Dropping to 30 fps, as in <em>Assassin's Creed Valhalla</em>, is a "creative decision."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Some Xbox Series X games won’t hit 60 fps “performance target”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Please, Microsoft, hire Sony's employee who names PlayStation consoles.
The person who decided to follow Xbox One X with Xbox Series X should be shot out of s cannon into the sun.
The person who decided to follow Xbox One X with Xbox Series X should be shot out of s cannon into the sun.
Upvote
154
(170
/
-16)
Though you may be rent asunder by your foes, your sacrifice will not be forgotten.
Upvote
37
(46
/
-9)
Or maybe they just don't care because it doesn't affect their enjoyment? The average gamer isn't even considering frame rate when playing a game, you're letting yourself get too wrapped up in the tech.
I totally understand that some people don't like how 30fps feels vs 60fps, but it's a pretty big step to claim everyone who doesn't care is in denial or a liar.
Upvote
76
(104
/
-28)
I find it hilarious that every generation has the same marketing fluff about how "developers don't have to choose between resolution and framerate any more"...and within a few months they're still saying it while also saying it's a "creative decision" to drop framerates for added detail/resolution.
Upvote
143
(144
/
-1)
Upvote
64
(70
/
-6)
Isn't this kind of stating the obvious?
MS could provide all the power in the world, but if a developer chooses to use it other ways, what's to stop them?
Some games simply don't need 60fps, so why force it at the expense of processing other important stuff?
MS could provide all the power in the world, but if a developer chooses to use it other ways, what's to stop them?
Some games simply don't need 60fps, so why force it at the expense of processing other important stuff?
Upvote
72
(81
/
-9)
It just wouldn't be Microsoft if the console didn't have some strange name. I don't think my brain could handle that.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Sure, if they could hit the same graphical fidelity at 60fps they would. That doesn't mean it's not a creative decision. They chose to prioritize other graphical features at the cost of framerate.
I wish performance/quality options were more widespread on consoles. I wouldn't mind taking a bit of a hit on graphics to hit a higher framerate (and often do that on PC).
Upvote
19
(22
/
-3)
This has always been the case. For every console. No matter how much processing power you cram into that plastic case, the developer can always decide to design a game to run at 60 fps or to run the game at 30 fps and do twice as many CPU/GPU calculations per frame.
Upvote
65
(66
/
-1)
I would disagree with this a little bit.
With the rise of streamers on Twitch, Mixer, etc., it's brought a lot of console-only gamers into the PC gaming realm, either by purchasing hardware themselves or learning more about the overall PC experience.
There is a LOT more interest in high-refresh rate gaming than there was even just a year ago. And, if Microsoft and Sony are trying to pitch it as a next-gen console feature, allowing developers to make a "creative decision" to go below even 60FPS is a bit laughable. 60FPS was the benchmark on PCs for going on 15 years w/ modern LCDs, with the current ideal target well above that with either GSync/FreeSync displays or fast-enough hardware to run at 120/144Hz.
They at least should own up to it - the game requires too much processing power in the early days of the console to run it at a steady 60FPS. That's not a creative decision, it's a implementation bottleneck.
Edit: For those who don't necessarily agree with me, see for yourself: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x
One of the top 4 performance features Microsoft advertises is "Up to 120FPS". If this metric didn't matter to console gamers, why even bring it up? And let's keep in mind the 30FPS here is 1/4 of the "up to" performance being advertised.
Upvote
-16
(26
/
-42)
To put it another way, there actually ARE inevitable limitations, just like IRL. Go figure.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
I think the mechanical/processing limitation is obvious.
Microsoft's interpretation of their "performance target" statement wasn't obvious.
This clarifies that they aren't going to demand developers hold to it strictly.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
So then it would be called the Xbox One X 2? Or the Xbox Two X? Not that those are bad, but I think they should have hired the the guy who names the Nintendo console, then we'd have something to really laugh about together. Xbox Xplorer or something
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Don't let logic get in the way of marketing! THE BOX IS MAGIC AND YOU CAN'T CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE!
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
4K/60fps at decent settings is hard to pull off even on high-end PCs in some games.
Upvote
66
(66
/
0)
Now I just have an image in my head of somebody at Sony paid a full-time salary to once every 5 years declare “It shall be known as the... PlayStation... n+1!”
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
So it's a creative decision to target 30fps? Why not go 24fps for that true cinematic look then?
Upvote
-3
(12
/
-15)
Should be a player choice as I would gladly take slightly uglier game for higher fps.
Upvote
7
(11
/
-4)
Some people apparently really need something to get into a twist about. If you simply can't accept anything less than xx framerate, build yourself a PC with an appropriate monitor, and only play there.
Personally, I think a higher fps can look smoother in most cases where action is fast and regular, but virtually imperceptible when there are slower, smooth actions.
I personally can't relate to anyone who is so concerned about their in-game performance that .02 of a second in response time would even be material. But, you do you.
Personally, I think a higher fps can look smoother in most cases where action is fast and regular, but virtually imperceptible when there are slower, smooth actions.
I personally can't relate to anyone who is so concerned about their in-game performance that .02 of a second in response time would even be material. But, you do you.
Upvote
8
(16
/
-8)
If only one could decouple physics, AI and other calculations from framerate... if only... because as we all know, that's impossible... yeah...
Upvote
-10
(4
/
-14)
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
I'd like to think that players would be forgiving if the developer puts as much effort into the story and the characters as they do the graphics engine. Hell, some of the best games I ever played had a smooth frame rate of 1fps...Planetfall, Hitchhikers's Guide, A Mind Forever Voyaging....
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Everything about the outrage over this on Twitter the past day outrages me, as both a player and a developer.
There is no spec that would ever exist that wouldn't have you making creative decisions about tradeoffs between framerate and visual fidelity or world detail or LOD streaming or whatever else. Without inifinite performance, there will always be a decision between framerate and level of detail, resolution, etc.
Recent Assassin's Creed games are very impressive technically, and their assets are dense and detailed, and the most recent two were remarkably good at maintaining the target FPS consistently despite the crazy variables involved in an open-world systems-based game, which is more important than what that target is.
So it's strange that there would be so much criticism over just one metric that they may have decided to sacrifice to achieve even more of the above. It's a legitimate decision to emphasize that over framerate if that's what makes this particular game better. And no one has played the game yet. We don't know what we get in return for 30fps on this high-end hardware.
There is no spec that would ever exist that wouldn't have you making creative decisions about tradeoffs between framerate and visual fidelity or world detail or LOD streaming or whatever else. Without inifinite performance, there will always be a decision between framerate and level of detail, resolution, etc.
Recent Assassin's Creed games are very impressive technically, and their assets are dense and detailed, and the most recent two were remarkably good at maintaining the target FPS consistently despite the crazy variables involved in an open-world systems-based game, which is more important than what that target is.
So it's strange that there would be so much criticism over just one metric that they may have decided to sacrifice to achieve even more of the above. It's a legitimate decision to emphasize that over framerate if that's what makes this particular game better. And no one has played the game yet. We don't know what we get in return for 30fps on this high-end hardware.
Upvote
62
(67
/
-5)
$1300 2080Ti doesn't always hit 4k/60fps, 30fps or the still likely 'not actually 4k internal rendering/up-scaling' was inevitable for the consoles. I only consider this a real issue if there is no 1080p "performance mode".
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Foil hat opinion.....
Nerfing FPS and by the same token usually nerfing input response latency also makes a game FAR more functional to be used by game streaming services.
Would not be shocked if it's less of a "creative decision" and more of a "We'll soon be releasing U-Play MegaStream featuring Valhalla as our signature release title!"
Nerfing FPS and by the same token usually nerfing input response latency also makes a game FAR more functional to be used by game streaming services.
Would not be shocked if it's less of a "creative decision" and more of a "We'll soon be releasing U-Play MegaStream featuring Valhalla as our signature release title!"
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
Frame rate IS a creative decision. Bear in mind that movies ran at 18 fps until sound was added to film, and since scripted movies/TV have been 24 fps for nearly a century. Attempts to do higher frame rate movies like the Hobbit trilogy and Billy Lynn's Halftime Walk were pretty resoundly rejected by customers. Avatar 2 may change expectations, as Avatar did for 3D (being the first, and arguably last, movie where stereoscopic 3D really added to the storytelling). That requires a technical & creative genius like James Cameron who is willing to spend a decade finding the optimal combination of story and technology to make it work, however.
People really like that 24 fps film look, and we'd probably see more flims using that if synthetic motion blur (movies/TV almost always use a 1/48th second shutter) was better.
Of course, movies are lean-back experiences where there aren't critically timed user interaction involved. Higher frame rate can help that, for some game types. But are Civilization or Solitaire really better at >30 fps? It's going to be genre dependent? It's worth recalling that Quake's animations ran at only 8 fps, although the player view was updated more often.
And definitely many consumers prefer a consistant frame rate than a variable one. A locked 30 fps can be a lot less distracting than a most-of-the-time 60 fps that drops down to a random pattern around 40 fps during challenging scenes.
Competitive gaming is a whole other thing, since pleasing graphics aren't really essential. Losing motion blur and lens flares and adding some aliasing are a small price to pay to get a 16 ms reaction time advantage against competitors. Although this is likely due to the conflation of latency and fps; higher fps means you get to see changes sooner.
People really like that 24 fps film look, and we'd probably see more flims using that if synthetic motion blur (movies/TV almost always use a 1/48th second shutter) was better.
Of course, movies are lean-back experiences where there aren't critically timed user interaction involved. Higher frame rate can help that, for some game types. But are Civilization or Solitaire really better at >30 fps? It's going to be genre dependent? It's worth recalling that Quake's animations ran at only 8 fps, although the player view was updated more often.
And definitely many consumers prefer a consistant frame rate than a variable one. A locked 30 fps can be a lot less distracting than a most-of-the-time 60 fps that drops down to a random pattern around 40 fps during challenging scenes.
Competitive gaming is a whole other thing, since pleasing graphics aren't really essential. Losing motion blur and lens flares and adding some aliasing are a small price to pay to get a 16 ms reaction time advantage against competitors. Although this is likely due to the conflation of latency and fps; higher fps means you get to see changes sooner.
Upvote
19
(23
/
-4)
With HDMI 2.1 becoming a thing, will more games for XBSX and PS5 run unlocked and rely on VRR with a 30fps minimum framerate target? Or will the framerate be locked and capped at 30fps?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I think it’s literally an impossible statement for them to have made. No matter how much horsepower you give game developers, they can stuff scenes with detail and leverage all sorts of advanced GPU features until the system croaks, if they want. Developers are always going to choose and always have chosen what sort of shaders, or tracing, or number of polygons, or shadow detail they want their game to support, and on and on.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
This was always going to be the case, mandating games should hit a certain fps would be terrible. If you don't like it, lobby Ubisoft to add a 60 fps performance mode.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
The creative decision is a locked 30p instead of being 60p most of the time but dropping frames some of the time. Bear in mind a locked 30p means double the MIPS/pixel/second as a locked 60p. It's a tradeoff between temporal and spatial quality. Shadow of the Tomb Raider runs at either 2160p30 or 1080p60. Even I, with 37 patents around video delivery and playback, can't say which is "better" in any definitive sense. Or even in a person sense; I'll go back and forth depending on my mood.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Why resolution over framerate though? From the standard viewing distance of most TV-sets it'd probably be much less noticable to render at 50% fewer pixels and then upres to 4k, than to drop down to 30 fps and the sluggishness that entails.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)