Ubisoft: 30 frames per second feels "more cinematic"

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Ubisoft: 30 frames per second feels "more cinematic"

This is categorically wrong.

 

Ubisoft claims that Assassin?s Creed Unity doesn?t run at 60 frames per second (fps) because 30 feels ?more cinematic?.

 

Earlier this week, Ubisoft announced that Assassin's Creed Unity will run at 900p and 30fps on both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

 

Speaking with TechRadar, Unity level design director Nicolas Gu?rin said for a long time Ubisoft wanted to push 60 fps, but eventually abandoned that goal.

 

?I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing,? said Gu?rin.

 

?It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.

 

"And in other games it's the same ? like the Ratchet and Clank series [which dropped 60fps in favour of 30],? he added.

 

?So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that standard because it's hard to achieve ? it's twice as hard as 30 fps, and it?s not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."

 

"30 was our goal ? it feels more cinematic,? he said.

 

?60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30 fps. It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum.

 

"It's like when people start asking about resolution. Is it the number of the quality of the pixels that you want? If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?"

 

His words echo those of Watch Dogs creative director Jonathan Morin.

 

?Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number,? Morin said back in May.

 

?All those numbers are valid aspects of making games, but you make choices about the experience you want to deliver.

 

?In our case, dynamism is everything. Exploration and expression are everything. You want to have a steady framerate, but you want to have dynamism at the core of the experience.?

 

Source: Gameplanet

[surreyguy]

I like how he's come across in this.

It's almost like sticking a dirty great boot into those that enjoy posting up comparison screens between an xbox and ps and having people debate about how a certain shadow looks a little grainy on one particular side, when in all honesty, it makes no difference because the whole scene is moving so fast, you wont even notice.

Good on him for saying that he'd rather the game be better than the resolution or framerate being higher.

[kawasabi]

What a load of ...

[compl3x]

This is drivel. If you can't achieve 60fps/1080p because of hardware constraints, just say that. Are they allergic to honesty or something?

 

"On consoles, we can achieve X/X, technically. We'd like to be able to achieve <insert almost universally agreed upon standard> but we can't. We still think we've brought the best possible experience on the console hardware provided". Console users aren't going to go "###### this, I'm not buying this game!" Console users either don't know or don't care that their experience isn't as great as a PC could provide.

 

All of this PR spin is just dishonest nonsense.

What a load of ...

 

Need a little help? :p

[Pupik]

Why stop at 30 and not just limit it at 15, with extra effects (and possibly 1080p?) for the double cinematic effect?

[Bamsebjørn]

People like this should get a public speaking prohibition.

I bet a lot of people at Ubisoft are facepalming right now.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I actually agree with this. I'm not a fan of 60fps, it always feels to 90's home video to me.

 

I'm aware i'm pretty much alone in that :p

[satysin]

OK so people are not going to agree with me but personally I agree with what he is saying. If a game looks and plays amazing then I don't care what the fps or resolution of the game are. The whole cinematic argument is a little weird because AC isn't really the kind of game I expect to have a cinematic feel.

 

30 fps looks smooth enough to enjoy the game and as long as it never drops below that all should be good in a game such as AC which does not rely on super fast gameplay like a shooter does. The same is true of resolution IMHO. If a game looks good does it really matter if it is 900p vs 1080p?

 

However I see the argument from those who get annoyed by these programmed in limitations. In some ways it does mean that devs can be a little lazier and then just use "oh it looks more 'cinematic' this way" which is just a cop out. I think devs do need to really push forward for better visual fidelity where they can.

[George P Global Moderator]

I actually agree with this. I'm not a fan of 60fps, it always feels to 90's home video to me.

 

I'm aware i'm pretty much alone in that :p

You're not alone, lots of game developers agree with you, why push either frame rates or rest when it could impact the overall quality of the game, making you cut other aspects down to hit a steady 60FPS for example, when you gain little from it? I've said this quite a few times before, not all games need to be 60fps. Some people are fixated on thinking higher is better but in a type of game like assassins creed or splinter cell or pretty much most third person games where most of the time your moving around the world at a slower speed compared to a racing game or any first person shooter, then having higher frame rates adds little to it.  Shooters need it, but that's a different type of game, the camera being what it is moves around all the time, 60fps helps a lot there. In a third person game, the camera is hardly moving much, a lower rate of 30fps is fine.

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

I don't think anyone is annoyed that the game is going to be running at 900p/30. 

 

What people are annoyed about is that Ubisoft has done a poor job at communicating this. First they made it seem that the resolution and FPS were because of the inferior hardware of the Xbox and now this more cinematic spiel. 

 

If they had just said at the beginning that currently they had the game locked at 900p/30 on both consoles because that was the limit of the hardware it would have been fine. 

 

The issue here, as has been the case countless times with game announcements (think original Xbox), the poor communication. Unless they sort this out we're going to be more poor excuses for decisions that probably have a good reason. 

[MikeChipshop Member]

You're not alone, lots of game developers agree with you, why push either frame rates or rest when it could impact the overall quality of the game, making you cut other aspects down to hit a steady 60FPS for example, when you gain little from it? I've said this quite a few times before, not all games need to be 60fps. Some people are fixated on thinking higher is better but in a type of game like assassins creed or splinter cell or pretty much most third person games where most of the time your moving around the world at a slower speed compared to a racing game or any first person shooter, then having higher frame rates adds little to it.  Shooters need it, but that's a different type of game, the camera being what it is moves around all the time, 60fps helps a lot there. In a third person game, the camera is hardly moving much, a lower rate of 30fps is fine.

 

Quite agree. I can also see why Rift games need it, but it does seem like shooting for the higher number because "It's bigger!" is what most people try to do these days.

[Skiver Veteran]

Why stop at 30 and not just limit it at 15, with extra effects (and possibly 1080p?) for the double cinematic effect?

why not 24fps... isn't that what movies are filmed at? Surely that's got to be the way to get a true "cinematic" experience.

 

I wish these companies would just be honest :(

 

If a console can't get to 60fps and hold it then just tell us. If one console can do it and the other doesn't, just tell us. I don't care if the Xbox one is less powerful, I bought it for the games it has over the PS4, not because I thought it would be more powerful.

[George P Global Moderator]

I don't think anyone is annoyed that the game is going to be running at 900p/30. 

 

What people are annoyed about is that Ubisoft has done a poor job at communicating this. First they made it seem that the resolution and FPS were because of the inferior hardware of the Xbox and now this more cinematic spiel. 

 

If they had just said at the beginning that currently they had the game locked at 900p/30 on both consoles because that was the limit of the hardware it would have been fine. 

 

The issue here, as has been the case countless times with game announcements (think original Xbox), the poor communication. Unless they sort this out we're going to be more poor excuses for decisions that probably have a good reason. 

Well, he does say, in a way, that going to higher resolution and or FPS would impact other areas of the game and that looking at it overall they're going with 30fps because it gives them the feel they want with any impact to other areas. From all the videos I've seen so far of unity it looks great, I personally have no complains if it runs smooth and I get no lag. I'll be playing it on the PC but that's got more to do with the fact I don't own either of the new consoles and it's cheaper to get to.

[George P Global Moderator]

why not 24fps... isn't that what movies are filmed at? Surely that's got to be the way to get a true "cinematic" experience.

 

I wish these companies would just be honest :(

 

If a console can't get to 60fps and hold it then just tell us. If one console can do it and the other doesn't, just tell us. I don't care if the Xbox one is less powerful, I bought it for the games it has over the PS4, not because I thought it would be more powerful.

Why do people think it's that automatically and that they're lying to everyone now all of a sudden?  This is the same company that pushed out a patch for AC4 on the PS4 that bumped the res up to 1080p and never bothered to go back and work on the XB1 version. But now with unity they've changed their stance? Why?  And please lets leave the crazy ideas that one company or the other has started to pay developers to do this, that's just silly.

[Skiver Veteran]

Why do people think it's that automatically and that they're lying to everyone now all of a sudden?  This is the same company that pushed out a patch for AC4 on the PS4 that bumped the res up to 1080p and never bothered to go back and work on the XB1 version. But now with unity they've changed their stance? Why?  And please lets leave the crazy ideas that one company or the other has started to pay developers to do this, that's just silly.

 

Maybe lying is a little strong. I would just like transparency of things, I agree with him to an extent. Frame rate, Resolution is just a number and who cares if the game looks good. However I don't think many would disagree that when it comes to a game like this, more would be better. We are entering a generation of 4K resolution yet this game isn't even 1080. Please don't try to fob us off with, it looks better this way and this is all we ever wanted. 

 

I just don't buy it, you didn't go for more because the hardware wasn't good enough or the timeframe you have isn't big enough to optimise certain area's of the code to allow it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Maybe lying is a little strong. I would just like transparency of things, I agree with him to an extent. Frame rate, Resolution is just a number and who cares if the game looks good. However I don't think many would disagree that when it comes to a game like this, more would be better. We are entering a generation of 4K resolution yet this game isn't even 1080. Please don't try to fob us off with, it looks better this way and this is all we ever wanted. 

 

I just don't buy it, you didn't go for more because the hardware wasn't good enough or the timeframe you have isn't big enough to optimise certain area's of the code to allow it.

 

You've got to compete with expectation as well. Open world games have hit 1080/30 with inFamous, and it's graphics are definitely damn good. I don't think any level headed console owners expect 60FPS of many open world games (MGS5 maybe the expectation). However 1080/30, and it's a different matter.

 

Ubisoft PR just need to lay low just now, they've beat themselves up a right state with all the parity nonsense and then backtracking on it.

[Pupik]

why not 24fps... isn't that what movies are filmed at? Surely that's got to be the way to get a true "cinematic" experience.

 

I wish these companies would just be honest :(

 

If a console can't get to 60fps and hold it then just tell us. If one console can do it and the other doesn't, just tell us. I don't care if the Xbox one is less powerful, I bought it for the games it has over the PS4, not because I thought it would be more powerful.

The reason movies are shot at 24 fps, is because of how the action looks in fast moving objects on film when shot at that speed. Also shot at 24fps, for that "artistic" feel and because it's the standard to sync the audio (silent movies were shot at 16fps). There are other reasons too, but they're not really valid in today's time (other than the reason of persistence of vision). In video games on the other hand, motion blur effects (which created to mimic the fast camera movement in real life) can still be seen when running in 60fps the same as if the game was running in 30fps. Now that's because games produced in software and not shot on video camera.

This whole "30fps = cinematic experience" is just pure ######, fed by lazy developers.

[Luc2k]

"More cinematic" is becoming the common excuse in this console generation for weak hardware, incompetent developers and/or greedy publishers.

[trooper11]

If this statement came from a smaller developer or at least anyone but Ubisoft based on their current actions, I think less people would be upset.

 

I remember this conversation coming up when The Order developers announced the reasons for their res/frame rate choices (also 'more cinematic'). The conclusion there for many was that it was a style choice which can be ok.

 

For me personally, if a developer honestly makes such a choice for that reason, I'm fine with it. If the game still looks good and plays good, then I'm set. Now if a developer uses this to lie about the real reason for the choices, then they deserve the blow back when that is exposed.

[ViperAFK]

Most people don't have a problem with games being 30 fps on the consoles, since the consoles have limited hardware and they basically have to choose between higher fidelity and higher frame-rate, however, when idiots like this ubisoft guy try to spin it by spreading blatant misinformation such as '30 fps looks more cinematic' and '60 fps doesn't feel right', that's when people get angry. Framerate in games cannot be compared to framerate in film. Film at 24 fps looks smooth because of its inherent motion blur between frames, this does not apply to games. Games often have fake motion blur implementations, but they are always rather poor compared to motion blur inherent with film. And when it comes to games, there's also the issue of input lag. Higher frame-rates = smoother gameplay, less input lag, more precise control. For a game higher framerate is never a bad thing. There is no such thing as a game looking 'more cinematic' due to the framerate. I understand that sacrificing framerate to increase graphical fidelity can make the game look more cinematic, but the framerate in itself has nothing to do with that, and these developers need to stop spreading this misinformation.

 

Its very understandable that this kind of misinformation being spread makes some people angry, especially pc gamers, who are not stuck with limited hardware, and should not have to choose between 60 fps or better graphics. With recent games like evil within coming with abitrary locks to 30 fps on pc, its understandable that pc gamers would get up in arms every time some fool starts spreading this misinformation. The more people believe this nonsense that 30 fps looks more cinematic or more like film, the more headroom these developers have to push arbitrary fps caps out of laziness on pc.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

so they're saying that the game CAN run at 60fps but they just don't want it to? if so that's a load of crap. why not just make 30fps the default & make 60fps an option in the menu similar to what Naughty Dog did for Last of Us Remastered? I personally prefer the smoother experience over a "cinematic" experience

 

I was with the group that didn't think there was much difference between 30&60fps until I got Last of Us for my PS4 & messed around with both ways. never realized how much difference 60fps really does make

[Andre S. Veteran]

It's the second time now this year I hear this from game developers, IIRC the last time was from Ubisoft also. Funny thing is, we've had video games for a long time and I've never ever heard this argument before. It's really ###### and the comparison with The Hobbit doesn't stand because first The Hobbit is a movie - it's filmed, not rendered, and it's not interactive - , secondly a lot of people (including, you know, the movie director) thought that the high frame rate looked really impressive and that those who thought it looked 'weird' did so because they're so used to seeing 24fps - it's purely a matter of habit. I'm quite strongly of the opinion that films in general would benefit from high frame rate, although that's another debate.

 

Anyway, the thing is that they actually have good reasons for running the game at 30fps, i.e. when you have twice as much time between frames there's a lot more you can do in terms of A.I. and physics and rendering and that's what they're going for. They're trading off fluidity and responsiveness for dynamism and visual fidelity, and that's a perfectly valid tradeoff. But please, in the future, spare us the hypocrisy and disinformation. It's not a win-win, it's a tradeoff. We get that.

[Emn1ty]

This reminds me of when the first Hobbit film came out and people saw it in its higher frame rate and resolution. There was a huge divide between people either loving it or hating it. I think this is true for games as well. 60 fps is nice, but to me I don't see it as required, especially not on a cinematic level.

Also there was very much in the movie that wad rendered, to stay it was all filmed is incorrect. It may be that people are used to other framerates, but does that not in part mean something? Convention is just as important as advancement at times, and if your players/viewers have a "weird" feeling from your product then there's a problem. More is not always better.

[LightEco]

Go Home Ubisoft, You're Drunk.

[epk]

Snip

Finally somebody pointed this out. No, the Ubisoft guy is an idiot and either has no idea how film works, or videogames or both.

 

Funny thing is that 24fps was chosen cos it was the lowest they could use without image motion being jerky. Film is quite expensive. But now we're so used to it so much that when high frame rate is used many people (myself included) don't like it cos it's too real and looks like a soap opera :D