Haze only plays at 30 frames per second

While playing Haze at Live yesterday, I noticed in the bottom right corner of the screen that the Frames Per Second were only 30 while in game play. I thought that this was weird as most other games play around at 60 FPS now. So what does this mean for Haze will it mean rough gameplay you decide from the footage below...


I did not mean to make the game sound bad 30 fps is fine with me but when it drops to 20's when explosions happen this is not very good for one of the most anticipated games of 08. The game play was very good as I have not disputed.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
CRIMS0N_W0LF3748d ago

why people complain about 30 fps? The eye only sees like 27 fps. if its 30 fps w/o any slowdown its good. 60 fps we don't see difference.

barom3748d ago

i agree that 30fps is pretty good. But I def see a difference between 30fps and 60fps.

If you play COD4 a lot, and then jump over a 30fps game (which is how pretty much 90% of the games are) you'll be surprised at how much your eyes get used to 30fps

Violater3748d ago

Tired of these crappy sites and even worst articles.
At no point did the developers state the game would be anything else.
It certainly is the period before spring and E3 when we get no real gaming news.

Twilightx73748d ago (Edited 3748d ago )

I won't actually click the Disagree button, but the human eye can detect well over 200 frames per second. However, Haze doesn't need to play any faster than 30 fps, depending on how the the final image is post processed. If Ubisoft has motion blur added throughout gameplay, as the footage you've linked suggests, then 30 fps should be totally acceptable.

People blow this garbage about 600/640p and low framerates WAY out of proportion. If the game is fun, play it and quit whining.

@Sushifx - Not "spreading crap" about the human eye, and despite the eye taking in light information, dark information, etc. etc., it STILL detects frames per second.

Ghoul3748d ago (Edited 3748d ago )

why do people still spread this crap about the human eye ???

you NEED at least 23-27 fps to make a fluid motion

The Human eye doesnt work by FPS we see far more then you might believe

only one of MANY ressources use google its your friend.

Nostradamus3748d ago

From fear of it not running at a "constant" 30fps.

When alot of action is on screen and it dips down to 20fps, you notice it, it looks bad.

But if it were running at 60fps, and dipped down to 40fps, you would not notice, it would still appear to run smooth.

just my thoughts, not talking about any particular game, just games in general.

jmare3748d ago

Yes you would notice if a game was running at 60 fps and dipped to 40 fps. It would still be a smooth video, but you would be able to notice a slow down. To say otherwise is like saying you could watch a car traveling at 60 mph and have it slow to 40 mph and not be able to notice.

masterg3748d ago

30 frames is all you need.
I'll take a good looking 30 frames/720p game over a half ass 60 frame/1080p game any day.

You can't tell the difference!! What you can is tell when a 30 frame game goes below 30 frames. If it's 100% locked at 30 frames I would dare anyone to see the difference between it and a 60 frame game.

NTSC movies play at 30 frames per second and PAL movies play at 25 frames per second. Does anyone think they can see the difference between those two?

zslash3748d ago

"I thought that this was weird as most other games play around at 60 FPS now"

Wrong. Most games run at 30 nowadays. Anyway 30 FPS is fine.

Nostradamus3748d ago

Sure, it might be a little noticeable, but it wouldnt get "choppy" thats when it goes beyond noticeable, and is hindering gameplay.

Armyless3748d ago

Everything about this article is bad. How often do we see builds of a game with low-framerates PREviewed in magazines and by reputable online game reviewers.

Also, while this game is doing a great job of generating hype, I would not consider it one of the most anticipated titles of '08 when you have GTA4, RE5, FF13, MGS4, KZ2, RFoM2, and GT5.

solidt123748d ago

And it turned out fine. It even slowed down more at times.

Richdad3747d ago

Gears 30 fps is correct but slowdowns showed up 1-2 in whole single player campaign of 8-10hrs and Multiplayer I was stressed to find slow down.
But yeah still 30fps is not bad, frame rate trouble are small and might be reduced in the final game.

fenderputty3747d ago

Your site is wrong. The brain reads information of site in burst like frames as well. I was just watching this on discovery. (love that channel) When put under stress, the brain speeds up the frames but, while doing every day stuff, your brain only sees at about 30 frames a second.

Games like Resistance played at 30 FPS without any framerate drop and were 100% ok. If you're going to have 30FPS, then you can't ever dip below that level.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 3747d ago
Mr Playboy3748d ago Show
doodle3748d ago

He spoke the truth

640p is not true HD + HAZE looks better than HALO 3

Mr Playboy3748d ago

Yeah I know

but Gamer zone is only about the topic nothing else

FirstknighT3748d ago

Why does every sony fan bring up Halo 3 with EVERY fps shooter???

Enuff with the jealousy.

GETPWNT3748d ago (Edited 3748d ago )

I know. Why don't these fanboys talk about a real shooter like Gears? GEARS holds the UNDISPUTED crown, NOT Halo 3. They know they can't compare anything to Gears without embarrassing themselves lol.

jmare3748d ago (Edited 3748d ago )

Yeah, how do you keep from being embarassed saying that a year and a half old game is the pinnacle of your console of choice's ability? I would not be saying that too often, if it were me. And most people agree that Bioshock and COD4 look better.

Edit: Also, Uncharted looked better. Disagree away fanboys.

sonarus3748d ago

@First knight offcourse every fps is going to be compared to halo 3. Haze more than others because the games are crazy similar. I do not like how this guy in the article says its strange it runs at 30fps when some games like cod4 now run at 60. My question is, what other game runs at 60. Jst cod4 right so why complain. If the game drops to 20 then that is BS and i hope the issue is rectfied

GETPWNT3748d ago (Edited 3748d ago )

Sorry, JMARE, but who said anything about graphics? What does Gears being one of the best looking games of all time, right next to Condemned 2 (on 360, definitely not the downgraded delayed PSturd version), have anything to do with also being the greatest shooter of all time in gameplay? We are talking about GAMEPLAY. And Gears holds the UNDISPUTED CROWN, unless of course you're a fanboy, then I can see not liking it. Most fanboys hate it, for good reason ;)

Say hi to Resistance (generic bald space marine shooter #23541234231) for me!

As for why COD4 runs at 60 frames, it's because it uses very simple, low-rez shaders everywhere. It's easier on the fillrate. Nothing special. Shader powerhouses like Gears or Halo 3 couldn't possibly do that. Their shaders are too complex.

PumPum3748d ago

This "news" article is some serious flamebait.

I got kinda dissapointed at COD4 after i bought a 1080p tv. Love COD4 but it looks pretty crappy because its upscaled just like H3.

Played some native 720p, 1080p games and the 720p native games looks leagues ahead of COD4 in the graphics department.
Still a good game but doesnt really look that good IMO. (COD4)

Richdad3747d ago

COD4 looks good but yeah some distant objects and terrian elements where ugly no doubt but there artwork was such that they shadowed everything keeping the nearer object looking cool with high intensity battle going on thats what made it superb.
Halo 3 on the other high quality shader, brilliant special effects, excellent lighting, huge draw distance rendered throughly for sake of Forge made them to reduce the textures and polygons, 640 p was also on that account, I think Bungie made wrong choices abt graphics. Just think they made Volumetric clouds only crysis is the other game to do that and Halo 3 did it better and even there was no clear reason to do
that in Halo3. Wastage of hardware.

@Doodle COD4 gfx> Halo3 gfx: yes, Haze gfx> Halo3 gfx: Doubt abt this.

StarieMichie3747d ago

Thank you for bringing up Uncharted. Sometimes I feel like people forget that it even exists. It is both a good looking and fun to play 3rd person shooter/adventure game.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3747d ago
llamaman133748d ago

and no the human eye can see 70 fps. most games run at 30 fps anyway.

lodossrage3748d ago

Because Halo wasn't even true HD and was only 30fps

permutated3748d ago

Who cares? It looked and played great.

Isn't that what matters? IT'S A FU<KING VIDEO GAME!

resistance1003748d ago

Does this matter, after playing it the last to days i haven't noticed a single framerate drop once and everything runs smoothly. Its only when you have an unstable framerate, thats when you worry. I mean heck Gears Of War, Killzone 2, Resistance: FOM all ran/run at 30FPS as well


just letting you know - http://resistance100.wordpr...

My impressions from today.

lodossrage3748d ago

But you know someone is gonna make a deal out of it

EZCheez3748d ago

What faction did you play as?

And if you got to play as both, which faction was more fun to play as?

I'm really looking forward to run up in someone face online while they're coked up on Nectar, grab their own gun and butt them in the face with it. That and the playing dead option sounds pretty fun too.

Hatchetforce3748d ago

They have to make a big deal out of it since it isn't on the 360 and isn't going to be on the 360.

resistance1003748d ago

Both demo's i played were as mantel troopers. Which was great, however i suspect fighting the mantel troopers by using nector to your advantage will be even better. The fact that this game offers to types of gameplay was the whole reason i was drawn to it in the first place

EZCheez3748d ago

And thanks for all of the feedback from the show.

I agree about the Promise Hand troops too. They sound a lot more enticing to play as.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3748d ago