Ubisoft: 30 frames per second feels "more cinematic"

[mattmatik]

...

Now if they just outright said they have to keep it 30 FPS because of the technical limits of the consoles, I would respect them.

But to make things more cinematic?

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

 

Exactly. If developers aren't going to be up front with the consumer about stuff like this then I would just rather them not make any comments at all.

 

Take "The Evil Within" dev comments from last week. What a proper load of BS that is. Talk about treating the consumer like we are 100% ignorant! "Because consoles have 8GB unified memory available, the PC version will require 4GB RAM and 4GB VRAM." :laugh:  excuse me?? Just keep your mouths shut...

 

And as for the topic here: its Ubisoft. Touting "thousands of AI" NPCs is hilarious. We all know damn well the game won't be anything like the hype train they are trying to run. Makes me weep for The Division. It won't be anything close to what the teaser gameplay showed. Damn shame.

[(Account no longer active)]

I don't think I can notice the difference between 30, 60 and 90 fps. The TV demos they have in store are sometimes fake (which must have been the case at a local store) - for you to be able to 'notice frames' usually means they've put down the rate (of the source video) to 10-15 fps (to make you pay more for a 100/120Hz unit)!

[trooper11]

I will remind everyone again that Watchdogs was 900p/30 on the ps4. Regardless of the X1 version, there is a track record we can look at when it comes to Ubisoft and open world, action games on the ps4.

 

I'm really not that shocked that AC would hit a similar level.

[Setnom]

Guys, here's a few websites where you can check out the difference bettwen the frame rates:

 

http://www.30vs60fps.com/

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

http://30vs60.com/

[George P Global Moderator]

People call out the AI, but they didn't say it was just the AI, though Unity has, as the videos show, way more NPCs on the screen, and they did call out the new AI in this version compared to the others before it.  The mob of people in this game will act differently to events than in the past, you guys can go back and look at the demo/gameplay videos they've posted about it.  But they say "subsystems" or something like that, AI is just one thing the game is running code wise, they say dynamism or something?   Compared to past AC games, Unity has just way more going on, and the world is way bigger than before and more packed, the graphics are also a nice jump up compared to AC4 and it's mostly empty and small towns, hitting 1080p in something like AC4 which was last gen really, should've been a given IMO.    There's also hardly any loading going on between missions/events, they show this a few times, you can walk down a packed street and jump right into a side mission, no loading going on, these types of events just happen now, these types of things are, unless I'm wrong, CPU-bound.  The way they've coded the game it's just more CPU bound.   And these are really off the shelf 8 core mobile Jaguar AMD CPUs, they're at 1.6Ghz for the PS4 and I think 1.8-1.9Ghz for the XB1, around there.   They're NOT the fastest things out there CPU wise, and again, they're mobile.

 

Now if what they say is true, I'm not even going to argue cinematic this or frame rate that, but if the issue is the CPU holding things back and they don't want to cut anything down/out and decide to go with 30fps because it looks good with them, then until proven otherwise, I don't see this being a lie.   We're not talking about GPU difference here, so lets not get fixated on this "the PS4 is more powerful so it should run better" bit, because that's not the issue with this game, it's doing things different.   Regardless, CPU is always what can hold up a game or not, even if a game is GPU-bound, if the CPU is slow enough it'll again be a bottleneck.  The PC gamers in here should know this, if you have an old CPU don't bother upgrading to the newest and best GPU only, you'll not get the most out of your expensive new video card.

 

This is why I'm still using this HD7870 and haven't even looked at anything newer, I'm on an old x58 mobo with an intel i7 920.   Buying something like the new Geforce 980 would give me little gain for that $500 or more I paid.

[compl3x]

 

Now if what they say is true, I'm not even going to argue cinematic this or frame rate that, but if the issue is the CPU holding things back and they don't want to cut anything down/out and decide to go with 30fps because it looks good with them, then until proven otherwise, I don't see this being a lie. 

 

 

I think the problem here is that they are trying to argue that they'd actually prefer 30fps over 60fps because it has some rather subjective benefit.  If it was capable to run at 60fps, but they also wanted to add a 30fps lock for some aesthetic reason, they could. TLOU remake did that, I think.

 

It would kind of be like a car manufacturer saying "well, we could achieve a faster acceleration speed for our vehicle, but we think a slower, more scenic acceleration is more enjoyable." Huh?

 

All they need to do is simply say that for some titles 60fps, at either 900p or 1080p, isn't achievable with the current console hardware. People might be disappointed, but I don't think it would hurt sales. Treating the consumer like a complete moron usually does that. Some people I know still won't buy Ubi stuff after their DRM stance.

[BajiRav]

The quote from Ubisoft isn't even "based in reality"!

As you said "what?", I was simply further explaining what he meant. The game is co-marketed, that is a fact. The only theory is that if MS pay whatever they wanted to have AC Unity marketing on their side, it would look poorly on marketing if the PS4 ended up being the technically superior copy.

CoD:Ghosts and Destiny said Hi.

[neo1911]

If we assume that what this dude is saying is THE right thing, then it comes down to gameplay and storyline. Can he those two elements save this game?

 

Cause I played last 2 Assassins Creed games and I left them incomplete as they were boring and lifeless. 

[AngelGraves13]

The new consoles aren't powerful enough to do 60 fps. It's no big secret. They're just trying to sugar coat it.

 

It hasn't even been a year and the new consoles can't keep up. I guess the next generation will be coming sooner than we all think. They'll be trying to achieve gaming at 4K resolution no doubt.

[zalberg]

The new consoles aren't powerful enough to do 60 fps. It's no big secret. They're just trying to sugar coat it.

 

It hasn't even been a year and the new consoles can't keep up. I guess the next generation will be coming sooner than we all think. They'll be trying to achieve gaming at 4K resolution no doubt.

 

Sure they are. They could do 240 frames per second if developers wanted to. I mean, it'd be like 640x480 res, but they'll do it. 

[zalberg]

Today I learned that Far Cry 4 is also an action adventure title.

[George P Global Moderator]

Today I learned that Far Cry 4 is also an action adventure title.

 

Well, it is, I mean first off all the far cry games have been an open world sandbox, so you run around the world looking for things and doing missions, it's not so much a hallway shooter purely.   There's aspects of adventure gameplay in there.

[George P Global Moderator]

I think the problem here is that they are trying to argue that they'd actually prefer 30fps over 60fps because it has some rather subjective benefit.  If it was capable to run at 60fps, but they also wanted to add a 30fps lock for some aesthetic reason, they could. TLOU remake did that, I think.

 

It would kind of be like a car manufacturer saying "well, we could achieve a faster acceleration speed for our vehicle, but we think a slower, more scenic acceleration is more enjoyable." Huh?

 

All they need to do is simply say that for some titles 60fps, at either 900p or 1080p, isn't achievable with the current console hardware. People might be disappointed, but I don't think it would hurt sales. Treating the consumer like a complete moron usually does that. Some people I know still won't buy Ubi stuff after their DRM stance.

 

Sure I get what you're saying, but the thinking could just as well be, we like the overall look of 30fps so lets add more things elsewhere  and not cut things out or cut things down because we really like to hit a smooth 60fps instead.     I mean you can spin this different ways if you wanted to.  At the end of the day I'll be playing it on my PC, but even in this case, with the older i7 920 I have and this hd7870, who knows if I'll get a smooth 60fps at 1080p with all the visuals at max?   I'll probably have to go in and tweak things, but we'll see. 

[Guest]

Comment section there gave me a headache.

 

What the hell is this crap? Are they seriously questioning whether an objectively better something is better?

[AngelGraves13]

Sure they are. They could do 240 frames per second if developers wanted to. I mean, it'd be like 640x480 res, but they'll do it. 

 

The whole point of getting a PS4 or X-Box One is to game at 1080p, and it barely manages that sometimes.

[Knife Party]

The whole point of getting a PS4 or X-Box One is to game at 1080p, and it barely manages that sometimes.

This is exactly what is the reality right now. I mean, the Halo 2 remake for X1 is confirmed to be at 30FPS which is an absolute joke. What's next gen about the consoles? Its the PR spin and that's about it. You telling me a game from 2004 with a HD texture remodeling can't run at 60FPS consistently? Oh dear, I can't wait to see what nonsense the fanboys churn out...

[spaceelf]

The whole point of getting a PS4 or X-Box One is to game at 1080p, and it barely manages that sometimes.

The whole point for console gamers is to have a massively better machine than the last gen, which barely managed 480p if even that.  PC gamers who also play on consoles are the ones whining it seems like.

[Emn1ty]

The whole point for console gamers is to have a massively better machine than the last gen, which barely managed 480p if even that.  PC gamers who also play on consoles are the ones whining it seems like.

 

Last gen consoles could pretty often hit 720p. I know the Halo games made for the 360 were at something like a dual-rendered 640p thing (can't quite remember how they implemented it).

[spaceelf]

Last gen consoles could pretty often hit 720p. I know the Halo games made for the 360 were at something like a dual-rendered 640p thing (can't quite remember how they implemented it).

Either way.  Any machine can hit 1080p if it isn't doing anything.  Add on the details and pretty much anything struggles.

 

I don't believe I ever heard MS or Sony claim that they were intending every game to be rendered at 1080p/60.

 

The only truly unfortunate thing to me is that neither Freesync nor G-Sync was available when the consoles released...THAT would've made this a pointless debate.

[soniqstylz]

CoD:Ghosts and Destiny said Hi.

 

Er, what?

 

Destiny was even across platforms (at 1080p) with PS4 given a very very very slight edge.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-destiny-face-off

 

 

For those lucky enough to own both consoles though, the advantage lies on Sony's platform - but only by a whisker, with the core experience on Xbox One being just as worthwhile overall.

[BajiRav]

This is exactly what is the reality right now. I mean, the Halo 2 remake for X1 is confirmed to be at 30FPS which is an absolute joke. What's next gen about the consoles? Its the PR spin and that's about it. You telling me a game from 2004 with a HD texture remodeling can't run at 60FPS consistently? Oh dear, I can't wait to see what nonsense the fanboys churn out...

I think you are misinformed. The only game not 1080p/60fps in Halo:MCC is the Halo 2 campaign. It is running at 1328x1080 @60fps to accommodate the classic toggle.

 

Er, what?

 

Destiny was even across platforms (at 1080p) with PS4 given a very very very slight edge.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-destiny-face-off

That's my point. The co-marketing deals between Sony-AV didn't stop bungie from optimizing Destiny for XB1 and CoD:Ghost wasn't reduced to 720 on PS4 due to MS-AV deal.

[soniqstylz]

That's my point. The co-marketing deals between Sony-AV didn't stop bungie from optimizing Destiny for XB1 and CoD:Ghost wasn't reduced to 720 on PS4 due to MS-AV deal.

 

Optimizing for X1 didn't hold the PS4 version back.  That's the issue being addressed here.

 

As far as COD

 

 

Indeed, the performance impact on PlayStation 4 is something of a disappointment, and those expecting a solid 60fps presentation that closely matches the glory days of the original Modern Warfare are sure to be let down in this regard. In that respect, from a purely gameplay perspective the Xbox One game has the edge, and this translates into a more fluid experience when playing online, with the hiccups seen on the PS4 title restricted to the game's campaign mode. It's an interesting situation considering that while the smoother frame-rate clearly benefits gameplay on the Xbox One, the resolution deficit makes it harder to consistently pick out enemies from a distance compared to the PS4 version - something that is also worth bearing in mind.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off

[BajiRav]

Optimizing for X1 didn't hold the PS4 version back.  That's the issue being addressed here.

 

As far as COD

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off

And I am saying that the speculation of XB1 is holding PS4 back just because Ubi has marketing deal with MS is baseless. PS4 is just not getting extra patch that Sony paid for the last time.

[soniqstylz]

And I am saying that the speculation of XB1 is holding PS4 back just because Ubi has marketing deal with MS is baseless. PS4 is just not getting extra patch that Sony paid for the last time.

 

....with a marketing deal.

[BajiRav]

....with a marketing deal.

Uh...I remember Sony paid specifically for patch in addition to the marketing deal (although I may be wrong).