A discussion on Framerates

[Matt]

I think the jump in quality from 60fps to 30fps is more than 100% mate. Didn't Carmack say, in comparing Rage (60fps) to Doom 4 (30fps), it was like 200% improvement?

I still think a huge reason MW was so successful is the framerate, even if the average gamer doesn't realise it. Many people, who don't consider framerate when playing a game, have said to me the game feels "smoother" and "responsive".

[capcom_suicide]

I'd love for some dev to make a clever engine that lets you choose 30fps or 60fps and adjusts the image quality to match.

That is pretty much what the PC lets you do. Tonight I have been playing around with GTAIV with an Apple iMac 27" 2560x1440 screen, and when I boost to this res I drop down to 30fps.

Its hard to explain unless you have the same 2560x1440 IPS panel, but this link here is a couple of shots I just took at native res. (three photos about 1mb each, be a bit patient)

http://matthewduke.com/ntscuk/HDGaming2/

It has been a long time since I have sat with my jaw open, but having the choice to run games at this res at a beefy view distance at stable 30-35fps is a better experience than the same game dropped down to 1080p and a faster FPS.

So I do believe choice is important.

Crysis on the other hand wont play at 2560x1440 at more than 25fps on my rig, so 1080p at 40fps is the better option.

PC (or Mac in my case) is good in that you can choose your res and settings. I feel consoles should do that too.

Some of us prefer detail over FPS and visa versa.

[randombs]

I think the jump in quality from 60fps to 30fps is more than 100% mate. Didn't Carmack say, in comparing Rage (60fps) to Doom 4 (30fps), it was like 200% improvement?

I said 'up to 100%' as I didn't want someone saying 60>30fps still has overheads that doesn't directly translate to double the resources. It's interesting if he says that, though. I can imagine there are some bottlenecks I'm not considering.

That is pretty much what the PC lets you do. Tonight I have been playing around with GTAIV with an Apple iMac 27" 2560x1440 screen, and when I boost to this res I drop down to 30fps.

Well, yeah, we know PC's do that but this is console gaming. The counter argument to that would be that PC devs have no set configuration so if your PC isn't up to it then you have to upgrade or play at lower settings. I haven't played a PC game for years (except Counter Strike) but I doubt that situation will change (and quite rightly).

Also, that's not the same thing - frame rate dropping because of a boost in resolution/draw distance/etc is simply because the machine can't keep up. With a console game, I think the 30/60fps choice needs to be made during development and stuck to, which is why I mention an engine that can intelligently add/remove models/textures to play the game at a forced 60 or 30fps (with vsync, of course).

I accept that it will never happen, but it'd be nice if a few games did it. I swear there was an Xbox game I played that let you choose 30 or 60fps and turned certain things on/off to achieve it (anti aliasing, vsync, etc). The 30fps mode was 30fps locked and the 60fps mode had vsync disabled so sometimes had tearing but generally ran at 60.

Its hard to explain unless you have the same 2560x1440 IPS panel

What's hard to explain? That the resolution is higher? Or do you mean it's hard to explain how much better it looks compared with 1080p? I'd definitely agree with you there, as those screen shots look sumptuous but seeing it moving must be a wholly different experience.

For me, I hate PC gaming at ~30fps, I can't imagine myself playing a PC game at anything less than around 60fps (which is why I've never bothered even trying any game after HL2). I'm sure they do motion blur like they do on consoles nowadays but, I dunno, that's just how I feel about it.

As you say, it's about choice, but I do think the idea of having any major graphical settings could go against the console gaming ethos.

Although, they seem to be emulating PC's so much these days, who knows?

[charlesr]

Its hard to explain unless you have the same 2560x1440 IPS panel, but this link here is a couple of shots I just took at native res. (three photos about 1mb each, be a bit patient)

http://matthewduke.com/ntscuk/HDGaming2/

It has been a long time since I have sat with my jaw open, but having the choice to run games at this res at a beefy view distance at stable 30-35fps is a better experience than the same game dropped down to 1080p and a faster FPS.

I'm left "meh" by those. Why do PC games always seem so sterile and clinical? Amazing res but no detail to the textures. Maybe it's because the res is so high - it doesn't match the texture res.

[Matt]

I said 'up to 100%' as I didn't want someone saying 60>30fps still has overheads that doesn't directly translate to double the resources.

LOL yeah, you've got to be careful what you say in these parts....

It's interesting if he says that, though. I can imagine there are some bottlenecks I'm not considering.

I'm not convinced the huge jump in visual quality will be solely down to the framerate, as you've got to consider the engine will be more developed (also more feature rich from the moment D4 development began), but whenever Carmack speaks you have to pay attention as he knows his stuff:

Doom will "not be another four-year development period", said Carmack, but will have "three times the graphics richness" because it runs at 30 frames-per-second, rather than 60, which Rage targets.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/doom-4-three-times-rage-visual-quality

[SharkSkin-Man]

I'm left "meh" by those. Why do PC games always seem so sterile and clinical? Amazing res but no detail to the textures. Maybe it's because the res is so high - it doesn't match the texture res.

Terrible, soulless design and lack of any kind of style?

[capcom_suicide]

I'm left "meh" by those. Why do PC games always seem so sterile and clinical? Amazing res but no detail to the textures. Maybe it's because the res is so high - it doesn't match the texture res.

Yes, I agree often PC screens do look like that. I think its because we are used to a bit of post processing on console games.

Playing it with all the particle and dust/weather effects it feels superb though.

Looking at halflife2 yesterday, that too maybe looks sterile in the screens, but I can say that this game (Rock solid 60fps at 2560x1440) really doesnt feel sterile, but maybe the screens do?

http://matthewduke.com/ntscuk/HDGaming/

I think halflife2 at 60fps and on my iMac screen is perhaps one of the coolest things Ive seen gaming.

But im not really a PC gamer, being more of a console player, but its fun to see what technology can bring to the table.