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

Forums - Sony - Killzone 2 framerate can drop as low as 20fps

twesterm on 20 February 2009
Luney Tune said:
twesterm said:

Going above 30 on TV there's a slight difference, but there's no point in it being that the trade off totally isn't worth it.  Most games aren't going to notice the difference between a game that runs at 30fps on a TV and another that runs at 60fps on a TV.

 

This isn't really true, though it depends on the TV.

Back in the early 90's Sega and other big japanese developers did a lot of beta testing in arcades, and their findings was that 60fps consistently made more money than 30fps despite the inferior graphics. Since then Sega has never made an arcade racer that doesn't run at a constant 60fps and likely never will. It's interesting to note that most of their console racers only runs at 30fps though...

It seems that whenever a developer wants to just *sell* you a complete game, they increase graphics quality at the expense of the framerate. Whenever their income depend on you actually *playing* the game (arcades), they drop graphics quality and increase the framerate. Nintendo tend to be an exception. Much as I dislike the Wii, I have to give the company some credit for the fact that most of their first party games runs at 60fps.

You can do a test yourself. Try playing a 60fps racer such as Forza 2 for a long on time on a high quality CRT TV, then switch to a 30fps racer such as Dirt. Or play Devil May Cry 4, then switch to Viking. I think you'll be shocked at the difference.

The TV does make a difference though. A low framerate is more noticeable on CRT's than Plasma/LCD, as CRT is the only screen technology that completely redraws each frame. On flat screens each frame just morph into the next frame, creating a slight motion blur effect that help cover up low framerates. And most LCD's doesn't have response times fast enough to correctly display 60fps, in fact some LCD's can't even display 30fps correctly.

 

  1. I never trust people when they say A study says... since it's pretty easy to make a study say whatever you want.
  2. I trust the study even less when you provide no source.
  3. You can't really compare two totally different games.
  4. Since you're on a TV, again, it doesn't matter if you're running at 60FPS because TV's cannot do 60FPS. 
  5. Processing 30FPS is hard enough but the higher FPS you go, the more strain it puts on the machine.  Some people can notice a difference but not nearly everybody and not nearly enough to justify the processing power it takes.  That power is much more wisely spent on other things.


 

Around the Network
Griffin on 20 February 2009

I know when playing a 60FPS game on my LCD then playing a 30FPS one i notice no difference. But when playing on my CRT i can see a massive difference, the action is just so much more smoother.



NJ5 on 20 February 2009

For people who say 60 fps is useless, have you tried Mario Kart online with split screen? That's when it drops from 60 fps to 30 fps, and the difference is huge.

It depends a lot on the pace of the game. In other fast games like Ninja Gaiden 60 fps is crucial too, for smoothness and good control.

But Mario Kart Wii is really the best way to see the difference.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Snaaaaaake on 20 February 2009

If you can't notice it then why the hell does anyone care?



Luney Tune on 20 February 2009
Theo said:
Luney Tune said:

The Bravia only turns the back light on/off 200 times per second. This is done to reduce smearing during fast motion. That doesn't mean the LCD panel can correctly display 200fps. As far as I know the fastest LCD panels can only display something like 70-80 frames per second (true 2ms displays). LCD is by far the slowest of all screen technologies.

 

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/08/sony_z4500_motionflow_200hz_hdtv_gives_ultrasmooth_video_action-2.html

So I stand corrected 

Still I'm sceptical. If LCD technology can display 200fps correctly, then response times shouldn't have been an issue at all in the past decade. But along with poor black levels it's been the biggest problem with LCD technology so far.



Around the Network
windbane on 20 February 2009
Squilliam said:
windbane said:
Griffin said:
Squilliam said:
One of the reasons why COD IV sells so well could be that its running at 60FPS with excellent visuals.

Cod4 drops way below 20FPS of you know where to go and what to do. And its visuals are far from excellent.

 

Seriously, Squilliam, you have no idea what you are talking about. The beta supposedly had framerate issues but it never effected my gameplay at all.

As for "during loads." The game only loads during non-fight segments. If you play the demo, you'll notice that when you go up the elevator to get inside the warehouse that the game stutters in the load. You know what's awesome? Not seeing a load screen!

This entire thread is a non-issue except for people to bash the game. And for the guy who said he canceled his preorder because of this story: yeah right, I believe that 100%.

 

1: So, COD IV drops below 20FPS from 60, I would love for you to prove that one!

2: Errrr ok, how have I bashed the game? I haven't exactly canceled my pre-order for the LTD edition now have I?

 

I've played both games and have not noticed frame rate drops in either. It's certainly nothing like Madden on PS3 a few years ago where you can easily tell that 30fps makes the game play slower than the 360 version (in fact, PS2 version ran faster, too). Luckily, that was fixed.

I don't care what study manages to find some place where the frame rate drops if I can't find it in normal play and reviews don't seem to suffer for it.

I was clearly not talking to you when I reference canceling a preorder. I did not care to look up the name. To ignore 60 reviews and act like this article destroys all of them is just not intelligent to me.

 



Luney Tune on 20 February 2009
twesterm said: 
  1. I never trust people when they say A study says... since it's pretty easy to make a study say whatever you want.
  2. I trust the study even less when you provide no source.
  3. You can't really compare two totally different games.
  4. Since you're on a TV, again, it doesn't matter if you're running at 60FPS because TV's cannot do 60FPS. 
  5. Processing 30FPS is hard enough but the higher FPS you go, the more strain it puts on the machine.  Some people can notice a difference but not nearly everybody and not nearly enough to justify the processing power it takes.  That power is much more wisely spent on other things.

 

Since it's obvious that you've made up your mind no matter what, i won't comment further.

Except to say that I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim "TV's cannot do 60FPS".



Serious_frusting on 20 February 2009

well the only time i noticed slowdown was in the transitions from one scene to anoth which lasts for like 1 2nd and thats on the lift



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Serious_frusting on 20 February 2009

Well the human eye can only detect 24fps so



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

NJ5 on 20 February 2009
Serious_frusting said:
Well the human eye can only detect 24fps so

BS. Are you saying all developers who made 60 fps games are retarded?

That's a myth which stems from the fact that movies used to be at 24 fps. However movies use motion blur and interlacing which makes them look fluid even at 24 fps only. Games are entirely different, in that they're interactive and usually don't use motion blur.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957