Bitmap Frogs said: I noticed the fuzzy quality of NG2 visuals, must be the crazy uprezzing going on - no matter how companies try hard to sell it, interpolation is a croc of shit.

Well, if you think things looks bad with interpolation, try it without it.

Why would I care what NGS looks like? It is an update to an old game. NG2 has new shit for me to do, and I love it. The gameplay is much better this time around with the better AI(I love how the group works together to fuck you up) and slicker controls. Not once have I played and thought, man where the fuck is the stitching on his armor?  The animation is slicker than whale shit and so is the gameplay(which is all I care about).

Smidlee said: (...) It's the same with 60 fps looks better than 30 fps yet 30 fps wouldn't make the game less playable than 60 fps.

Now that's where you're wrong. 60 fps makes the action much more responsive and fluid on fast games like this one. Ever tried playing Mario Kart Wii on online splitscreen? That's the best way to realize how important framerate is.

 

NJ5 said: Smidlee said: (...) It's the same with 60 fps looks better than 30 fps yet 30 fps wouldn't make the game less playable than 60 fps.   Now that's where you're wrong. 60 fps makes the action much more responsive and fluid on fast games like this one. Ever tried playing Mario Kart Wii on online splitscreen? That's the best way to realize how important framerate is.

 The human eye cannot distinguish any more than like 26 frame per second.  Anything more than that is insurance that the frame will not drop below that number.  Films play at 24fps.

JaggedSac said: NJ5 said: Smidlee said: (...) It's the same with 60 fps looks better than 30 fps yet 30 fps wouldn't make the game less playable than 60 fps.   Now that's where you're wrong. 60 fps makes the action much more responsive and fluid on fast games like this one. Ever tried playing Mario Kart Wii on online splitscreen? That's the best way to realize how important framerate is.   The human eye cannot distinguish any more than like 26 frame per second. Anything more than that is insurance that the frame will not drop below that number. Films play at 24fps.

That's a common misconception... Seriously, do you think game developers are stupid enough to waste performance on 60 fps if it didn't have any benefit?

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_2.html

There are tons of articles about that on the web if you search on google.

 

JaggedSac said: Bitmap Frogs said: I noticed the fuzzy quality of NG2 visuals, must be the crazy uprezzing going on - no matter how companies try hard to sell it, interpolation is a croc of shit. Well, if you think things looks bad with interpolation, try it without it. Why would I care what NGS looks like? It is an update to an old game. NG2 has new shit for me to do, and I love it. The gameplay is much better this time around with the better AI(I love how the group works together to fuck you up) and slicker controls. Not once have I played and thought, man where the fuck is the stitching on his armor?  The animation is slicker than whale shit and so is the gameplay(which is all I care about).

 Interesting!

How exactly could I do that? The game renders at 585 lines and the 360 outputs are either SD (interpolated downwards) or HD (interpolated upwards). If you know a way to force the 360 to output exactly at the same resolution the framebuffer is rendered, I'd like to know it. 

bah 60 fps 30 fps is not really the question. 30 FPS is perfectly fine. I think Uncharted was 30 FPS and it had one of the most fluid and responsive cameras I have ever seen although I could be overly fond of it because I played Assassin's before it which despite being jaw-dropping gorgeous was a little choppy here and there. I think thats the reason developers don't do 60FPS too often.
They have to render twice the amount of pixels per second but do not get much return on investment.

The problem is more if games cannot sustain 30FPS for fast movement of camera or when many objects are on the screen.

What is it with 30/60 fps on consoles anyway? On real gaming platforms (hint PC hint) games render as fast as they can. If there are many objects on screen you get less fps with less objects you get more fps. I am pretty sure consoles are basically the same.

30fps ALL THE TIME and 720p thats all I ask and all that is necessary.

Kyros said: bah 60 fps 30 fps is not really the question. 30 FPS is perfectly fine. I think Uncharted was 30 FPS and it had one of the most fluid and responsive cameras I have ever seen although I could be overly fond of it because I played Assassin's before it which despite being jaw-dropping gorgeous was a little choppy here and there. I think thats the reason developers don't do 60FPS too often. They have to render twice the amount of pixels per second but do not get much return on investment. The problem is more if games cannot sustain 30FPS for fast movement of camera or when many objects are on the screen. What is it with 30/60 fps on consoles anyway? On real gaming platforms (hint PC hint) games render as fast as they can. If there are many objects on screen you get less fps with less objects you get more fps. I am pretty sure consoles are basically the same. 30fps ALL THE TIME and 720p thats all I ask and all that is necessary.

Your problem is that your basing your conclusions on instinct instead of fact. Just because truthiness tells you 30 fps is enough for every game, it doesn't mean it's true.

 

Depends on your definition of "true". In the end my enjoyment is the only relevant factor for me and therefore "true". That may be different for you. I think it depends greatly on the game. When I play FPS online I set the resolution as high as possible (for sniping) and the effects as low as possible to have an optimal framerate (Although I think that its the same here. 30fps is not bad the important thing is that you do not get less when you are in a fight with six guys using flame throwers and panzers)

Kyros said: Your problem is that your basing your conclusions on instinct instead of fact. Just because truthiness tells you 30 fps is enough for every game, it doesn't mean it's true. Depends on your definition of "true". In the end my enjoyment is the only relevant factor for me and therefore "true". That may be different for you. I think it depends greatly on the game. When I play FPS online I set the resolution as high as possible (for sniping) and the effects as low as possible to have an optimal framerate (Although I think that its the same here. 30fps is not bad the important thing is that you do not get less when you are in a fight with six guys using flame throwers and panzers)

OK, that's not what I thought you were saying before. I got the impression you thought 30 fps was the be-all-end-all framerate, which may be true for some genres but not for others.

 

No. I don't want to wade into the human physiology war. All I say i that when I optimize PC games for my a little bit older computer I generally use 1024*768 and push every setting up as long as I have >20 fps in heavy settings and more during normal gameplay. That's the best use of limited resources for me. And since consoles are per se also a fixed resource I imagine developers make similar adjustments.
But I agree that this is different for some games. RPGs like Oblivion can stomach less fps, hectic games like spacesims need more fps.

But to say developers are lazy because they dont use 60fps is a bit simplistic. Its simply a question of priorities. And I still think the interesting question is not 30FPS or 60FPS but what the game does in extreme situations (like whole city views in Assassin's, lots of enemies on the screen in FPS ...)