Top
360°

30FPS Standard Will Always Deliver Better Storytelling in Games than 60FPS - Heres Why

The gaming world appears to be moving on to the 60fps standard and we aren't sure that's such a good move. Here's why in the 30fps vs 60fps debate, the "Magical Story-Telling" and "Cinematic Experience" will Always stay with 30fps and Not 60fps.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Irishguy951085d ago

Yeah well 60Fps will always be better for gameplay. If devs really want, drop to 30FPS for cutscenes, but please try for 60FPS if it's a FPS or racing game

ADodoBird1085d ago

Yea Exactly, 60FPS is great for Racing and Fighting. But RPGs and Storydriven games should be 30fps :)

mattdillahunty1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

this author is making a very bad comparison across two different mediums, and it's apples to oranges. comparing frames per second in movies and video games is NOT a direct comparison, so saying one way will work best in both is not correct.

do movies have screen tearing, or anti-aliasing, or input lag, or anything involved in rendering video game code? no. movies deal in captured light, and it's reproducing the picture already shown, and it's going to reproduce it perfectly fine and perfectly smooth (assuming all the equipment is top notch, etc). video games have to deal with so much more because it's a different medium.

30fps in video games can mean more input delay, more possibly screen tearing, and other problems. frankly, going to 60fps and higher in video games just approaches the smooth quality that Hollywood already gives us.

sorry, not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but this author clearly has no idea what he or she is talking about. you don't just get an idea in your head and run with it. think it over, do some research, and write a piece based on facts and logic.

ZodTheRipper1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

He's only talking about Alan Wake - didn't that come out on PC? There you can make an easy comparison between 30 & 60FPS. I'm still thinking that games like GTA5, Killzone or InFamous are better with 60fps - this is the key to responsive and fluid gameplay.

vulcanproject1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

If the game is 30FPS but is locked solid to it, no drops frames or tears, and the control response is totally consistent, I don't really care too much. This is the key to making a good 30FPS game.

The best games that tell a story like the best movies capture you and get you to suspend your disbelief. This is much more difficult if the technical aspects of the game get in the way.

Quality motion blur at 30FPS helps no end as well. We have some console games with a good implementation but most don't do it or get it right. Alan Wake has a nice implementation. The game is plainly aiming at being cinematic.

This has been a pretty costly effect for existing consoles to manage. Again, Alan Wake manages it, but that game is very very low resolution on 360. I would expect the new consoles to be able to afford it. It'll help a lot.

There just hasn't been enough power to do high resolution, high quality motion blur and high quality AA on a console together. The newer consoles will be much better at that.

Mega241085d ago

60fps is a very different experience for many games than 30fps, a game that moves much smoother has advantages on gameplay.

@matdillahunty -- totally agree with you, when it comes to games there are so many variables to have the perfect looking game with great balance of gameplay running @ 60fps, Tomb Raider at 30fps is not the same experience as it is at 60 fps, its way better.

hay1085d ago

In short: 30FPS gives pretty much 0.0333 second time for all the operations application can do to read input, run logic and then draw everything. Locked 30FPS means they manage to do all of this in this time fraction of a second. 60FPS on the other hand, gives you 0.166 frame time.
Since usually most of frame time goes to visuals(them textures or vertex data can be fat), there's simply more time to draw with 30FPS.
The other side of the coin is the fact, that usually input is one of the first thing read during a frame, draw among the last. Which makes the time calculated above to be pretty much a delay of your input. It's obvious to be close to twice as big with 30FPS.

Sh*t hits the fan if frames are displayed incorrectly each second, too fast, to slow, unstable(varied frame time), etc.
Or if your PC is too slow to render 48FPS, HD footage properly(twice the bandwidth maybe?). Which might often be the case.

I can take 48FPS anytime over 24. But it's still within heavily brain limiting 60/updates blinks a second frequency(which can be responsible for dimnishing of multitasking capabilities).

frostypants1085d ago

@mattdillahunty

"going to 60fps and higher in video games just approaches the smooth quality that Hollywood already gives us."

Hate to burst your bubble man, but the standard for Hollywood films is 24fps.

mattdillahunty1085d ago

@frostypants

hate to burst YOUR bubble, but i already knew that and you completely missed my point. even though movies are only 24fps, they're a lot smoother and aren't subject to things like screen tearing, framerate drops, etc. ie things that happen in video games when a bunch of frames have to be rendered one by one. so even if video games have higher frame rates, movies tend to be smoother because of what they're displaying and the method used for recording and displaying it.

hence why i said the higher the fps goes in video games, the closer it gets to movies in the QUALITY of the picture. not the frames.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1085d ago
codelyoko1085d ago

that IS what the article is saying :P That bieng said semi-action games like RYSE should also be 30fps imo... too much smoothness ruins the Heat of the Moment feel.

serpentine191085d ago

RYSE is all about timing. It would play pretty poorly at 30fps.

thejigisup1085d ago

Idk why you think smoothness is ever a bad thing. A game can be crisp and clear, visually as the developer intends without having to sacrifice frame rate. The beauty of having more frames allows you to make sure things are seen that you want seen. You can clean things up or muddy them. Devs want something to be blurry, choppy, inconsistent well then make do it at 60 fps. We have the tech.

Ju1085d ago

But...Ryse IS 30fps...(if you are lucky).

iamnsuperman1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

Could it be that we are not used to it. Using the movie example (the hobbit is a bad example anyway as it already looks weird with the intensive CGI moments) we are not used to the more frame per seconds. That doesn't mean the lower frame rate is better because of what you said (weak link in my opinion). I assume 60fps looked weird to start with when we played games but it looks normal now.

edit: to me 30 fps and 60 fps are more suited to different genres and game modes. Not because it affects story telling but because it can be a waste on limited resources (i.e. could be used to do other stuff without really sacrificing quality)

Tapani1085d ago

There is a reason they chose 24fps for movies. It's because under 24fps the human eye perceives the images differently (as a sort of slide show). Just over 23fps the human eye perceives the events as "cinematic" and experiences the action in front of your eyes as more "epic" or "meaningful" than in 30 or 60fps. This was a very conscious choice.

For games, however, developers are trying to keep the artistic direction coherent. This is why they chose 30fps for cut-scenes AND gameplay, because this allows better gameplay while the cinematic action also looks "gamey".

Nowadays, I would like to see how games really look like if the cut-scenes were in 24fps and gameplay in full 60fps (for responsiveness).

Nerdmaster1085d ago

Actually, they chose 24fps because it was cheaper (they had to use less film) than 30fps. It was the lowest they could achieve without sacrificing too much smoothness. So there was no such scientific study as "being more epic" in this decision, it was purely about money.

Allsystemgamer1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

It has nothing to do with how appealing it is. Film is extremely expensive so they lowered the count to 24 so they could produce the clearest and most fluid image without any choppyness. It just stuck that way and has become standard so that's why we see it as cinematic. Anything above just seems unnatural now and is not appealing. I saw the hobbit in 48fps and it was not appealing in the least bit.

I'm a film student.

Tapani1085d ago

I rest my case and admit I was (under) wrong (impression)! Thanks for correcting me. Cheers! :)

Ju1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

FYI, 60fps (and 50fps PAL) was there long before we actually had to drop to 30fps. Interestingly "ancient" consoles were not fast enough to multitask, everything was linked to the VBlank (which is actually simulated on LCD) and was a hardware limit of the then used tubes. Everything which would not be in sync with the VBeam would tear and made those games pretty much unplayable. LCD's have no raster beam and thus no physical (hard) refresh rate, more like a "pixel refresh frequency" (usually given in ms).

The current gen is a weird thing. It actually dropped the standard frequency to 30fps but also at the first time made cinematic games possible.

The next gen will be interesting because it seems we got enough bandwidth to consider 60fps the way they were originally intended. But at the same time, I am wondering if the assumption is true that the lower frequency is better for cinematic experiences. I also believe it is necessary for a better, more lifelike animation system - 60fps would just "skip" frames. 60fps are awesome for fast paced action games, but not movie like animations.

The Meerkat1085d ago

No, just no.

You are saying that a slower rate allows your brain to fill in the gap and that this is somehow better. Well how about 20 fps so your brain can make it even better? Or even 10 fps, or how about a hold up some pictures for you?

If the lower frame rate gives YOU the magical feeling then that is simply down to the associations YOUR brain makes.
If you had grown up watching movies at 60fps and someone showed you one at 30fps your reaction would be "What the hell is this crap". People always resist change.

I want to feel immersed in my games/movies and I don't want to be distracted by 30fps.

You sound like the people 10 years ago who said HD wasn't needed. Or the people who say that the imperfections and crackles of vinyl records is what makes them better.
These people are/were wrong.

With higher resolution you need higher frame rates.
30fps was ok with a CRT SD but its very noticeable at 1080p.

I expect to hear your argument more and more as PS4 games are released at 60fps and XB1 games are 30fps but that will just be the usual fanboys.

60fps is the future.

codelyoko1085d ago

You clearly did not read the article. Anything below 24 FPS wont register as a seamless video. Why do you think every single movie in Hollywood is shot at 24fs? Because it has the "Magic" thats why. If you think the ENTIRE production industry is plain wrong and you are right, then that's up to you.

The Meerkat1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

Well aren't you lucky that your eyes don't work as well as mine.

Because 24 fps doesn't register as seamless video to me. If there is any camera movement it give me one hell of a headache.
Why is every movie filmed at 24fps? Money is most likely the answer.
1. 24 fps was the minimum they could get away with so they did. 48 would have have been better but twice as expensive for the makers, distributors and cinemas.
2. Because every movie maker wants the maximum profit they film their movies for maximum distribution. So they have to film for the lowest denominator. Many cinemas wouldn't be able to show a movie at 48 fps.
3. DVDs which are still the biggest sellers wouldn't be large enough to store a 48fps movie in a format that DVD players could show.

At every stage 24 fps makes things cheaper. NOT BETTER.

Ju1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

The thing is, like HD or even 4K the technology is there to shoot e.g. movies at whatever frequency you want. And yet we are stuck with 24fps. And they tried (see the 48fps experiment). But it doesn't seem to work otherwise we would already have it.

The same way we use a post processing filter over the image - because technically you can shoot ultra sharp images at what ever frequency with no motion blur what so ever and yet it's not happening and it sure isn't what we would enjoy.

_QQ_1085d ago

This is all just brainwashing, trying to make it seem okay that most "next gen" games need to conform to 30fps.

frostypants1085d ago

A slower rate allows for that horsepower to be spent on better detail and effects. You cannot increase the framerate without giving up detail. I do find it stunning how many video game enthusiasts don't understand this.

TwistingWords1085d ago (Edited 1085d ago )

Game and film production and how motion is conveyed are 2 completely different entities stop comparing the two.

24 frames of film, is 24 frames of real time motion captured within 1 second, which correlates to anything above 40 frames in relation to 3D animation.

MuhammadJA1085d ago

It doesn't matter whether it's 60 or 30 as long as the FPS is stable and steady.