Ryse developers chose 30fps over 60

#1Dev0311Posted 10/26/2013 5:37:30 PM
http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/26/cryteks-ceo-explains-why-ryse-is-30-fps-details-using-xbox-ones-esram-for-considerable-speed-up/

"Developers always have to choose whether they go for 60 or 30fps, depending on the type of game and complexity of the project. With Ryse, we wanted to go for a very emotional experience with complex and dramatic lighting, high fidelity environments, and rich characters and character animations. So 30fps was our choice, and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps which would call for compromises, as 60fps demands twice the amount of compute rendering speed. 30fps is a standard that is above, for example, what most cinemas use for showing films. Early demos with higher frame-rate experiences have shown that gamers and viewers have a mixed opinion about its perceived quality for example, how 48fps cinema experiences were received. So its both a production design choice as well as user research."


60fps would've been a nice upgrade for next gen, so too bad that couldn't happen. Even with a 900p resolution I guess they still had to compromise with the framerate too. Too many details on screen to run at 60 frames. I just hope it's a solid 30 with no slowdown. I like playing action games at 60fps.
#2Foxx3kPosted 10/26/2013 5:40:57 PM
and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps


This is a problem. It's not something gamers should accept. Ever. Gamers should speak up and tell developers that frame rate is more important than shiny particle effects, overindulgent textures, and horrible, awful, post processing effects.
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#3A_Nonny_MoosePosted 10/26/2013 5:41:57 PM
Well yeah, of course they chose it. Do people think they just made the whole game without considering the framerate and then thought "Hey, let's check out how the game runs. 30fps? That'll do I guess."?
---
http://i.imgur.com/QB2km.png
#4BigPapi829Posted 10/26/2013 5:47:21 PM
Dev0311 posted...
http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/26/cryteks-ceo-explains-why-ryse-is-30-fps-details-using-xbox-ones-esram-for-considerable-speed-up/

"Developers always have to choose whether they go for 60 or 30fps, depending on the type of game and complexity of the project. With Ryse, we wanted to go for a very emotional experience with complex and dramatic lighting, high fidelity environments, and rich characters and character animations. So 30fps was our choice, and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps which would call for compromises, as 60fps demands twice the amount of compute rendering speed. 30fps is a standard that is above, for example, what most cinemas use for showing films. Early demos with higher frame-rate experiences have shown that gamers and viewers have a mixed opinion about its perceived quality for example, how 48fps cinema experiences were received. So its both a production design choice as well as user research."


60fps would've been a nice upgrade for next gen, so too bad that couldn't happen. Even with a 900p resolution I guess they still had to compromise with the framerate too. Too many details on screen to run at 60 frames. I just hope it's a solid 30 with no slowdown. I like playing action games at 60fps.


Killzone is going for 30fps for sp does that mean it can't go 60fps no it doesn't, because the Devs know what is best for their game so if the makers say their will be a better experience at 30 vs 60 I would believe them
#5MasteroftheArtsPosted 10/26/2013 6:17:49 PM
Dev0311 posted...
http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/26/cryteks-ceo-explains-why-ryse-is-30-fps-details-using-xbox-ones-esram-for-considerable-speed-up/

"Developers always have to choose whether they go for 60 or 30fps, depending on the type of game and complexity of the project. With Ryse, we wanted to go for a very emotional experience with complex and dramatic lighting, high fidelity environments, and rich characters and character animations. So 30fps was our choice, and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps which would call for compromises, as 60fps demands twice the amount of compute rendering speed. 30fps is a standard that is above, for example, what most cinemas use for showing films. Early demos with higher frame-rate experiences have shown that gamers and viewers have a mixed opinion about its perceived quality for example, how 48fps cinema experiences were received. So its both a production design choice as well as user research."


60fps would've been a nice upgrade for next gen, so too bad that couldn't happen. Even with a 900p resolution I guess they still had to compromise with the framerate too. Too many details on screen to run at 60 frames. I just hope it's a solid 30 with no slowdown. I like playing action games at 60fps.


While I'll probably end up buying Ryse, I think the example of comparing Peter Jackson's desire to shoot the Hobbit in 48 fps is not analogous to an action video game like Ryse for two reasons.

1) The primary criticism of the 48 fps shoot was that it eliminated the suspension of disbelief by making the characters look like they were in a soap. It literally looked like the characters were walking around a set. Except in rare instances, suspension of disbelief isn't a factor when playing games. So the argument that 30 fps is fine simply because it's higher than the industry standard 24 fps for cinema just doesn't work. The dreamy look that 24 fps gives is not desirable in gaming.

2) The reason why the movie was shot at that framerate was to reduce motion blur and flicker during fast-paced action scenes. In Ryse, unless they're going for a more cinematic feel, this argument wouldn't seem to bolster their decision to go 30fps, but instead would weaken it.

Just admit that the game can't run properly on 1080p at 60fps. The new Legend of Zelda WindWaker HD runs at 1080p 60fps, but no one is contending that it is more graphically appealing than Killzone or Dead Rising 3. That's because this entire argument over definition and framerate is a red herring when debating a game's graphical capability.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#6BrownGottiPosted 10/26/2013 6:38:20 PM
I would prefer the particle effects and extra textures than 30 more fps. My 1080P bluejays seem just fine.
#7Foxx3kPosted 10/26/2013 6:48:37 PM
BrownGotti posted...
I would prefer the particle effects and extra textures than 30 more fps. My 1080P bluejays seem just fine.


Frame rate in movies is a totally different beast.

Other than just the aesthetic, frame rate in video games is tied to responsiveness.
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#8The_DarkwalkerPosted 10/26/2013 7:04:29 PM
Foxx3k posted...
and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps


This is a problem. It's not something gamers should accept. Ever. Gamers should speak up and tell developers that frame rate is more important than shiny particle effects, overindulgent textures, and horrible, awful, post processing effects.


Just because a game runs at 60 fps doesn't mean it automatically and without exception will be more graphically impressive than every 30 fps game it is compared to. Will it have the appearance of running faster and more smoothly? Sure. But what if that 60 fps game has sacrificed more particle effects, richer textures and better lighting just for the sake of being able to make the claim that it runs faster?

You might not care. That a game needs to run at 60 fps at any cost might be one of the main criteria you personally look for, but for many of us that is less important than sum of all its other aspects. Ideally, all next gen games would run at 60 fps at 1080p with everything cranked up to 10. Clearly this is not going to be the standard going forward. 60 fps at 720p, or 30 fps at 1080p seem to be the two flavors that will be on offer once the new systems drop. Saying one is worse than the other simply because it runs at a slower frame rate is certainly your prerogative, but it it is definitely not the community or industry consensus at the present time.
---
Evil always wins because Good is dumb.
#9jsplisimPosted 10/26/2013 7:36:33 PM
BrownGotti posted...
I would prefer the particle effects and extra textures than 30 more fps. My 1080P bluejays seem just fine.


Pretty bird!
---
There's the deltoids of compassion; There's the abs of being kind.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds...
#10SilentS89Posted 10/26/2013 8:29:26 PM
Ryse developers would rather improve their artwork than give players a better playing experience.