Game developer TechLand says framerate is just a number (paraphrase)

[OlekKing]

TechLand, the creators of Dead Island and their current game, Dying Light, have recently decided to join the ranks of Ubisoft in the grave digging marathon, stating that 30 frames per second is “the optimal solution for Dying Light and all its gameplay features on consoles.”.

 

"In such a fast-paced game, a stable frame rate is paramount.”

 

“When you’re desperately trying to escape from a horde of pursuing Volatiles, even the smallest drop can lead to a mistimed jump and consequently your death. That’s why we made the choice to lock the frame rate at a rock-solid 30fps on consoles, at the same time reducing the input lag to the minimum. The result is a perfectly smooth, gameplay-tailored performance.”

 

Wow! Seems like console and multi-platform developers cannot resist to run off their mouths and talk about how great 30 fps is, they want you to understand just how awesome it is and how it helps gameplay!

Rock solid 30 fps and minimum input lag? Hmm, they seem like two mutually exclusive elements, but i guess we should put our trust in the game developers, right?

 

 

 

You heard it right folks! They didn't stop there, here's their last statement to put the final nail in the coffin:

 

“Focusing more on an enjoyable experience and less on numbers, we believe we hit the sweet spot with Dying Light’s performance on these platforms.”

 

Because as we all know, there's nothing more enjoyable than the silky, buttery smooth 30 frames per second, for that perfect cinematic movie theater experience! After all, it is common knowledge that resolution and framerate are arbitrary numbers.

 

Here's my take, this stuff is just getting out of hand, i'm sure that everyone, including the console user base, would appreciate to not be treated like complete idiots.

I'm sure that most of these developers are not this stupid, so it leads me to think that Sony and Microsoft have a sway in their PR, apparently simply admitting that their hardware has its limits would cause damage. Apparently the right choice is to keep feeding lies and attempting to delude the public.

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/DyingLightGame/posts/503677419775309

[Levent]

we hate wccf here use the original source

http://gamingbolt.com/dying-light-dev-targeting-1080p60fps-on-ps4-xbox-one-talks-current-next-gen-differences

[minibois]

Well, it is true. 

stable 30 fps > 30-60 fps

 

It's a shame they have to wrap what they say in a 'console doesn't fully suck' kind of jacket

[Enderman]

Lower framerate = Higher input lag.

 

That idiot has no idea what he is talking about. They are just paying him to say lies.

[Sidiox]

In his defence, if they are truly able to maintain that rocksolid 30 fps, without any drops whatsoever, then fair enough, it probably is better then a constantly varying framerate. Still a higher fps would be a lot better, and I'd rather seem that have a bit worse graphical fidelity and a few more fps. 

But the most important thing is that they don't bring out this sort of crap to the PC, where the framerate should be unlocked at (nearly) all times.

[Enderman]

Well, it is true. 

stable 30 fps > 30-60 fps

Not with vsync

[OlekKing]

we hate wccf here use the original source

http://gamingbolt.com/dying-light-dev-targeting-1080p60fps-on-ps4-xbox-one-talks-current-next-gen-differences

Actually this is the proper source https://www.facebook.com/DyingLightGame/posts/503677419775309

Thanks for the heads up anyway!

[minibois]

Not with vsync

Yeah, the consoles probably don't have vsync..

Anyways, a varying fps is not what you want without vsync, so it would still be stable 30 fps > 30 - 60 fps

[OlekKing]

In his defence, if they are truly able to maintain that rocksolid 30 fps, without any drops whatsoever, then fair enough, it probably is better then a constantly varying framerate. Still a higher fps would be a lot better, and I'd rather seem that have a bit worse graphical fidelity and a few more fps. 

But the most important thing is that they don't bring out this sort of crap to the PC, where the framerate should be unlocked at (nearly) all times.

Highly doubtful it will be a perfect constant 30 fps either way.

This isn't the issue however, these people are attempting to re-educate the public by subliminally telling them that 30 fps is good and that they shouldn't be demanding anything more than that.

[Suika]

It's one thing to say, "Hey, these consoles are weak. We wish we could deliver a higher resolution and framerate, but this is all we've got."

 

It's another to spew nonsense and say, "THEY'RE JUST NUMBERS."

 

They might be numbers, but they help define the gaming experience.

[OlekKing]

It's one thing to say, "Hey, these consoles are weak. We wish we could deliver a higher resolution and framerate, but this is all we've got."

 

It's another to spew nonsense and say, "THEY'RE JUST NUMBERS."

 

They might be numbers, but they help define the gaming experience.

It's also another thing to try making people think that 30 fps is just as good or not much different from 60.

They are covering up for the weakness of the consoles when everyone would appreciate the honesty imho...They're just treating their customers like cattle, nothing else to say.

Have you noticed that all of this 30 fps nonsense skyrocketed with the release of the new consoles? We'd hear about it from time to time before, but now it's every 2 weeks a new developer says some outrageous crap.

[AlwaysFSX]

Or just code the game so it's actually efficient. Such a hard concept. Given this is the people that made Dead Island, their games run slow as fuck and don't even look good so no surprises here.

[Derangel]

Okay so they're saying they think a solid 30FPS provides the best experience for the game on consoles. If it's a stable frame rate then that is good. People really need to get over the bullshit 30/60 FPS debate on console games and focus more on stable frame rates. If people would stop bickering about resolution and max frame rate and instead focus on demanding developers make their games fucking run properly at whatever settings they target then just maybe things would change.

[OlekKing]

Or just code the game so it's actually efficient. Such a hard concept. Given this is the people that made Dead Island, their games run slow as fuck and don't even look good so no surprises here.

It's really impressive just how well that game runs.

Looks fantastic and uses an old engine.

[OlekKing]

Okay so they're saying they think a solid 30FPS provides the best experience for the game on consoles. If it's a stable frame rate then that is good. People really need to get over the bullshit 30/60 FPS debate on console games and focus more on stable frame rates. If people would stop bickering about resolution and max frame rate and instead focus on demanding developers make their games fucking run properly at whatever settings they target then just maybe things would change.

They must love guys like you who just eat up their words without thinking for a moment.

That is not all they're trying to say, i thought i made it quite clear, hell i'd think their words are quite transparent to everyone with half a brain.

[Guest Kloaked]

I really wish you guys would stop putting words in developer's mouths.

[Derangel]

They must love guys like you who just eat up their words without thinking for a moment.

That is not all they're trying to say, i thought i made it quite clear, hell i'd think their words are quite transparent to everyone with half a brain.

 

I just don't care about the resolution or frame rate bullshit debate on consoles. I care about frame rates being STABLE AND NOT TURNING INTO A GOD DAMN SLIDE SHOW. I don't give a damn if a console game is capped at 30 or 60 or 720p or 1080p, whatever. Give me a game that runs well at whatever frame rate the developer decides will work and I'm happy. If the current consoles can't handle stable 60fps then fuck it, make all the games cap at 30FPS.

[Victorious Secret]

I really wish you guys would stop putting words in developer's mouths.

 

But then the 12 year old idiots on this site who enjoy circle jerking each other couldn't use the same tired "digging" tropes every single time a developer comes out and says anything. 

 

I'm of the opinion that gamers love to bitch about games more than they like playing them. 

[LukaP]

 

“the optimal solution for Dying Light and all its gameplay features on consoles.”.

 

"In such a fast-paced game, a stable frame rate is paramount.”

 

 

I will do the thing that will rustle all your jimmies right now...

 

If you have a fast paced game (or even a DA style one), you want stable framerate. and constant 30 will be percievably more stable than something that goes from 30-60 all the time. and they specifically mention consoles as well, which are known to not really be prepared for 1080p 60fps anyway...

 

and this is from a consumer perspective.

 

as a game dev (depending on the game, i dont know what kind of game this is) i would go for less effects and more frames, if they can manage to hold that 60. otherwise, run at a lower resolution and upscale, you usually sit far enough away that it doenst matter anyway

[OlekKing]

I just don't care about the resolution or frame rate bullshit debate on consoles. I care about frame rates being STABLE AND NOT TURNING INTO A GOD DAMN SLIDE SHOW. I don't give a damn if a console game is capped at 30 or 60 or 720p or 1080p, whatever. Give me a game that runs well at whatever frame rate the developer decides will work and I'm happy. If the current consoles can't handle stable 60fps then fuck it, make all the games cap at 30FPS.

But you're just further contributing to my point!

Where exactly did i say that we should only care about resolutions and framerates?

Look at how many paragraphs they posted with a bunch of special wording, all they had to say was that they tried pushing fidelity, so they had to cap it at 30 fps! Instead they're trying to sweet talk people into thinking that somehow a lower framerate is just as good.

By saying shit like 30 frames per second is “the optimal solution for Dying Light and all its gameplay features on consoles.” No it isn't, the optimal thing would be 1080p 60 fps.

But they refuse to simply say that the hardware is limited so they have to decide between graphics and framerate.

[IdortMasterRace]

I really wish you guys would stop putting words in developer's mouths.

 

You have way too high expectations. 

 

This place is becoming shit. It's almost as bad as the PCMR Reddit, and that place is an utter shit hole.

[OlekKing]

I will do the thing that will rustle all your jimmies right now...

 

If you have a fast paced game (or even a DA style one), you want stable framerate. and constant 30 will be percievably more stable than something that goes from 30-60 all the time. and they specifically mention consoles as well, which are known to not really be prepared for 1080p 60fps anyway...

 

and this is from a consumer perspective.

 

as a game dev (depending on the game, i dont know what kind of game this is) i would go for less effects and more frames, if they can manage to hold that 60. otherwise, run at a lower resolution and upscale, you usually sit far enough away that it doenst matter anyway

Why would that rustle my jimmies? I never said or even implied that variable framerate is better. What these people and others are trying to achieve is to sweet talk people into thinking that 30 fps is somehow a good thing. They are trying to make them think that their 400$ box has some sort of high end hardware.

Look at their facebook post, now tell me, did they use all of those long paragraphs so simply state that they focused on GFX so they locked it at a solid 30 fps?

[Derangel]

But you're just further contributing to my point!

Where exactly did i say that we should only care about resolutions and framerates?

Look at how many paragraphs they posted with a bunch of special wording, all they had to say was that they tried pushing fidelity, so they had to cap it at 30 fps! Instead they're trying to sweet talk people into thinking that somehow a lower framerate is just as good.

By saying shit like 30 frames per second is “the optimal solution for Dying Light and all its gameplay features on consoles.” No it isn't, the optimal thing would be 1080p 60 fps.

But they refuse to simply say that the hardware is limited so they have to decide between graphics and framerate.

 

I tend to take statements like "best experience" or whatever to mean "The hardware doesn't allow us to do any better at the graphics we want to achieve". They likely can not say something direct like "The hardware is weak" without burning bridges with MS and Sony. PR is a mess of twisted words and half-truths. You have to read between lines and untwist statements to find the truth. The entire frame rate debate has been brought on by PR crap, which is why it annoys me so much. As long as they're not being complete idiots and claiming "cinematic experience" I can eye roll away "best experience" or "optimal" claims. Statements like "rock solid" or "stable" get my attention though since those are fairly big claims that I'd like to see actually end up being truthful.

[rashdanml]

Resolution and frame rate are one on side of the spectrum, graphic fidelity is on the other. With PCs, you can definitely expect both with the highest of the high end hardware. However, for most average hardware, even on the PC, you're playing a constant balancing act between the two. This is also especially true on consoles. 

 

You want high resolution and frame rate on consoles? Be prepared to sacrifice graphic fidelity. You want more realistic looking graphics? Be prepared to deal with low resolution and frame rates. For the average system, you have no choice but to play the balancing act. 

 

It's only the PC enthusiasts who DEMAND 1080p/60fps as a minimum even on average/mid to high end hardware. However, as you increase graphic fidelity (take Crysis 3 for instance, or really demanding outlier games), even a GTX 760/770 (which is about average now) would start to struggle to maintain the above. Sure, you can optimize a game, but optimizing doesn't always give you high graphic fidelity AND high resolution/frame rates. The very definition of optimization is to find the balancing point. 

[Victorious Secret]

 

Resolution and frame rate are one on side of the spectrum, graphic fidelity is on the other. With PCs, you can definitely expect both with the highest of the high end hardware. However, for most average hardware, even on the PC, you're playing a constant balancing act between the two. This is also especially true on consoles. 

 

You want high resolution and frame rate on consoles? Be prepared to sacrifice graphic fidelity. You want more realistic looking graphics? Be prepared to deal with low resolution and frame rates. For the average system, you have no choice but to play the balancing act. 

 

It's only the PC enthusiasts who DEMAND 1080p/60fps as a minimum even on average/mid to high end hardware. However, as you increase graphic fidelity (take Crysis 3 for instance, or really demanding outlier games), even a GTX 760/770 (which is about average now) would start to struggle to maintain the above. Sure, you can optimize a game, but optimizing doesn't always give you high graphic fidelity AND high resolution/frame rates. The very definition of optimization is to find the balancing point. 

 

 

This site however is filled with people who think everyone has high end equipment and can crush 1080/60 easily. 

 

Not really. That couldn't be further from the truth. People building 350-500 dollar PCs are not crushing anything, but they damn well know that. Everyone else except those hardcore spec whores seem to have their expectations properly set. 

 

When I had a 550 and a i3, I knew I wasn't crushing anything. I knew damn well what my hardware was like. I knew that even getting a game to 1080/60 was a feat. But hey, lets not interrupt the "every PC gamer enjoys those numbers" thinking that places like PCMR and now this place seem to have. People couldn't be further from the mark on that.