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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Official Xbox July Showcase 2020 thread

Shaunodon said:
curl-6 said:

Okay, not mandatory is a fair call, and Halo 3/ODST/5 were indeed not top of the line graphically.

I still wouldn't say the last decade though as Halo 4, released 8 years ago, is widely considered the best looking game on 360.

With Infinite I think because it's a launch title for a new generation like the original, that comes with certain expectations of it showing what that new hardware can do.

Personally, I don't have a problem with how it looks. I'm fine with Switch graphics, and I quite liked what they showed and look forward to playing it someday.

It also comes with the expectations of what they originally showed as in-engine footage.

Halo Infinite should be the first game on Xbox to show us what next-gen can look like. Even if it's just a marginal improvement over current-gen games, it needs to be an improvement.

Yeah the previous teasers definitely set a bar that the new footage doesn't clear.

It also doesn't help that a big part of their messaging with the Series X has been its graphical power, yet their flagship game doesn't demonstrate this.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
KiigelHeart said:

Ah the "30fps is more cinematic and 60fps is unnatural" argument. I guess it's still alive then lol. I think it's impossible not to see a major difference between the two. 

Yeah it's weird cause the more framerate the more natural you see things.

This is a nice quote:

''Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

However, we know from experimenting (as well as simple anecdotal experience) that there is a diminishing return in what frames per second people are able to identify. Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second.

The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'. 120 fps is not a 'waste' (provided you have a 120hz monitor capable of such display). There IS a very noticable difference between 15 fps and 60 fps. Many will say there IS a noticeable difference between 40 and 60 fps. Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It's just not.

The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.''

''The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.''

I think it's a matter of fitting the animation speed to the frame rate. Animations originally made for 30fps seem to be "too fast" in 60fps so the human movement seems less natural. It's not as bad all the time, but sometimes it shows. Kind of like watching a movie where the characters are moving at 1.25x or 1.5x speed.



Are people still having the frame rate argument?

Buy a 144hz monitor and move your cursor around. That's all you need to do. Seriously, that's it and you'll see.
(And if you have a 60hz secondary monitor and move it over to there the choppiness in comparison is kind of eye opening)



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

ArchangelMadzz said:
Are people still having the frame rate argument?

Buy a 144hz monitor and move your cursor around. That's all you need to do. Seriously, that's it and you'll see.
(And if you have a 60hz secondary monitor and move it over to there the choppiness in comparison is kind of eye opening)

A cursor doesn't really do it for me ;)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a good frame rate when it prevents the actual gameplay becoming choppy. I find that 30fps is sufficient for me in the action adventure genre, of course racing games and such are better with more fps. I guess 60fps does bring a little more "fluidity" or something like that across the board, but often it seems to come with this downside where the game looks less cinematic and more cartoony and gamey, and as a friend of realistic portrayal, I don't like that. So maybe more fps requires more frames for the same animation in order to keep it looking like realistic movement, and since animation doesn't scale, it becomes increasingly more erratic looking if the frame rate goes up from the level that the animation was originally made for.

Perhaps I'm the only person in the world that's bothered by this. Totally possible.



Dante9 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
Are people still having the frame rate argument?

Buy a 144hz monitor and move your cursor around. That's all you need to do. Seriously, that's it and you'll see.
(And if you have a 60hz secondary monitor and move it over to there the choppiness in comparison is kind of eye opening)

A cursor doesn't really do it for me ;)

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a good frame rate when it prevents the actual gameplay becoming choppy. I find that 30fps is sufficient for me in the action adventure genre, of course racing games and such are better with more fps. I guess 60fps does bring a little more "fluidity" or something like that across the board, but often it seems to come with this downside where the game looks less cinematic and more cartoony and gamey, and as a friend of realistic portrayal, I don't like that. So maybe more fps requires more frames for the same animation in order to keep it looking like realistic movement, and since animation doesn't scale, it becomes increasingly more erratic looking if the frame rate goes up from the level that the animation was originally made for.

Perhaps I'm the only person in the world that's bothered by this. Totally possible.

Hey I played TLOU2 on PS4 and didn't mind the 30fps. If I have to do it I will.

You're probably talking about TV's that interpolate frames which is awful and unnatural looking. As opposed to native high refresh rate. 

"Realistic portrayal" would be high FPS, as your eyes aren't the equivalent 30fps, that's objectively not true. 



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
src said:
MS's biggest missteps due to how early their dev pipeline is. Its truly a colossal issue.

Halo - 2020 (5 years in dev) (gameplay)
Crossfire - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
Medium - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
FM7 - early in dev (3 years in dev) (in engine)
Everwild - ??? (2 years in dev) (in engine)
Fable - ??? (1-2 years in dev) (CGI)
SoD3 - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Avowed - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Hellblade - ??? (3 years in dev) (CGI)
STALKER 2 - ??? (???) (CGI)

Only 3 games showed gameplay and the lead was underwhelming. Apart from that, MS has shown games that are very early in dev, despite said studios actually having a supposed decent amount of time in dev. They've effectively laid bare their entire software pipeline till like 2023/4, which begs to question how will their shows for the next few years be.

Wasn't Phil Spencer that promissed something like 3 or 4 games from Xbox Studios per year?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

CGI-Quality said:
hinch said:

Problem is noone is really making any new threads for any of the platforms so Gaming one is the default one for most people.

If we have more positive topics on games that people are excited about - i.e Fable and what it could be, what it will play like. Instead of being stuck in a big Xbox thread this site might be more popular. And pull in more people

So then we have a lot more clickbait threads and verses ones because that's what people talk about, especially in new consoles coming up.

It goes beyond what we talk about. For Xbox, it is generally any thread. Doesn't matter the game nor subject. I've watched the trend and have heard the complaints. This doesn't need to turn into a topic about it though, we're just going to do better going forward.

Problem is giving special protection to a thread because it is for Xbox, but probably the guys in your PM or similar complaining do similar behavior on Sony threads and there they don't even get a warning most of times.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
src said:
MS's biggest missteps due to how early their dev pipeline is. Its truly a colossal issue.

Halo - 2020 (5 years in dev) (gameplay)
Crossfire - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
Medium - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
FM7 - early in dev (3 years in dev) (in engine)
Everwild - ??? (2 years in dev) (in engine)
Fable - ??? (1-2 years in dev) (CGI)
SoD3 - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Avowed - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Hellblade - ??? (3 years in dev) (CGI)
STALKER 2 - ??? (???) (CGI)

Only 3 games showed gameplay and the lead was underwhelming. Apart from that, MS has shown games that are very early in dev, despite said studios actually having a supposed decent amount of time in dev. They've effectively laid bare their entire software pipeline till like 2023/4, which begs to question how will their shows for the next few years be.

Wasn't Phil Spencer that promissed something like 3 or 4 games from Xbox Studios per year?

It was 4-5 IIRC and that was their stated goal, he didn’t promise anything lol. Not sure why some of you always attach “promise” to everything these execs say. That was also pre-COVID and multiple big industry people have said 2021-2022 games are where you’ll really see the effect of the pandemic. They also told investors early in 2019 that they eventually wanted one AAA title every quarter. Either way there’s no reason to think they can’t do 4-5 games per year. This year is considered by a lot of Xbox haters to be a slow software year and they have Gears Tactics, Grounded, Wasteland 3, Flight Sim, Halo, Bleeding Edge, plus second party stuff like Ori and anything else they’re releasing this year for XSX launch that we don’t know about.



LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

Wasn't Phil Spencer that promissed something like 3 or 4 games from Xbox Studios per year?

It was 4-5 IIRC and that was their stated goal, he didn’t promise anything lol. Not sure why some of you always attach “promise” to everything these execs say. That was also pre-COVID and multiple big industry people have said 2021-2022 games are where you’ll really see the effect of the pandemic. They also told investors early in 2019 that they eventually wanted one AAA title every quarter. Either way there’s no reason to think they can’t do 4-5 games per year. This year is considered by a lot of Xbox haters to be a slow software year and they have Gears Tactics, Grounded, Wasteland 3, Flight Sim, Halo, Bleeding Edge, plus second party stuff like Ori and anything else they’re releasing this year for XSX launch that we don’t know about.

From a game every quarter to having trouble showing gameplay for their console releasing in less than 6 months... so when will those 4 games per year will come? By the end of the gen?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:

It goes beyond what we talk about. For Xbox, it is generally any thread. Doesn't matter the game nor subject. I've watched the trend and have heard the complaints. This doesn't need to turn into a topic about it though, we're just going to do better going forward.

Problem is giving special protection to a thread because it is for Xbox, but probably the guys in your PM or similar complaining do similar behavior on Sony threads and there they don't even get a warning most of times.

There isn't any special protection. This thread is simply a place Xbox fans should be able to feel like they can come to. That isn't up for debate and I don't want you to quote me about it again. If you take issue with this thread's stance, we can discuss it elsewhere (or you don't have to come in here). Those are the only acceptable options.