps like a Kids Game. Fact.
@@Datenschutz_Datenschutz How does 60fps make a game like Uncharted look like a "kids" game? What does that even mean? How does a choppy image look "adult" but a smooth image looks "childish"
@@OldMateJohn because Games are a synonym for Toys.
@@Datenschutz_Datenschutz So a game that runs at 30fps is no longer a "toy"?
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
Make it 15 FPS so it can be twice as cinematic 😂
Exactly these clowns crack me up making excuses for this bs
"More cinematic" is just an euphemism for "the console HW is crap"
People who say 30 is good/better deserve pity.
Companies who say that deserve scorn.
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.
So in summary, 24fps for a "cinematic" feel only really works with pre-rendered cinematics, not so much with gameplay...
More FPS smoother looks and gameplay.
30 is disgusting
that comment on framerate desync with the display and content / it being more than it is kinda wrong these days most modern displays support vrr and prettymuch all modern gpus do to so the display is only refreshing at the rate the content is (assuming the content is within its vrr range if it is not displays useually will vrr to the closest multiple to avoid tearing) being double the contents framerate as far as im aware is useually fine aslong as your not trying to use BFI what most people wouldnt want bfi on movies anyway
This was too simplified to be useful. I get that going though every little detail would be way too much for most people, but the devil's in the details.
Great framrate debate?
Can't say whats so great about it
he's obviously not saying it's a GREAT thing - he's referring to the magnitude of the contentious debate that continues to this day. No one calls it the Great War because people thought it was "great" lol
@StephenStine Aye, I was trying to be funny as I didn't have ideas to comment =P
Have you watched Babylon 5?
I wonder..anyone how many fps you get pn ps5 ¿