i think its odd that current generation consoles are really only stable at 30fps. these are an investment that are going to be around for another 3-5 years, and they can't even play today's games well? that's pretty messed up.

Solid 30 FPS? Yes.  "30 FPS" that actually differs from 20-30 FPS? No.  Do I prefer 60 FPS for gameplay? Yes, but I can also play 30 FPS, so long as it is solid 30 FPS. Where I differ is with the cutscenes.

60 FPS is superior in the gaming market IF and only IF the cutscenes in the game are made specifically in mind for 60 FPS animations. Cutscenes in H2A and Halo 5 are designed this way, so it looks nice.



What I don't like is when games with 30 FPS animations get upscaled to 60 FPS. An example of this being Halo 3 in MCC. Then it looks "too smooth" and has the Soap Opera effect.



 I also don't think live action should go above 30 FPS. It should stay in the 24 FPS-30 FPS range. Until we get a camera that can match the speed our eye captures things, I believe 30FPS is the most live action should go to. Because of this, you could argue that 30 FPS is more "cinematic", but the key to it is how the animations are made and key-framed.

Yes? The game is still playable. It's a plus if it's above 30, but I can live with 30.

If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.

30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.

more fps is always better

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:21:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 20, 2015, 03:14:14 PM

If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.

30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.

more fps is always better

Not if it isn't in the artist's vision.

an artists who wants his game to look shitty isnt a good artist.

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:25:44 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 20, 2015, 03:23:19 PM

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:21:29 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 20, 2015, 03:14:14 PM

If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.

30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.

more fps is always better

Not if it isn't in the artist's vision.

an artists who wants his game to look shitty isnt a good artist.

1. It doesn't even look shitty.
2. It's not that he wants his game to look shitty. He wants to produce some desired effect.

For example, if I made a game dedicated to you, I'd make the game 30fps specifically to piss you off, because you apparently detest 30fps so much. So for that specific purpose--creating that irrational sense of anger within you, 30fps would be a superior choice over anything higher, because nothing else would have achieved that desired effect.

No amount of frames is better than any other amount of frames, objectively.

It's just a matter of what your vision is, and what you plan to do and express in your game.

the fewer fps the shittier it looks. fact.

Its pushing it

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:31:40 PM

the fewer fps the shittier it looks. fact.

Doesn't matter. Even 1fps can be better than 120fps, if that's your artistic vision.

Martin Scorsese directed Raging Bull in 1980. Even though color video was available for twenty-seven years at this point, Scorsese still made the artistic decision to shoot that film in black-and-white.

Are you gonna tell me that Martin Scorsese is a bad artist, because he opted not to use color for that Academy Award-winning film?

but making something in b&w vs color doesn't make it look worse. having a VIDEO be 1 fps vs 120fps does look worse.

It's one of the very few things PC actually has going for it.

1fps is a slide show, not a video.

That's rhetoric, not an argument.

Maybe I want a slideshow.

what artistic purpose is there to make something run at a low fps? what desired effect does that accomplish?

I just GAVE you one, guy. You want me to repeat myself?

For example, if I made a game dedicated to you, I'd make the game 30fps specifically to piss you off, because you apparently detest 30fps so much. So for that specific purpose--creating that irrational sense of anger within you, 30fps would be a superior choice over anything higher, because nothing else would have achieved that desired effect.

Either way, it doesn't matter--just because you might not be able to come up with an artistic purpose yourself, doesn't mean that there aren't any.

In a fast paced game (Shooters, strategy, fighters etc) it is because of how fast you need to be able to react to threats.

For slower games, not so much.

Then there's games like south park which look better at low fps.

Here we go again...

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:48:27 PM

angering people at how bad your art is isn't art.

Says who?

I didn't know you were the arbiter of what it and isn't art.

beacuse "shit i cant believe i wasted my money on this" isnt the emotion that art is supposed to evoke

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:54:47 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 20, 2015, 03:49:51 PM

Quote from: terrorbite on October 20, 2015, 03:48:27 PM

angering people at how bad your art is isn't art.

Says who?

I didn't know you were the arbiter of what it and isn't art.

beacuse "shit i cant believe i wasted my money on this" isnt the emotion that art is supposed to evoke

LOL

LOOK AT THIS KID WHO THINKS HE CAN TELL ARTISTS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE

How about a game called "Thirty"--an action game where you go through thirty rooms, fight thirty enemies in each room, and a boss for a grand total of thirty bosses. You have thirty HP, thirty different kinds of attacks to use, thirty weapons and items/pickups, and everything about the game revolves around the number thirty in some way.

Even the frame rate.

you get a point for continuity, but what artistic value is it to have it capped at 30fps?