John Carmack believes that making “pretty damn good pictures at 60 frames per second” is more important than being prettier than any other game out there – and being stuck with a sluggish frame rate.
He's been say this since Rage was confirmed to run a 60FPS. This is just some spoon feeding from a good interview thats already been posted. Read the source interview if your interested http://www.industrygamers.c... (dont get bogged down with the headline). Oh and he's right, 60FPS > 30FPS even if that does mean slightly worse visuals.
if its just slightly... then why doesnt everyone just do it but really it depends on the game
I choose 60 over 30 any day of the week! I like fast responsive play, which is probably why I liked MW 2 so much, even though it had its flaws. Graphics in general don't have to be mindblowing, because they don't matter really! The main thing about graphics is if they accomplish the goal of immersing you into an environment. Example, I played GoW 3 and the detail to the graphics gave it a certain feel that made me feel like I was in those places. On the other hand, I played Gears 2 and got the same feeling! I guess it's all in how the game is developed. Either way, all I care about is if the game can provide a unique experience. Like if the environments were so captivating that I felt I had to play it again just to experience it again!
Next gen should embrace both macro (destructible entities) and micro (subtle entities) physics, realistic AIs, when maintaining 60FPS realistic visuals at >1080P res. Also, all kinds of shadows on cloths, skins and objects should be rendered realtime and all kinds of textures should be just "one color" hues, not like those cheap "painted" or "baked" shadows on textures in current gen.
Personally I've never noticed a difference between a game that was 60 fps vs 30 fps. Below 30 I can recognize. But not between 30 and 60.
I can notice a difference between 120 and 90fps on a 60hz monitor. It's a difference felt in the controls and not necessarily in the visual fluidity.
There is a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps.
for some games i guess it dosnt show as much but you can sure see the differance with driving games
VDKok - you're exactly right. other than racing games - it isn't as vital.
It's even more vital in fighters, and all fighters are 60 fps as far as I know. I know Tekken, Soul Calibur and Street Fighter are, and the rest are mostly 2D fighters which have no excuse for not being 60 fps.
Maria... You probably should have just kept that to yourself! I guarantee you just lost respect points with some gamers on here! I didn't disagree with you, but i'll try to explain... Framerates are kinda tricky to spot in some games dut to high graphical counts. The easiest way to spot it is how fast things are moving on screen. Example... Modern Warfare 2 moves at 60 fps, while it looks more like Black ops moves at 30. Even though people complain about MW 2 feeling arcadey, they are complaining mostly about the gameplay being very responsive. They are used to games that run at 30 fps which slow gameplay down. In theory they call that more realistic. In actuality it dumbs the experience down. Because in real combat, things seem like they are moving faster than you can comprehend. Before I get bashed, i'm talking about responsiveness, not the weird people glitching and all that other crap!
"Maria... You probably should have just kept that to yourself! I guarantee you just lost respect points with some gamers on here! " People had respect for others on this site? This is new to me. :p
I'm not embarrassed about not being able to tell the difference. I try to just enjoy games and not worry about the technical side of things.
id and Carmack keep bragging about 60fps on consoles, yet I never watched a 60fps footage from the consoles version, in fact, IIRC the only footage that's running at 60fps was a trailer released back in 09 from the PC version.. I think the game will achieve 60fps on consoles at times, but most likely drop below that at most "heavy" times.
Thats not the case with idtech5 its a new tech. And id has always delivered
THe graphics are crap on RAGE because of 60fps. This guy is worse than crytek at bragging.
Well, 60 frames per second is definitely something but I wouldn't mind 30FPS if it means better visuals.
A few years ago they said that Doom 4 will be running at 30fps, and it'll look MUCH better than Rage. Hopefully that'll turn out well.
i agree , wheres his button?
Basically he trying to sell us his game.. But yea I prefer better visuals @ 60fps.
naturally. all pc games do
With all due respect Carmack, we're not playing Quake here. Back in the days 60 fps is important because you need to rocket jump to a quad power up, spin around in mid air to pwn some clown with a nailgun, then go on a axe murdering rampage with your quad damage while dodging dozens of incoming rockets as everyone in the server is trying to gib you pieces. With all this happening in a span of less than 5seconds 60 fps is important. Those days are gone. Games these days are a lot more tactical and deliberate with their iron sights and what not. So 30fps is fine as long as it's stable and doesn't dip into the single digit when you turn the corner or something.
30FPS gaming is horrible. It's sluggish, feels poor and increases input lag (basically dirtectly effecting gameplay) which isnt great for an FPS. The only reason people except 30FPS is because it's the norm and some people know no better. Or of course, care more about a few pixels than a nice playable experience.
30 fps is under par if you're on the PC. But in the console world it's widely an accepted standard. The key here is average fps, with a consistent 30 fps there shouldn't be a problem unless everything around you is blowing up. It's all hype anyways with Rage's mega textures the entire engine is slanted toward performance over texture quality. Carmack is just out there trying to sell the game and doing what his PR department told him.
It maybe the accepted standard, because like I said, many know no different. Some games can get away with it, something like Uncharted for example, but even still if you got to play Uncharted at 60FPS then went back to 30FPS, you'd notice a big deifference in feel and responsiveness. And if you think Carmack is just saying what his PR team told him, you know nothing about Carmack. The dude is straight up and honest.
@Viserys: Have you ever wondered why so many play CoD? One of the major factors is because it's very responsive. People say it "just plays better" than other games, and a few have even pointed out, without knowing it, the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. They notice it, even if they don't know what it is, but it matters to them. This was even given to me as an argument as to why MW2 was better than Black Ops, as my COD fanboy friend traded it in after 3 days. He said it was too "laggy", but what he was referring to was the framerate, which would dip below the 60FPS average many times during online play.
Back in the Quake days, 60 fps was considered BAD. Then we were all playing on old CRTs which supported 120 hz and beyond for resolutions capable of running Quake at all. Fps was uncapped and vsync off for best performance. Quake 3 even had a bug that unless you had 125 or more FPS you couldn't jump as high. This was especially important in one particular map; it had a ledge at exactly that height where you could only jump it if you had over 125 fps. Up there was a powerup. I still consider 60 fps the minimum for smooth gameplay. 30 fps is horrible. It simply is not smooth to my eyes. No amount of good graphics can remedy that.
Says the man who gave us Doom 3, which had 90% of the screen in one colour (black), and the rest of it chugging FPS even on fairly respectable computers. But it was a pretty 10% of visibility I guess.
... but black isn't a colour.
You're right, it is the absence of color...technically.
It is in the software world, where light does not exist outside of the RGBA spectrum.
yea - and NO flashlight mounted on the gun - what the hell was that about?
It's understandable that you feel that way. You kiddies with your lime green colored space marines and your bright cartoony fantasy MMOs. But back in the days when dinosaurs walked the earth, Doom 3's "blackness" was a big deal. You see back then FPS engines could not render realistic real time shadows from multiple light sources, with soft shadows in particular being a total bitch to render with that era's technology. Doom 3 was the game that exploited all of the shadows and lighting tech available at that time like none before it. I'm sure Id also mastered the incredibly complex task of springing hundreds of monster closets in that game too but that achievement is less notable.
Unfortunately it wasn't the first to do shadows, Severance came out a couple of years before. MegaTexturing was the big thing with the Doom3 Engine, unfortunately we never saw much of any textures, outside the cone of a flashlight. And might I remind you of an older game that green space marines, pink demons? Doom? And about about Ultima Online for a cartoonist fantasy MMO... it was the original MMORPG after all?
well... it depend. i mean... i prefer uncharted 3 with 30 FPS and super graphics than 60 fps with average graphics.
I enjoy 60 fps in my PC games (got The Witcher 2 going at 60 now that I Crossfired 2 cards), but I don't have any problem adjusting to 30 fps in games like Uncharted 2. The genres I generally want 60 fps are racing, fighting, and twitch FPS (Unreal Tournament, Quake, ect.). In most other genres, I'd prefer detail and effects over a perfect 60 fps. Uncharted 2 strikes a good compromise at a locked, triple buffered 30 fps with motion blur. It looks really smooth even though it puts out half the frames I'd typically prefer.
30FPS games that have full motion blur (camera AND object motion blur) will look VERY smooth even at 30FPS. All movies you watch on DVD or bluray are only 24FPS, that's cinema standard. The thing is, in real-life, motion blur is a natural effect due to cameras and their shutter speeds. Games like UC2/3, Gears 3, KZ2/3, Crysis 2, LBP1/2, Vanquish, Dirt 2/3, PGR3/4, God of war 3, Alpha Protocol (lol) all have object motion blur and run at 30FPS, which is a hard effect to do, takes alot of performance. Games like GT5/Forza2/3 only have motion blur in replays, not in game when they want 60 FPS.
I imagine that in the next generation of consoles, this battle between graphics and framerate will be irrelevant.
...but you're gonna' make Doom 4 30 fps on consoles, anyway...
Anyone else think his picture makes him look like he wants to get punched in his smug face?
The wording of the title is retarded. Graphics include framerate, otherwise best graphics could be a still frame.
That title is frigging awful.
I was just going to say that. God awful!
Of course console gamers get used to 30 fps, because you're sitting quite distance from the TV. You can't really notice the difference, it's like watching a movie.
I don't mind 30 fps as long as it's locked and stable. But, I still prefer 60 fps, more fluid in response, more striking to the eye.
I dont mind 30 FPS as long as the game looks great But Rage shapes up to be a graphics king this year with 60 FPS and great enviroments, characters and AI! Only BF3 and UC3 is close enough!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.