By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - DigitalFoundry Rage Analysis

kitler53 on 10 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
kitler53 said:

No? If the image refresh rate of the TV is locked at 60 times per second, then putting up 40 images per second would mean two refreshes in a row, skip one, two in a row, skip one etc. which would have a notable influence on the game's controls as they won't appear fluent. Control inputs are translated to the game with every image refresh and if the refresh rate isn't consistent, then the controls will feel choppy which is why slowdowns are so annoying.

You are welcome to offer a better explanation, but to me this makes sense. It's a question of consistence and that's why developers either aim for 30 or 60 fps in video games.

your post was clearly written, purely factual in content and to the best of my knowledge 100% accurate.  ...surely you can see why i would be confused.  :P



Around the Network
ZaneWane on 10 October 2011
Silver-Tiger said:

made some comparison shots:

 

 

 

they nearly look identical, though the Xbox 360 edges out this one by very small margin.

not according 2 end result



darkknightkryta on 10 October 2011
Dr.Grass said:
Why is it either 60fps or 30fps!? 60fps games are silky smooth, and 30fps are ok. Why not go for 40fps or something? Higher framerate than 30 with more fidelity than 60 is surely a good idea?

God of War 3 hovers around 45 fps.



darkknightkryta on 10 October 2011
Silver-Tiger said:

made some comparison shots:

they nearly look identical, though the Xbox 360 edges out this one by very small margin.

That top pictures is wierd.  Is there any loading issues in Rage?  I mean the dude has more detailed textures on his hand on the PS3, but has different textures on the car. 



Dr.Grass on 10 October 2011
darkknightkryta said:
Dr.Grass said:
Why is it either 60fps or 30fps!? 60fps games are silky smooth, and 30fps are ok. Why not go for 40fps or something? Higher framerate than 30 with more fidelity than 60 is surely a good idea?

God of War 3 hovers around 45 fps.

I know that happens, but in general devs seem to aim for either 30fps or 60fps.



Around the Network
darkknightkryta on 10 October 2011
Dr.Grass said:
darkknightkryta said:
Dr.Grass said:
Why is it either 60fps or 30fps!? 60fps games are silky smooth, and 30fps are ok. Why not go for 40fps or something? Higher framerate than 30 with more fidelity than 60 is surely a good idea?

God of War 3 hovers around 45 fps.

I know that happens, but in general devs seem to aim for either 30fps or 60fps.

This is true, thing is 24fps is the minimum needed for natural motion.  Generally higher than 30 would be unnatural (And it generally is).  Now that talk that Rol had with 60fps is probably right (only skimmed over what he wrote) and which is why they aim for 60 when they need a faster game.  I personally think anything higher than 60fps is just too fast to have any good gaming with.



Silver-Tiger on 10 October 2011
darkknightkryta said:
Silver-Tiger said:

made some comparison shots:

(pic1,pic2,pic3)

they nearly look identical, though the Xbox 360 edges out this one by very small margin.

That top pictures is wierd.  Is there any loading issues in Rage?  I mean the dude has more detailed textures on his hand on the PS3, but has different textures on the car. 


The PS3 version generally needs longer to load the textures. If you watch the video you will notice the texture pop-ins. I think it was completely loaded on the picture, though.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

youarebadatgames on 10 October 2011
darkknightkryta said:

This is true, thing is 24fps is the minimum needed for natural motion.  Generally higher than 30 would be unnatural (And it generally is).  Now that talk that Rol had with 60fps is probably right (only skimmed over what he wrote) and which is why they aim for 60 when they need a faster game.  I personally think anything higher than 60fps is just too fast to have any good gaming with.


Wrong, gaming at 120hz on a CRT is a lot smoother and more responsive than gaming on a 60hz LCD.  There is nothing natural about 24 fps, movies get away with it because they have motion blur.  Higher than 30 is not unnatural, it only seems that way to you because you are used to TV and movies at 24 and 30 fps, but we don't want to reproduce TV and movies, we want to reproduce real life.



littlejudas on 10 October 2011

I was surprised to see the Xbox 360 version still ran better than the PS3 version without an install. Good going John Carrmak



anonim1979 on 13 October 2011

That talk how 24fps is what eyes see is so.... old. Old and stupid.

Eyes can see a LOT more - pilots can "see" one frame in 200.
The movies cheat with 24fps due to motion blur, they try to cheat brain.
And as any faster moving panning scene shows 24fps in not enough.

Hobbit will be shot in 48fps.