Carmack: Next-gen games will still target 30 fps
develop-online.net
develop-online.net
http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter...
The summary is that prettier games get better reviews and sell off more copies.
and the recent Doing Game Gravity Right post on HN, which shows that some games are still using physics equations that don't properly account for sub 60fps framerates: http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html
As someone who primarily plays first person shooters (TF2 and Quake Live), anything less than 60FPS looks awful to me, I play on a 120hz LCD.
Forza Horizon though, developed by an all-star team[0] distinct from Turn 10, chose to drop to 30fps, notably for full AA, effects such as motion blur, and features like continuous day/night cycle and realistic car headlights (old bulbs look deliciously warm, and the chromatic effect on the crisp edge of xenon headlights is awesome). As realistic and gorgeous as Forza Horizon is, at speed it feels buttery smooth but not exactly crisp as Forza 4 is. It's like you'd take a low-resolution image and try to make it look nicer by using a blur filter, only this applies to time instead of space, and thus movement.
[0]: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-...
What makes Forza 2 and 3 so impressive is that it keeps up 60 fps all the time. If you a game can't keep up with that, I'd much rather have a constant 30 fps than an erratic 60 fps.
I think the main issue with Horizon was actually the open world, even with some serious LoDing that proved render intensive. Also the motion blur as you mentioned. There's always trade-offs to be made, and the 360 isn't getting any faster.
One thing I think perhaps more studios should try is running the main game loop at a different rate to the render loop. As you rightfully pointed out, the physics simulation runs at 360fps in Forza, similarly there's nothing to stop the game from double-buffering some of the game state and running the game at 60fps (including input). Part of the big issue of 30fps games (especially racing ones) is that the input lag becomes much bigger than in 60fps. You're normally looking at at least two frames of input lag - one to process the game, one to render it - so at least 66ms minimum for any button press to take effect. It normally tends to be about 100ms for 30fps games, and 50ms or so for 60fps, which makes the game feel a lot more responsive.
That way the harder core can play at 60FPS and those more concerned about looks can play at 30.
The only worry is they introduce a 1FPS mode just for screenshots ;)
Though, they do offer customization of keymaps (errr. button-maps...), so perhaps there is a case for this?
It's night and day - suddenly the game becomes that much more fluid, and when toggling between the two, 30fps feels amazingly 'shuttered'.
I used to play quake 3, particularly defrag, at 125Hz. 60Hz in normal games is fine to me but anything less feels like a nightmare where your legs turned into concrete and you can't turn your neck. It very honestly is an unpleasant experience to me.
30fps to 60fps is night and day though -- running Dark Souls on a gaming PC with the 'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30 and 60 is astonishing how much more smooth and fluid the game is.
It makes the game smoother because there are more game loops, so more calculations on a smaller time delta.
Of course LCD displays will be locked to particular refresh rates on a TV probably 24Hz, 50Hz or 60Hz (although it may then apply motion compensated interpolation to take them up to 96-120Hz or even 192-240Hz but these are often turned off in 'Game' mode to reduce latency and provide less lag between input and result).
* Infinte frame rate is effectively whatever your mind can't distinguish from infinite.
That's quite an interesting thought actually, how many fps do human eyes see at?
To answer that you I imagine you'd need to get into how the human eye works (rods vs cones), how moving images are created, and how interlacing works on movies and things compared to game engines which don't interlace.
Flickering light does make sense, and of course videos make sense as you're limiting the frame rate.
There is obviously a limit to how fast our eyes see, and that limit is somewhere within an order of magnitude or so of 100fps. But it's still a mostly continuous process. There's no hard dividing line between one frame and the next.
Any game without motion blur is going to show momentary disjointed images, which is alleviated by motion blur. However, you still want the high frame rate for smoothness and low response time for inputs.
For the record, just in case it wasn't clear, we continue to target 60fps, and 120fps will be an option on PC. 120fps stereo VR, even. Eventually we will get displays with gaze tracked foveal insets, which will be rendered as a separate view. 120fpsstereofoveal=480vps
I think I might prefer something like a Steambox, where upgrades would be more frequent. I generally prefer PC gaming, but I like being able to play from the couch with a controller.
Even old games, just use Logitech controller mapper to convert the gamepad input to simulated mouse + keyboard.
Honesty that old complaint is very tired now.
PC gaming can be done from a couch but the entire form factor / experience traditionally has not been optimized for that. Thankfully it appears as though Valve is working on changing that, but there is a lot of work left to be done.
It's not great, but a Linux machine with Steam on it could be.
I on the other hand, have done it. As expected, I use the computer more for movies than games (girlfriend demands). The gamepad is actually a very good Media Center controller.
The only real issue is passwords. But you don't have to enter them all the time.
My point is: having to get up and use a keyboard from time to time doesn't kill the experience of gaming in a computer and a big TV.
I want the Steam box because of the possibility of better games and a general MS distrust, not because the actual experience is something totally unmanageable, as some people here try to assume.
Customizability and linux are just very, very nice perks.
I'm with Carmack on this one. I'd rather have a good game with a solid 60fps than 20+ vehicles and hundreds of effects. That's all filler anyway. A solid 60fps game is a much more immersive experience than the choppy 20-30fps most developers achieve.
I thought the game looked uglier. Now I realize that it might be that the FPS is too high.
The whole argument really only applies to consoles.
Skyrim with mods to upgrade textures and shaders and things looks freaking amazing.*
*And I'm not actually a fan of Skyrim, I dislike Bethesda sandbox games where nothing you do has an impact, but I digress...
Likewise with a lot of console/PC hybrids. What looks pretty decent on your TV at what is actually 720P or even 640P upscaled and blurry is revealed to be somewhat lower detail than you thought on a crisp 2560x1440 screen.
On the other hand, if you get something meant to be played there... wow.
Games developed for the next-generation of consoles will still target a performance of 30 frames per second, claims id Software co-founder John Carmack. Taking to Twitter, the industry veteran said he could “pretty much guarantee” developers would target the standard, rather than aiming for anything as high as 60 fps. ID Software games such as Rage and the Call of Duty series both hit up to 60 fps, but many titles in the current generation fall short such as the likes of Battlefield 3, which runs at 30 fps on consoles. “Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps,” said Carmack.
Carmack, is that you?
Give me a say year-2016 machine and I could target 300 FPS with what currently reaches 30 FPS, but no-one except some GPU geek would notice. Or I could use all that added performance, do many more interesting things at a much higher scale than today, at once -- physics, fluids, crowds and all other kinds of sims -- by still targeting "only" 30 FPS.
If they were optimizing for gameplay they would sacrifice graphical fidelity until they hit 60fps. Targeting 30fps means they want to sacrifice gameplay for graphical effects.
In terms of trade-offs, 60fps is pretty much always the first thing to be sacrificed unless it's REALLY important, like in a twitch shooter or racing game.
The truth is that for most games 30fps is not a deal-breaker for the majority of people. If even a significant minority of players cared, the intensely focus-test-led games industry would follow.
It is undeniably a trade-off, which way you think is worth it is a subjective matter of course.