A Developer's Defense Of 30 Frames Per Second

[deathjester]

The concept of a console isn't necessarily just the cost though.  It is about convenience, form factor and to an extent the cost (well for some....I personally only get it for 4 player games...go Wii U).

 

Anyways, just a few notes to your cost analysis.  It is unfair to include only the parts, there are a vast majority of people who have no clue how to purchase PC parts and assemble a PC (of my friends, I am the only one who can do it).  So in the PC price, you need to either include a prefab gaming machine, or pricing for assembly.  Another issue is you failed to include the operating system ($100 to your parts price, and yes the majority of the people you are talking about would be using Windows).

 

While it wouldn't matter to some people, for some the blu-ray option is actually important as well.  (Which is roughly $40, for a standalone player...or more if you want your PC to play blu-rays).  For some netflix/drm stuff is not good enough....the other issue is the controllers...I am a sucker for games designed for controllers (minus fps, keyboard and mouse there...but I don't really play any fps anymore).  But that means having to add in controller prices.

 

Just to discuss the game pricing a bit, I have only once paid full price for a console game.  The rest I purchase used (or in some cases the bargain bin), which works out to $10-$30 for games (for myself at least).

 

Anyways, I won't bother arguing too much about the pricing though, it all depends on each personal habits (I know for myself, it would likely be cheaper going the Playstation 4 route *I don't care about online*).  I think the bigger discussion point is convenience....especially with the new consoles, you could sit down infront of a TV and start playing a game within a few seconds (Assuming you were playing that game last)...add in the fact the formfactor of the console is quite small compared to PC towers, I can see the appeal of a consoles.

 

 

This last bit is not directed at you jester, but just a general view from reading through all these threads recently.

I find it funny how on things like watchdogs it is the consoles holding the game back when you look at the fps/stutters/textures and then when the PC version appears just as bad it is suddenly the developer laziness for not optimizing for the PC.

 

 

I get that not many people see my point of view on this, but I do feel that consoles to bring a new standard for games because you get people like my friends who purchase the consoles because the consoles are truly better than their current "gaming" rigs.  Yes they could save up money and purchase something that will last longer, but lets face it not many people do because they prefer to spend as little as possible initially.  So my argument is even though consoles bring up the rear, imagine the state we could be in if the consoles didn't exist, and the developers had to develop for those majority of old console gamers who don't have adequate rigs.

 

The arguments people want to make fly in the 90's not now. We have things like GEForce experience (which I never use, but might be nice for a new user), big picture mode (my brother in law boots to this and doesn't know jack about computers), Steam OS has one slider for graphics settings.

 

People have to perpetuate myths to sell consoles now, and I see the exact same silliness (like they are copy and pasted) all over the internet and forums, about not being able to play on a couch etc. I actually saw someone list Steam updating your games as a negative? Da hell? Console does the same thing. How is an update which fixes bugs a negative, when games on both platforms have bugs.

 

I have been PC gaming and also played games on consoles since the 80's. There WAS a time PC's were stupidly expensive in comparison and that time is gone. There was a time when consoles had contracts with hardware makers and pushed boundaries and could actually be ahead outside really expensive 3DFX cards. That time is gone. There was also a time when Nintendo released very few games and they had to be certified and bugs were rare. That time is gone. Xbox One and PS4 games are just as buggy.  There was also a time when only a small fringe built their PC's and the community was much different. Building a gaming machine was like getting into Linux back in the day, and anyone who has gotten involved with the Linux community knows it is a bit "different" and can turn some people off. We literally have "fake pc gamers" defending consoles and it is getting silly at this point. There are no "negatives" to the PC. No one is forcing you to mod skyrim, or downsample. No one is forcing you to play on a mouse and keyboard. More options aren't a negative.

 

 

Also on resolution. LTT made a video about Ubisoft's statement "resolution is just a number". Funniest thing I have ever seen, these guys are genuinely hilarious when they just let it go ad ad lib. I have never laughed so hard, and I want a shirt that says "resolution is just a number". 5:15 in. So great.   

 

 

We have "regular guys" who were "console gamers",  building PC's now, being surprised at how easy it is and making videos thanking the PC community and sites like this are directly responsible for it being easy. Linus deserves a humanitarian award in my book.  Freeing people from console gaming, and uplifting the state of man. Do I like the "master race" crap? Nope. I wish it would die in a fire. The money savings, the experience, and the freedom is what should be sold by gamers. 

 

[Misanthrope]

Anyways, just a few notes to your cost analysis.  It is unfair to include only the parts, there are a vast majority of people who have no clue how to purchase PC parts and assemble a PC (of my friends, I am the only one who can do it). d be in if the consoles didn't exist, and the developers had to develop for those majority of old console gamers who don't have adequate rigs.

It's also unfair to count a PS4 as only 399 since say you keep it for as long as your average gaming PC (5 years) that's an extra $200-250 just for the privilege of playing online as well as on average about 10 bucks more on release and upwards of 35 or 40 later down the road for each fucking game (and don't you fucking mention the PS+ free games since we've got TONS more free games in the form of varying levels of quality of freeware and free to play games)

And just as you made the point of people also using the bluray functionality most people also use their PC for graphic design, video editing, audio editing and even more mundane tasks like browsing and such that are just way more convenient on a PC than on a phone or tablet.

If anything those "hidden costs" you are trying to spin around on us are much worst on consoles than on PCs thanks to a wider range of usage options (i.e. not everyone is a fucking kid playing on a couch most adults NEED computers for work anyways) as well as the much more competitive pricing.

Also, porn.

[WanderingFool]

-Text-

 

I am not denying there there are a lot of people who spout misinformation about PC gaming, but I disagree with the first youtube video you posted.  My issue with PC's and TV's is that they have have a bad form factor....and yes it is important to a lot of people (Looking at that guys room, I would not allow it to look like that.  My house is very presentable with ).  Yes you can purchase cases that have a look of a console, but it does cost extra to have ones that look as elegant as a PS4 (My case cost roughly $100 and I still don't think it looks as good as a PS4 and is still more bulky).  Actually because many parents are likely purchasing consoles as well the form factor can be a huge thing when considering placing it at a TV.  The controller point is valid, but just to clarify my original post about the controllers is you need to include them in the cost of a build.  Just because there are a vast majority of people who argue invalid points, doesn't mean there are points that are valid (or points to take into consideration).  After all, blaming a console for horrible textures for a PC game is just as wrong, when it is likely size constraints (game size) to take into factor. 

 

On the second video clip, yea I laughed hard on that quote too when I first read it.  I do understand where Ubisoft *might* have been coming from, but that sentence was just so horribly worded.  *As a note, even for PC gaming I would willingly sacrifice resolution and fps IF it made the graphics look crazy...e.g. if they could have near lifelike appearance I would gladly play at 24fps720p...with that said this hasn't really happened)

 

With PC, I do agree you get a lot more freedom, I haven't denied that....but I do disagree with the fact that PC gaming is less expensive (It depends on what each person pays for)...for performance to price yes PC gaming will always hold it's own, but I still look at the consoles as being the low-end gaming rig substitute.  No matter how easy it is to teach people to purchase gaming parts and assemble them, the fact is people will purchase them all in one.  I guess the way I put it is it is like eating at fast food resturants.  Their food can be horrible to homemade meals, and more expensive in the long run (depending on what you order), but people still buy fast food due to the convenience.  Same reasoning behind hiring a plumber to install a faucet...it is insanely easy to do, but most people just pay for the plumber.

 

My point is, I feel there is still a market for console games.  It is still my opinion that without the consoles you would see worse quality games being released, simply because these mainstream developers would target the hardware of the majority....and judging from the people I know, their system are worse than consoles....well maybe not as bad as the Xbox One, but definitely worse than the PS4.

 

 

It's also unfair to count a PS4 as only 399 since say you keep it for as long as your average gaming PC (5 years) that's an extra $200-250 just for the privilege of playing online as well as on average about 10 bucks more on release and upwards of 35 or 40 later down the road for each fucking game (and don't you fucking mention the PS+ free games since we've got TONS more free games in the form of varying levels of quality of freeware and free to play games)

And just as you made the point of people also using the bluray functionality most people also use their PC for graphic design, video editing, audio editing and even more mundane tasks like browsing and such that are just way more convenient on a PC than on a phone or tablet.

If anything those "hidden costs" you are trying to spin around on us are much worst on consoles than on PCs thanks to a wider range of usage options (i.e. not everyone is a fucking kid playing on a couch most adults NEED computers for work anyways) as well as the much more competitive pricing.

Also, porn.

Jester was already factoring in the cost of the PS+ subscription....although like I said, I don't play online games so I would have no use for it (and the games I might consider playing anyways are free on the PS4 for online use)....there is also a large difference between a $600 sunk cost, vs a $400 sunk cost, with an addition of $200 amortized over 4-5 years.

 

But a blu-ray fits in it's intended area.  I know for myself anyways, when the PS3 first came out I bought it as a blu-ray player rather a console because I wanted a blu-ray player (and it was the cheapest at the time).  I guess the point is, when building a system to claim it is more cost effective than a console, you need to consider where the PC is going to go.  I would never dream of using a computer on a TV for work purposes *such as word processing, and other common activities*, I would just go use my actual computer for that *which if you buy a console I bet you have a computer that can already do what you need*.  A blu-ray player though is an actual perk though (for those who can see the difference)

 

I am not trying to spin any hidden costs.  There were 3 costs I mentioned, OS (which is very valid), blu-ray (which discussed above, is valid depending on your use case and I did say something similar to that in my post), and controllers (which for someone like myself, who loves controller gaming over KB and mouse is a value you need to add in).

 

*edit* Added response

[TheProfosist]

Defense of 30fps you can make the game look prettier while still being playable.

[ryohazuki224]

No one strives to achieve 30 fps in any game. They have 30fps because the hardware isn't strong enough. It's like saying we strive to get 720p on our game because it's better than 1080p. It's bloody stupid. If I was the head of a dev team I would simply refuse to dev on a console and dev for PC instead. I would hate to see a game that I have been working on for years be displayed at sub 1080p and 30fps locked. It would make me feel sick. If the Order was on PC the devs would be able to see their vision actually become a reality. The order in 4k with high resolution textures at 60fps would look simply amazing. Look at what consoles have done to the gaming industry. It's dumbed it down technically and gameplay wise and that is such a shame.

 

If consoles died out after the console wars I could only imagine where gaming could have been. But instead we get crappy ports sub par textures, low frame rates, low resolutions. Everything is made worse because of consoles. 

 

Rant over.

 

I... I'm really shocked by this whole statement. I'm shocked in general from this forum post, and while I admit I am new here and will probably be taking a LOT of flak for what I'm about to say, I had to say something to put in my 2 cents.

 

First of all, you say The Order 1866 would look amazing in 4K at 60fps with high res textures, which anybody would agree, that WOULD look amazing, but do you have two or three Titan Z graphics cards to throw in a system to achieve that? Because fact is for 4K alone you need a boat load of expensive power, not to mention it being optomized for 60fps. "No one strives to acheive 30fps in any game". Sigh. You don't get it. This isn't some twitchy-first person shooter or racing game where things can move by so fast that you don't need high-res textures, proper world physics (did you know that every movable object in The Order has soft-body physics? So that wooden chair randomly in some room can bend and break realistically? No, you didn't because you would rather have a stiff, un-realistic chair just flying around like a pinball because it was blown up at 60fps.)

 

Did they HAVE to make every object have realistic physics? Probably not, but that was the choice they have made to generate a world that feels real. Did they HAVE to go for a film-like look to it? No, but that is what they wanted to make. Why does Borderlands have to look semi-cell shaded and look like a comic book? It's artistic decisions like these that make gaming what it is today: A varied landscape of different visions and worlds to escape to that appeal to a wide variety of gamers. Not just those gamers that only play shooters or MOBAs or something where smooth performance matters over artistic quality. And if you did work at a dev team and they had an artistic vision that you disagreed with... well I guess you'd be out of a job. Sure, if they were developing a first-person shooter or racing game, you would want them to strive for 60fps. But it's really not necessary for cinematic action.

 

Bottom line is, some games benefit from the smooth gameplay that 60fps affords, and others do not. You wouldn't bitch that Worms or Tetris  "doesn't play at 60fps" or some crap like that. Because some games simply do not need it. And no, I'm not "succumbing" to the marketing hype put out by Sony. I see The Order for what it is, and I would honestly hate it if they did push for 60fps. Not that I'm afraid of other visual sacrifices they would have to make (lighting, physics, whatever), because they could probably figure it out if they had to. But because it honestly would ruin the artistic feel of the game. This crap always reminds me of when I first saw the first few 120Hz HDTV's running at Best Buy, and they were playing Pirates of the Carribean. It looked like utter crap being played at 120Hz. It suddenly didn't look like a film. It looked like a movie set and that it was being recorded by a home-movie camera.

 

To me, games are about more than resolution, frame rate, or graphical fidelity. They're about the fun you have PLAYING the game.

 

Can't we all just stop complaining and just PLAY?

[geforceftw]

I refuse to believe these people are that stupid. They are just paid well to humiliate themselves in front of everyone except the people who are dumb enough to believe it. That there are people that dumb though is kind of sad.

Yeah but beats is still a profitable brand.

[Misanthrope]

First of all

 

No, first of all: the dumbass contradicts himself by first claiming a desirable "filmic" look then saying they can't figure out how to do 60fps anyway. If you're gonna lie (which we would still be able to tell) at least stay consistent with your lies and don't say "We want a film look....but we can't achieve anything else anyway, but we didn't wanted anything else! I mean it looks cool but this thing, this crappy resolution inadequate for GAMING? Yes this is precisely what we want: we absolutely want the only thing we can achieve, but that other thing yeah it's also cool...but we want filmic! However the higher framerate yeah we know it's cool, etc, etc, etc."

[WanderingFool]

- snip-

And what is wrong with the PS4's look?  I personally like the size and styling of it.  But I challenge you to find a case which is better than a PS4 and is roughly that size (and at a reasonable price).  I personally find most in that category either look like a block, or gaudy. Edited May 28, 2014 by alpenwasser
edited quote, offensive content

[Misanthrope]

And what is wrong with the PS4's look?  .

 

What, my image didn't illustrate my hatred and contempt for anyone who even suggest that form should ever be anything but second to function? Or the obvious subtext that a shitty hardware package could afford even more elegant form factors? You're literally confirming that you wouldn't care if the system was a little bit bigger to accommodate better cooling and henceforth better hardware because the motherfucking LOOK is important?

 

Anybody who purchases electronic equipment entirely because of looks fucking deserves inferior hardware and oppressive locked in environments.

[WanderingFool]

What, my image didn't illustrate my hatred and contempt for anyone who even suggest that form should ever be anything but second to function? Or the obvious subtext that a shitty hardware package could afford even more elegant form factors? You're literally confirming that you wouldn't care if the system was a little bit bigger to accommodate better cooling and henceforth better hardware because the motherfucking LOOK is important?

 

Anybody who purchases electronic equipment entirely because of looks fucking deserves inferior hardware and oppressive locked in environments.

 

You are being one-minded on this issue though.  I accept a loss in performance if it means that it isn't ugly to look at....and yes size is important, it is very important to me (I move around a lot of my equipment, it is nice to remove 2 cables and be able to throw something in a backpack to bring it to a friends.  Also, better cooling and such wouldn't have increased the performance, so there isn't really a sacrifice there.  The fact is the the Xbox One, has a much uglier and bulkier look and it has worse hardware.  The fact is it comes down to price for what you get.  And my argument is you need to consider that not everyone is going to accept a mid-tower in their living room, and things such as the PS4 blend in well with other devices.  If you are comparing PC vs Consoles, then you do need to consider the form factor as it is very very important to many people (and quite frankly you can't beat the PS4/Wii-U in that form factor yet)

[Misanthrope]

Misanthrope, you are the single most loud mouthed goon I've seen on this site.

 

I'm loud even with just text, that's kind of an accomplishment don't you think?

 

Yeah I curse and joke a lot, I get that. I don't think that I'm actually abusive to anybody though, yes I ridicule opinions I think are deserving of ridicule but I never actually hold those opinions personally against anybody: smart people are not only capable but entitled to (what I consider) stupid opinions and (what I think it can be healthy) bits of xenophobic sentiments for the sake of community.

[Misanthrope]

You are being one-minded on this issue though.  I accept a loss in performance if it means that it isn't ugly to look at....and yes size is important, it is very important to me (I move around a lot of my equipment, it is nice to remove 2 cables and be able to throw something in a backpack to bring it to a friends.  Also, better cooling and such wouldn't have increased the performance, so there isn't really a sacrifice there.  The fact is the the Xbox One, has a much uglier and bulkier look and it has worse hardware.  The fact is it comes down to price for what you get.  And my argument is you need to consider that not everyone is going to accept a mid-tower in their living room, and things such as the PS4 blend in well with other devices.  If you are comparing PC vs Consoles, then you do need to consider the form factor as it is very very important to many people (and quite frankly you can't beat the PS4/Wii-U in that form factor yet)

 

Conceded, we should retake the issue after steamboxes hit the market cause they're poised to change all this.

[WanderingFool]

Conceded, we should retake the issue after steamboxes hit the market cause they're poised to change all this.

Yes, when they do come out, then that is a different story.

[BloodySinner]

The title should be renamed to 'A Console Developer's Defense of 30 FPS'.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I... I'm really shocked by this whole statement. I'm shocked in general from this forum post, and while I admit I am new here and will probably be taking a LOT of flak for what I'm about to say, I had to say something to put in my 2 cents.

 

First of all, you say The Order 1866 would look amazing in 4K at 60fps with high res textures, which anybody would agree, that WOULD look amazing, but do you have two or three Titan Z graphics cards to throw in a system to achieve that? Because fact is for 4K alone you need a boat load of expensive power, not to mention it being optomized for 60fps. "No one strives to acheive 30fps in any game". Sigh. You don't get it. This isn't some twitchy-first person shooter or racing game where things can move by so fast that you don't need high-res textures, proper world physics (did you know that every movable object in The Order has soft-body physics? So that wooden chair randomly in some room can bend and break realistically? No, you didn't because you would rather have a stiff, un-realistic chair just flying around like a pinball because it was blown up at 60fps.)

 

Did they HAVE to make every object have realistic physics? Probably not, but that was the choice they have made to generate a world that feels real. Did they HAVE to go for a film-like look to it? No, but that is what they wanted to make. Why does Borderlands have to look semi-cell shaded and look like a comic book? It's artistic decisions like these that make gaming what it is today: A varied landscape of different visions and worlds to escape to that appeal to a wide variety of gamers. Not just those gamers that only play shooters or MOBAs or something where smooth performance matters over artistic quality. And if you did work at a dev team and they had an artistic vision that you disagreed with... well I guess you'd be out of a job. Sure, if they were developing a first-person shooter or racing game, you would want them to strive for 60fps. But it's really not necessary for cinematic action.

 

Bottom line is, some games benefit from the smooth gameplay that 60fps affords, and others do not. You wouldn't bitch that Worms or Tetris  "doesn't play at 60fps" or some crap like that. Because some games simply do not need it. And no, I'm not "succumbing" to the marketing hype put out by Sony. I see The Order for what it is, and I would honestly hate it if they did push for 60fps. Not that I'm afraid of other visual sacrifices they would have to make (lighting, physics, whatever), because they could probably figure it out if they had to. But because it honestly would ruin the artistic feel of the game. This crap always reminds me of when I first saw the first few 120Hz HDTV's running at Best Buy, and they were playing Pirates of the Caribbean. It looked like utter crap being played at 120Hz. It suddenly didn't look like a film. It looked like a movie set and that it was being recorded by a home-movie camera.

 

To me, games are about more than resolution, frame rate, or graphical fidelity. They're about the fun you have PLAYING the game.

 

Can't we all just stop complaining and just PLAY?

You can't use 3 Titan Z's. They are dual GPU cards. 60f fps would have been a better option even if they needed to drop the resolution. And yes some games are actually designed and play better at 30 fps but these games are picturebook games are games that are trying to imitate a particular animation style. South Park is an example of this the game runs at 30 fps because the show runs at 30 fps. The devs wanted the game to feel like the show and that makes sense. But a game like the Order is not like that in any way. It would have been better if it was running at 60 fps and people aiming would have been better simply because it is a 3D title and it requires aiming in some way. 30 fps makes aiming in any 3D game clunky let alone the controller platform also makes the aiming incredibly clunky as well. To be honest I would have liked to have seen the consoles be able to push 60 fps 1080p with good visual quality settings, I hope you don't argue against that because if you do you are simply wrong. 60 fps is always better than 30fps when it comes to 3d games. And yes the Order would play better at 60 fps because it would look and feel better. Have you actually ever tried to play a 3d game at 30 fps locked because I haven't but I have played games that dropped to 30 fps and they were very uncomfortable, visually as well as my aiming. I think Linuses short clip of him throwing up says it all. 30 fps is a really low framerate that no one on PC ever strives for. We all try and get 45 fps at least I would imagine but 60 fps is the ideal frame rate for any games because it feels nice and smooth below that things feel  just bad and above that things feel even smoother.

 

The reason why I complain is because if no one does it, it will become the same on PC. Devs have already tried this with games like Need for Speed locked at 30fps. The sales for that game I would imagine are pretty abysmal as they should be. It has told EA that releasing a game at 30 fps locked is a shit idea because no on PC will buy it. That is the norm on console. By the way the Wii U runs it's games at 60 fps 1080p no problem. Nintendo titles I mean like Mario. It's nice to know that a casual gaming company understands which is better and which isn't. 

 

If I am running a game at 30fps, me and anyone else in the PC community and probably you will lower your settings to try and get it to 60fps. In other words I think we all prefer to have 60fps over visual fidelity. And yes games are meant to be fun and the gameplay itself but when your game is running at 30fps it makes it difficult to have fun because you get frustrated with many of the problems associated with low framerate. The same with visual fidelity. If it is low it breaks immersion and that is a problem when trying to have fun. And define fun because I find enjoyment in playing around with my graphical settings but I also have fun playing the game. If my game doesn't run at 60 fps or around that I am not having fun at all.

[TheProfosist]

You can't use 3 Titan Z's. They are duel GPU cards.

you can just not all in SLI

[RazeG3SG1]

And what is wrong with the PS4's look? I personally like the size and styling of it. But I challenge you to find a case which is better than a PS4 and is roughly that size (and at a reasonable price). I personally find most in that category either look like a block, or gaudy.

RVZ01?

[kuddlesworth9419]

you can just not all in SLI

Like I said you can't use 3 of them just 2 cards. Unless You where mining I think that might work but I am not sure. I don't know how coin mining works. 

[Mooshi]

-snip-

 

The thing is, movies and games are two entire different genres, let's get this out of the way right now. This fallacy of the article in question is what is causing anger among PC gamers. Mentioning Worms or Tetris is irrelevant as the creators of those games never once bragged about any cinematic experiences with them, a term that's vague enough as it is. Same goes for watching a movie on a tv set with a high refresh rate. Movies and games are not one and the same so they can not be compared as such interchangeably.

 

If the article was honest and mentioned the real reason being the limitation of the console hardware, they would go so much less flack for it. Let's take Watch Dogs. Not even SLI Titans can run that game at a consistent 60FPS on ultra @ 1080p (let alone higher resolutions or even the overly demanding 4K) Things from WD have been cut down and it still can't utilize 2K worth of graphics cards effectively. The lack of optimizations and pandering to consoles really make the PC equivalent suffer. 30FPS at 720p does /not/ look as good as 60FPS at 1080p. This isn't some mind trick, it's fact. Fortunately, gameplay can override a games visuals. Unfortunately, gameplay doesn't override lag.

 

It's not only FPS and racers that benefit from 60FPS Games that aren't even that fast pace benefit as well if only for consistent smooth gameplay with fluid controls.

[TheProfosist]

Like I said you can't use 3 of them just 2 cards. Unless You where mining I think that might work but I am not sure. I don't know how coin mining works.

yea youd want them not in sli for mining or anythign that your using compute wise since it can usually talk to them independently. games could do this but not how talking to them is currently implemented. offloading physx to another card is kinda like that though.

[kuddlesworth9419]

yea youd want them not in sli for mining or anythign that your using compute wise since it can usually talk to them independently. games could do this but not how talking to them is currently implemented. offloading physx to another card is kinda like that though.

Yea I thought it was like that. But when running a game the two cards need to be synced because they are rendering the same frame but just faster.

[TheProfosist]

Yea I thought it was like that. But when running a game the two cards need to be synced because they are rendering the same frame but just faster.

this doesnt necessarily have to happen this way but its the easiest way to get performance with games that expect a single GPU

[Scionyde]

Well judging by a quick glance at the comments section on Kotaku, it seems a fair number of them bought the dev's excuses about 30 fps, which is unfortunate. But ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

 

But hey, on the bright side, if developers are planning to focus on effects rather than decent framerates, then if there's a PC port of it, at least we'll get those nice effects while still having hardware capable enough to get playable framerates (theoretically).

[osbios]

May I link this video player project that can make 24 Hz or whatever to 60 HZ: http://www.svp-team.com/

One of the few things I miss in Linux (The OS)!

You need a decent GPU to be able to play high bit rate 1920x1080 movies. But it looks awesome!

[ryohazuki224]

You can't use 3 Titan Z's. They are dual GPU cards.

 

Have you actually ever tried to play a 3d game at 30 fps locked because I haven't but I have played games that dropped to 30 fps and they were very uncomfortable, visually as well as my aiming.

 

 

If I am running a game at 30fps, me and anyone else in the PC community and probably you will lower your settings to try and get it to 60fps.

 

1) Sorry, it was a bad example. I know you cant use three Titan Z's, but I was just trying to make a point that you need something insanely powerful and far too expensive just to play a game at such a high resolution and framerate.

 

2) Yes I have. If you can't tell, I am primarily a console gamer. Now I'll probably get flak for that, since I'm on a message board for PC users. But I use a PC as well, I build systems for myself and for friends, so I do have a somewhat sense on what I'm talking about. (Course, I've yet to have a friend who had the budget to build a really high-end system. Most are mid-range, $1000 systems). That being said, most of the games I play on consoles are third-person action games. Recently, I finished Infamous: Second Son. Now, this game does run at 1080p, but locked at 30fps. But I have no complaints, whatever they did with the visuals, it FEELS like it runs at a higher frame rate. It's very silky smooth and quite frankly, is the best looking console game that I've ever seen so far. Period. The gameplay is nowhere near clunky or uncomfortable. Granted, it's not a game where aiming is important. Sure you can shoot projectiles, but most projectiles hit a larger area, so you don't need to be all that accurate. I don't play first-person-shooters, but for those games yes I do understand the need for a smoother, higher framerate.

 

3) maybe it's just me and the games that I play, or that my PCs tend to be more of a mid-range system, but usually when I play, if I can get a frame rate of around 30-40fps, I'm happy. Hell, I don't even pull up a frame counter most of the time. I just adjust my settings until things look smooth to me. I guess I shouldn't even be in this discussion, since I honestly don't place that much importance on frame rate in the games that I play, as long as they are at least 30fps. (and yes, I've played my fair share of games at 60fps, but it really doesn't make that much difference to me)

 

Basically what I am saying is, yes while the majority of PC gamers strive to achieve 60fps in the types of games they play, there are some of us that do not place that much of importance on it. Sure, that is a minority for a lot of fast-paced shooters and whatnot. And of course, until I get my hands on The Order, I cannot say weather or not their decision to stick with 30fps is ultimately a good or bad decision from a gameplay aspect. But as of now, for the type of gameplay it looks like to me, it really wouldn't benefit that much from a higher framerate in terms of playability. The weapons look very broad-ranging for the most part (as in, you don't have to be that accurate when you blast a huge radius of shrapnel at your opponents!), I've yet to see if there are any longer range rifles or something that needs to be more accurate for opponents in a distance. Time will tell though.