60 fps too much?

I've noticed this with a lot of games to go for a cinematic feel/look. A Black Ops commercial just played on TV and when they were showing off the ingame cinematics everything had a really weird movement to it that made it look kinda cheap and hockey. Conceptually a lot of it looked cool but that weird smoothness added a layer of cheapness to it all. Another game that I noticed this was MGS4, where I thought the ingame cinematics looked their best when the framerate dropped and all the motion of things and characters looked like a movie or tv show rather than that weird super smooth effect.

I kinda agree. 30FPS is closer to the framerate of a movie camera, and 60FPS games can look a bit hokey and undetailed at times. But, like the poster above said, it's more of a problem with the textures/animations than with the game speed. Locking a game into 60FPS on consoles gives console devs a lot less to work with graphically.

Also, I've noticed 60FPS sometimes makes you overlook texture details and the like, so it could be just that. GOW3 looks awesome when you stand still, but when you're blazing through the combat at that speed, you can hardly notice the amount of work that went into some of the environments.

I am not going to get into all the little semantics and stuff, but around 60 is the perfect spot to be at. Also I believe BlackOps runs at 30 FPS (on consoles anyway).

Not for me.

I went through two PC's that didn't have the most amazing specs for their time, and now that I finally have a PC that can play games at 60fps it's soooooooooooo much better.

I have a hard time settling for anything less than 60 fps on PCs. On consoles I dont have a choice.

60hz isnt enough for me when playing shooters. 75hz is perfect. 60fps without v-sync is fine.

With a lot of console games, the animations are designed for 30FPS. It isn't that 60 is too high, its that the animations don't have enough framesSkittles_McGee

It's definitely not too much, but anything below 30 FPS in a game can get annoying

Yeah 30 fps + motion blur can often have a "cinematic" look, since it's similar to how film looks.

I kinda agree. 30FPS is closer to the framerate of a movie camera, and 60FPS games can look a bit hokey and undetailed at times. But, like the poster above said, it's more of a problem with the textures/animations than with the game speed. Locking a game into 60FPS on consoles gives console devs a lot less to work with graphically.

Also, I've noticed 60FPS sometimes makes you overlook texture details and the like, so it could be just that. GOW3 looks awesome when you stand still, but when you're blazing through the combat at that speed, you can hardly notice the amount of work that went into some of the environments.

Upparoom

fps on movies and games are different. why do people always compare fps in games and movies? first off, there are no movie cameras that can film 60 frames that exist. besides, if there were, they would only be beta cams, not commercial ones.

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV. also, a 60p film would look awkward, trust me. if, let's say, you're watching a chase scene from 'The Dark Knight Rises' (sequel to the Dark Knight), and it's recorded in 24fps, it will look smooth in the sense that you'll feel you're watching a movie with a panoramic feel.

if it's recorded in 60fps it'd kinda look like a handycam shot. it'd be 'very smooth', so it'll lose its sense of film/theatre. ti'd really feel like a live action sequence. to some, it might look totally real, but yeah. ti wouldn't look like a movie, if you get my drift. 60 fps would probably work well with HD sports programs or so, but prolly not movies.

60 fps in games is a must. no matter how you look at it, 60 fps > 30 fps in games. why? because in games you have to control the media. you would want something that's silky smooth and responsive. people would be lying if they said there's no difference between a 60fps racer or shooter and a 30 fps racer or shooter.

anything really above 40 fps is silky smooth.. Even at 24 fps with motion blur it isn't noticable. sSubZerOo

60FPS is perfect, CoD4 feels amazing and the graphics/animations work great with the framerate too. 30fps is fine too, but I prefer 60fps over 30, and I also prefer framerate over graphics.

[QUOTE="Upparoom"]

I kinda agree. 30FPS is closer to the framerate of a movie camera, and 60FPS games can look a bit hokey and undetailed at times. But, like the poster above said, it's more of a problem with the textures/animations than with the game speed. Locking a game into 60FPS on consoles gives console devs a lot less to work with graphically.

Also, I've noticed 60FPS sometimes makes you overlook texture details and the like, so it could be just that. GOW3 looks awesome when you stand still, but when you're blazing through the combat at that speed, you can hardly notice the amount of work that went into some of the environments.

rawr89

fps on movies and games are different. why do people always compared fps in games and movies? first off, there are no movie cameras that can film 60 frames that exist. besides, if there were, they would only be beta cams, not commercial ones.

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV. also, a 60p film would look awkward, trust me. if, let's say, you're watching a chase scene from 'The Dark Knight Rises' (sequel to the Dark Knight), and it's recorded in 24fps, it will look smooth in the sense that you'll feel you're watching a movie with a panoramic feel.

if it's recorded in 60fps it'd kinda look like a handycam shot. it'd be 'very smooth', so it'll lose its sense of film/theatre. ti'd really feel like a live action sequence. to some, it might look totally real, but yeah. ti wouldn't look like a movie, if you get my drift. 60 fps would probably work well with HD sports programs or so, but prolly not movies.

For instance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW93WQ98s-I

I was just watching this...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sheila_patek_clocks_the_fastest_animals.html

It's a lecture in which a researcher explains how she captured extremely fast movements by using cameras that capture film at 1000 and 20,0000 frames per second, respectively, the former of which she used to create a slow-motion playback of 15 frames per second.

I personally think a steady 40fps is quite smooth enough for me. I see a lot of console games hanging on for dear life at the 30fps mark.

I personally think a steady 40fps is quite smooth enough for me. I see a lot of console games hanging on for dear life at the 30fps mark.

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

I personally think a steady 40fps is quite smooth enough for me. I see a lot of console games hanging on for dear life at the 30fps mark.

DJP3000

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

[QUOTE="Upparoom"]

I kinda agree. 30FPS is closer to the framerate of a movie camera, and 60FPS games can look a bit hokey and undetailed at times. But, like the poster above said, it's more of a problem with the textures/animations than with the game speed. Locking a game into 60FPS on consoles gives console devs a lot less to work with graphically.

Also, I've noticed 60FPS sometimes makes you overlook texture details and the like, so it could be just that. GOW3 looks awesome when you stand still, but when you're blazing through the combat at that speed, you can hardly notice the amount of work that went into some of the environments.

Brownesque

fps on movies and games are different. why do people always compared fps in games and movies? first off, there are no movie cameras that can film 60 frames that exist. besides, if there were, they would only be beta cams, not commercial ones.

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV. also, a 60p film would look awkward, trust me. if, let's say, you're watching a chase scene from 'The Dark Knight Rises' (sequel to the Dark Knight), and it's recorded in 24fps, it will look smooth in the sense that you'll feel you're watching a movie with a panoramic feel.

if it's recorded in 60fps it'd kinda look like a handycam shot. it'd be 'very smooth', so it'll lose its sense of film/theatre. ti'd really feel like a live action sequence. to some, it might look totally real, but yeah. ti wouldn't look like a movie, if you get my drift. 60 fps would probably work well with HD sports programs or so, but prolly not movies.

For instance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW93WQ98s-I

I was just watching this...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sheila_patek_clocks_the_fastest_animals.html

It's a lecture in which a researcher explains how she captured extremely fast movements by using cameras that capture film at 1000 and 20,0000 frames per second, respectively, the former of which she used to create a slow-motion playback of 15 frames per second.

FAIL. you don't know what you're talking about. you're thinking of higher framerates = slow motion because films are being projected in 24 frames.

tell me then, a 20 000 frame video of a bubble bursting is 5 minutes long but the actual speed is just half a second.

why then is there no difference between a 30 fps and a 60 fps video game in terms of actual speed? no one is slower than the other in terms of playback?

because those things are different. High-speed cameras for slow motion imaging is different from film cameras.

FAIL. you don't know what you're talking about.

rawr89

Well, that's not true. You see, I understand perfectly what I'm talking about. What I don't understand, however, is what you're trying to say.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

There are plenty of cameras that can output in excess of 60 frames per second.

For instance:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW93WQ98s-I

I was just watching this...

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sheila_patek_clocks_the_fastest_animals.html

It's a lecture in which a researcher explains how she captured extremely fast movements by using cameras that capture film at 1000 and 20,0000 frames per second, respectively, the former of which she used to create a slow-motion playback of 15 frames per second.

rawr89

you're thinking of higher framerates = slow motion because films are being projected in 24 frames.

tell me then, a 20 000 frame video of a bubble bursting is 5 minutes long but the actual speed is just half a second.

why then is there no difference between a 30 fps and a 60 fps video game in terms of actual speed? no one is slower than the other in terms of playback?

because those things are different. High-speed cameras for slow motion imaging is different from film cameras.

No, I'm not thinking that higher framerates equal slow motion. Playback speed is different from capture speed. The only limitation is how many frames you can either capture or display, which is a limitation of the hardware. You can put 60 frames in a second or 2. Open up Windows Photo Viewer in a folder with multiple JPGs, open a JPG and press enter. Then wait 30 seconds and press enter again. Alternately, try pressing alter 60 times in one second.

You can play back images at whatever speed the hardware will allow. It's merely the rate of display, which can easily be arranged by video software. This is how some people can make slideshows or stop motion video like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tqtTiuCV7Q

Which is pretty much literally a person just taking one shot at a time, with a time interval in between of whatever you feel like, and play it back at a sped up rate. You can also slow down the rate of playback.

With computer hardware your video card is drawing each frame however fast it possibly can, whether that's 100 frames or 12. Your display is displaying it, likewise, as fast as it can. Although, through software you can limit the amount of frames your hardware will display, e.g. a vertical sync cap or a 30 FPS cap which can make for smoother and more consistent playback.

In the instance of a high speed camera, the camera is just taking pictures hyper-fast. The 15 frames per second playback is a limitation imposed by the software, arranged by the presenter who has edited the playback in video editing software to display that many frames per second. Alternately, they could choose to make the playback 30 or 50 frames per second if they wanted to. Many video editing programs even let you choose how long you want each image to be displayed, or how you want it to be displayed, e.g. moving across the screen horizontally, or two images onscreen in the same frame.

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV.

rawr89

Never

Seriously, there isn't game in existence that I would rather play at 30fps than 60.

Never

Seriously, there isn't game in existence that I would rather play at 30fps than 60.

FGMPR

Console ports designed for 30fps can look pretty janky when running at 60+.

LOLOLOLOLOL... Sorry... Not for PC gaming. The more, the better.

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV.

Teufelhuhn

Haha come on rawr... some people on this board is just to much.

It's kinda sad and obvious that some people haven't made the transition to 100Hz tvs, blu-ray movies and high end pc gaming.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

another thing, there's no TV that can output a movie with 60 frames i.e. a 60p TV.

kaealy

Haha come on rawr... some people on this board is just to much.

It's kinda sad and obvious that some people haven't made the transition to 100Hz tvs, blu-ray movies and high end pc gaming.

I played the MW2 demo and the whole thing has this same effect going on it. Not to mention everything looks shiny for some reason. I don't know if it's because the framerate it too high or it's just poor quality animation but it's a weird paradox to me when the game is supposed to be semi-serious/realistic but you have this goofy smoother than real life thing going on anytime anything moves.Senor_Kami

A Black Ops commercial just played on TV and when they were showing off the ingame cinematics everything had a really weird movement to it that made it look kinda cheap and hockey.

Senor_Kami

It is sad to see all this consol games trying to convince them self's that 60fps is not good for games.

The reality is, that they are bitter because consoles don't have the power to run games at 60fps.