Assassin's Creed dev thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard

Status
Not open for further replies.
Syphadeus said:
I realise cinema fps is 24 and referred to that in an earlier post.

Perhaps cinematic is the wrong word to use, but we're just debating semantics really. What I'm trying to get at is that whilst it might not be more cinematic, 30 gives a very different feel to 60, which can be borne of a technical limitation but can also be good. It's hard to debate why I prefer Black Flag at 30 over 60 I prefer the feel, I can't quantify that.

The fact is though that whilst I understand why many would not agree with me, most people are just arguing because obviously a higher number is better to them, be it resolution, framerate etc. All I'm saying is that it's not a universal truth.
Click to expand...


you can argue resolutions with me if you like..
my eye sight is not what it once was. and on diferent sized monitors you can tell me 720p with AA looks the same 1080p without AA and i wont argue that.
but frame rates really is about how it feels and its fluidity more than how it looks..
unless you cant keep a constant 60fps up then you can argue lower fps is better for your hardware.
I never had an argument against using lower fps on poor hardware.
Whatever the minimum frame rate your system gets to in the most demanding part of the game should be your constant frame rate IMO. thats why i upgrade so my minimum in any game is not less than 60fps. at 1080p. sometime i have to turn down AA or use lower resolutions. If possible i will use tripple buffer v synk. (i try not to use v-synk though as you get input lag)

so under that premmiss i do believe they should just say consoles cant do 60fps with this game. so we are doing 30..
But instead of that this debate exists.
 
Last edited:
SeekaX said:
The only reason for why you perceived films differently is that you are used to 24fps movies. By that logic we should still be watching movies in black/white in 320x240 because HD and colors take away the cinematic feeling and make it easier to spot CGI, etc..
Fucking ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

By that logic? Erm no, your response is what's fucking ridiculous and how you've come to that reasoning which isn't logic so much as it is a fucking brain fart.

I said I don't like cinema high frame rate, I don't like high frame rates for some games. Sometimes some looks match a game better than others. Others I like high frame rate for. Where from that did you get that so called logic?

What I'm used to has sod all to do with it, it's what I like. I'm not so intellectually inept that I can't distinguish between something that is comfortably familiar and something which is new and better. I can say though that I'm thoughtful enough to acknowledge that newer or bigger or faster does not automatically equate to better or more suitable.

I don't think Limbo would have been better if it was in colour. I don't think Jet Set Radio would've been better if it wasn't cel shaded etc etc. Take your off hand retorts to what you're clearly misinterpreting and shove them please; it's rude.
 
shambles1980 said:
you can argue resolutions with me if you like..
my eye sight is not what it once was. and on diferent sized monitors you can tell me 720p with AA looks the same 1080p without AA and i wont argue that.
but frame rates really is about how it feels and its fluidity more than how it looks..
unless you cant keep a constant 60fps up then you can argue lower fps is better for your hardware.
I never had an argument against using lower fps on poor hardware.
Whatever the minimum frame rate your system gets to in the most demanding part of the game should be your constant frame rate IMO. thats why i upgrade so my minimum in any game is not less than 60fps. at 1080p. sometime i have to turn down AA or use lower resolutions. If possible i will use tripple buffer v synk. (i try not to use v-synk though as you get input lag)

so under that premmiss i do believe they should just say consoles cant do 60fps with this game. so we are doing 30..
But instead of that this debate exists.
Click to expand...

Thing is I'm not disagreeing with you in general. I didn't upgrade my 670 to a 980 so I could have worse framerates. I want to get the most out of games and usually that means buttery smooth 60fps or more is desirable.

All I'm saying and what people aren't getting is that I, personally, and for no reason I can really put into words, prefer how some games look and play when they're at 30fps. Black Flag is my most recent example that I can think of. I don't like how it feels at 60.

On the consoles 30 is often the goal for devs when they make their decision about the tradeoff between visual density / fidelity and speed. This limitation will not apply to the PC version of Unity, which is the one I'll be getting. So I don't really understand why it's such a sore topic anyway. Would you rather they make the game less visually intensive, have it run on consoles at 60 and uber pc at 400fps? God it'll run fast but look like ass. I'd rather they target 30 on consoles and go for amazing visuals and the constantly progressing pc platform can then pick up the fps slack for those that crave 60, 120,144 fps and so on.
 
Last edited:
Syphadeus said:
I'm thoughtful enough to acknowledge that newer or bigger or faster does not automatically equate to better or more suitable.
Click to expand...

Since when did anyone say that? You're sounding pretty uppity. Of course, not everything newer is better (easily applied to most game franchises). Personally I don't like being limited to 30fps, like most people on here and limiting a game to 30fps is often a sign of a lazy job on pc (not console obvs, as limitations). The whole 'its more cinematic' argument is often applied as an excuse for what is quite often Ubisoft's laziness and in this case I think its exactly that.

Syphadeus said:
game less visually intensive, have it run on consoles at 60 and uber pc at 400fps? God it'll run fast but look like ass. I'd rather they target 30 on consoles and go for amazing visuals and the constantly progressing pc platform can then pick up the fps slack for those that crave 60, 120,144 fps and so on.
Click to expand...
Thing is, it wouldn't necessarily look awful if it runs at a very high fps. Depends on optimisation as well.
 
Last edited:
Syphadeus said:
By that logic? Erm no, your response is what's fucking ridiculous and how you've come to that reasoning which isn't logic so much as it is a fucking brain fart.

I said I don't like cinema high frame rate, I don't like high frame rates for some games. Sometimes some looks match a game better than others. Others I like high frame rate for. Where from that did you get that so called logic?

What I'm used to has sod all to do with it, it's what I like. I'm not so intellectually inept that I can't distinguish between something that is comfortably familiar and something which is new and better. I can say though that I'm thoughtful enough to acknowledge that newer or bigger or faster does not automatically equate to better or more suitable.

I don't think Limbo would have been better if it was in colour. I don't think Jet Set Radio would've been better if it wasn't cel shaded etc etc. Take your off hand retorts to what you're clearly misinterpreting and shove them please; it's rude.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you, hence i am rude. Telling me to shove something followed by calling me rude. Brilliant.
If movies had been in 48fps from the beginning people would be complaining about 24fps. It's human nature, when something breaks with traditions it takes time for people to get used to it.
If you had been around here for long enough, which you clearly haven't, then you'd know that i am probably the last person on this forum who adapts to innovation just for the sake of innovating. However i am thoughtful enough to give everything a proper chance and to not base my opinion on first impressions.
 
Last edited:
I don't know exactly how things work in the industry but is it plausible that MS and Sony would encourage dev's to hold the FPS back to improve the visual quality. As we all know the consoles didn't really keep pace with hardware advancement this time and that must put everyone in a very awkward position to try and market the new platform as superior and convince people to upgrade. Screenshots and image quality are quite an easy tool to impress people with, additionally a trailer would look fine at 30fps, without the sensation of playing it fps is a difficult thing to sell. I think we are going to see this a lot with the new consoles and I wouldn't be surprised if GTA V only runs at 30fps 1080p by how intensive it looks.

JR
 
They'd do better to drop the res to 720p and try for the 60fps. Maybe they'll fire all their artists and go for 8bit graphics as well, in order to evoke a sense of history.
 
i just dont like their reasoning..
any one who games "well not any one because you do have those die hard console fans who simply cannot comprehend that a pc is infact better/faster/more powerfull"
fully comprehends they are doing 30fps because they are limited.

if the console could do 120fps at 1080p they would have done that and said "120 fps is a much better gaming expirience"
because it cant it's
"30 fps is a much better cinematic expirience"
which is total fud!
they started off saying they did it for console parity. no one liked that reason. so now they try "cinematic expirience" and some people do like that answer. so now that is the one they will always use.
on the fps debate i dont know how any one can argue it. but i guess that is for them to decide.

on the "this is why we are doing 30fps" debate its a blaitant cop out.
they changed the reason to why they are doing 30fps because no one liked the 1st reason. and i really cant see how any one will believe that the game will be better because of being at 30fps because they now say they deliberatly did it to make the game feel and look better, when just last week they were saying they did it because the xbox one couldnt do 60fps and so they decided to do it 30fps for every one for parity..

the 1st reason was blaitantly:
This is hardware limits i wish we could do 60fps it would be better.
and the 2nd reason is:
We deliberatly developed this at 30fps so it will be better..

you cant just change your reason like that and expect people to believe it will be better at 30fps when you already admited it would be better at 60fps but the console cant do it..

i really never wanted to get in to the fps debate, and should have argued theire reasoning. its just so hard not to get drahgged in to it
 
when you know PR won't save your game but still hope.

"It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps.
It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum."

"everything"
 
As for the high frame rate in cinema being a jarring experience for most people, I found that I got a similar feeling from my parents old 120hz CRT TV.

Not sure how the extra refresh rate was a achieved, but to start with it did give everything the appearance of being a soap opera or being filmed in a classroom. After a while though we all got used to it and actually preferred watching it to our old TV.

I guess my point is that the increased refresh rate made a noticeable impact on the immersion and to start with that change was jarring and broke the suspension of disbelief, until it was adjusted to at which point it enhanced the immersion. I know this is anecdotal but I think with more exposure to high frame rates people would stop preferring low ones
 
barnsley said:
Apples and oranges. Both are vaguely the same (fruit/visual media) but they're different in experience and interaction. :)

The hobbit looked awful when they did that high fps version (looked more like a soap opera), I'll give you that.

Low fps does not make games more cinematic however. If you want to make a game look more cinematic you create that through textures, filters et all. Point in hand, Skyrim. Skyrim @30fps is not any more cinematic then Skyrim @60fps. Its the core material, not the FPS that will create a feeling. If it made it more cinematic then you'd be talking about 24fps, as thats cinema fps, not 30 :)
Click to expand...

I agree with you Sir! Very well explained that it takes more than fps to create a quality user experience.
However not being of any console ilk but rather a weathered PC gamer since the late 1980's, I have been able to see the changes come and go in a flash. I am not surprised seeing the latest development to gear back on FPS in a game such as the AC series in an attempt to do uuuh what? Already thoroughly disappointed and given up on ubisoft for bringing out rickety (empty) chapters on a yearly basis rather than putting the work in over several years to produce a quality product, which justifies game price and commit to the playability (read: customer/hw support) on any config out there. As certain titles which come out on console first to feed the hungry, undoubtedly to be ported to PC at a later stage, to feed the patient gamers among us, 30 FPS sounds like music to my ears, as it might mean that I can still use my custom build 7 year old pc to play the latest installment, if I wish to do so.
I would like to thank ubi for scraping out the barrel in an effort to catch this particular market segment in their quest for greed.
Meanwhile, I can't stop laughing..
 
Kees said:
I agree with you Sir! Very well explained that it takes more than fps to create a quality user experience.
However not being of any console ilk but rather a weathered PC gamer since the late 1980's, I have been able to see the changes come and go in a flash. I am not surprised seeing the latest development to gear back on FPS in a game such as the AC series in an attempt to do uuuh what? Already thoroughly disappointed and given up on ubisoft for bringing out rickety (empty) chapters on a yearly basis rather than putting the work in over several years to produce a quality product, which justifies game price and commit to the playability (read: customer/hw support) on any config out there. As certain titles which come out on console first to feed the hungry, undoubtedly to be ported to PC at a later stage, to feed the patient gamers among us, 30 FPS sounds like music to my ears, as it might mean that I can still use my custom build 7 year old pc to play the latest installment, if I wish to do so.
I would like to thank ubi for scraping out the barrel in an effort to catch this particular market segment in their quest for greed.
Meanwhile, I can't stop laughing..
Click to expand...

Dude you're replying to a thread that is over a year and a half old.
The subject now is out of date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

WYP
Ubisoft leaks upcoming Assassin's Creed Syndicate 60 FPS update
Replies
1
Views
210
Dicehunter
Dicehunter
WYP
Assassin's Creed Valhalla will target 4K 60 FPS on Xbox Series X
Replies
1
Views
799
Bagpuss
B
TPC
Assassins Creed Unity only 30fps on "Next-Gen" consoles
2 3
Replies
44
Views
6K
n0ave
N
Back
Top