I completely agree with his breakdown about the technical logistics between 30 and 60 FPS, but this response is a no from me. Games aren't movies. Interactivity is the point, and there's nothing wrong with giving people options.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Twitter thread from lighting artist at Naughty Dog on why devs push for 30FPS and what sacrifices are made to reach 60
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
- Status
I completely agree with his breakdown about the technical logistics between 30 and 60 FPS, but this response is a no from me. Games aren't movies. Interactivity is the point, and there's nothing wrong with giving people options.
I'd be okay with sacrificing some prettiness to get a higher framerate. Most people wouldn't though. Look at the reception to Halo Infinite lol.
My whole thing with this topic is if this were a situation and I was on a system that let me turn off fancier effects or other things to get a better frame rate, I would. Now, PS4 doesn't allow this but my sentiment is still the same. I realize in a way I'm saying "that stuff you put a lot of time and effort into, yeah I would rather it not be there" but I'm sure a lot of people would, and I'd rather just have options.
Still prefer how the game plays over pretty visuals that get smeared with excessive motion blur thanks to 30FPS.
There's better looking games than Halo Infinite that run at even higher frame rates.
I first played TLOU Remasted. That was 60fps, so I'm not gonna play TLOU2 until there's a 60fps option. Hopefully a PS5 patch.
and interactivity is something we have been losing since 360/PS3 era onwards
cant touch things, the lighting is baked!
cant go there, we didn't model there because geometry and texture budget; return to battlefield heathen
cant kill that person, that would ruin our carefully crafted narrativessssss
cant give everything physics! we spent too much on cloth simulation for physics!
Interesting way of putting it, but no, the game would've looked fine at 60 and ran at a highly preferable frame rate. I've played 60 fps games on PS4 and they look great. Maybe rework your asethetics if you can't get
Stupid analogy. There are pretty agreed upon costs and benefits to doing graphics vs. frame rate. Just taking out lighting from a movie is not a tradeoff. Maybe take out lighting, but you get essential scenes in the movie that explain the plot?
Stupid analogy. There are pretty agreed upon costs and benefits to doing graphics vs. frame rate. Just taking out lighting from a movie is not a tradeoff. Maybe take out lighting, but you get essential scenes in the movie that explain the plot?
Yeah unless I'm constantly changing between the two or am playing a fast-paced multiplayer game, I've never really felt the difference in a jarring way. If something feels perfectly fine at 30fps and can give me a visual boost (I am a sucker for good lighting), then I'll take the 30fps every time.
Spoken like someone that doesn't know that PC graphic settings exist. Pretty myopic to think that players would always prefer shiny graphics over game play.
i mean except the huge undertaking of making two modes of gameplay for a console? must take a lot of time and resources like he said.
I mean df had a video on lighting just recently wrt how many iterations it takes to get scene just right, so I can super understand them saying no to doing all that stuff twice in the name of 'options'.
Perf modes make sense in certain situations but it never ever should be a standard like people demand, why restrict how a rendering budget gets used
I don't think this means he's against 60fps. He basically says that he wants the same experience for all players, visual and gameplay wise. This is the same thing as why Sekiro doesn't have an easy mode. It's an artistic choice.
Naughty Dog are always going to provide the technical showcase for whichever Sony hardware they're working on so I wouldn't expect them to ever sacrifice graphics, but gameplay responsiveness is still a higher priority to me personally, even in games that work fine at 30fps.
Good graphics will still age eventually, while good gameplay remains fun forever.
Good graphics will still age eventually, while good gameplay remains fun forever.
It's more that Doom Eternal has much more clarity and crispness in motion than Uncharted does (because of the framerate). Uncharted's assets and lighting are better. Both games look great, for different reasons.
Things like atmosphere play a critical role in determining enjoyment. Even a simple thing like walking through a thick fog versus a thin one can alter a persons perception of how a gamer responds to a game. I think visuals are super super important for immersion in games. Also giving people options is extra work and maybe the dev does not want a game whose atmosphere is significantly paired down to achieve said framerate.
But Doom also has better motion blur, particle effects, higher enemy count and even more more dynamic lighting and better shadows. The same things that they have to try and fit in 6ms. Uncharted has higher polygonal density, much much better animation quality, and a lot larger areas with a lot more density but that's not the only thing going on in a game and there are areas that Doom genuinely is more advanced in even when compared to ND's latest game TLoU2.
Which is a damned shame. It's funny how ND lauded the values of 60 fps when it came to marketing TLOU Remastered, saying they hoped it would become the new standard, but just a few years later, they're back to trying to justify the old status quo.
Last edited:
I think the Halo Infinite reveal is a prime example of why developers will ALWAYS prioritize graphical fidelity over framerate.
The 10f fixed cost for rendering polygons is a cool tidbit.
16ms - 10ms = 6ms vs
33ms - 10ms = 23ms
is a 4x jump in time budget.
Yeah, overhead sucks.
16ms - 10ms = 6ms vs
33ms - 10ms = 23ms
is a 4x jump in time budget.
Yeah, overhead sucks.
Any number of reveal/review threads are rife with people demanding 60fps. Though, I'm sure the reality of having every game achieve that, would then give way to those pleading for greater graphical clarity.
I find a consistent and stable framerate to be the most important thing. It's nice to see it outlined, exactly why switching framerates isn't some magical toggle.
I find a consistent and stable framerate to be the most important thing. It's nice to see it outlined, exactly why switching framerates isn't some magical toggle.
This is obviously a pretty fucking terrible response because PC games have had detailed graphics settings for decades and they function just fine without upsetting the "art" of the game.
Because it's a ton of work to make two versions of every scene, and they've only got so much time and money
Of course, but that isn't the norm on consoles, nor should people expect it to be.
As someone who works almost exclusively on 16.67ms titles that look (IMO) very, very good, my kids are used to hearing me yell "and this is what they did with another 16.67ms?!" when playing some games.
From a pure systems/rendering perspective, it's not really the time we put in, it's that we want to be able to make certain decisions and leverage them, and a large parameter space at runtime makes that harder, and you pay non-trivial costs for it. E.g. similar to the difference between pre-compiled GPU microcode on console vs IR on PC.
I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough in game development to know how to make games look better than they do, and I'll venture a guess that you aren't either. Both games look great and prioritize different things, I have to assume that if TLOU2 could run at 60fps without any major sacrifices, it would.
If the developer doesn't have the time or resources to implement a mode, that's totally understandable. But his response was specifically implying it shouldn't be done because, like in movies, people shouldn't have options.
Your argument is a bit of a misdirect, though. Very rarely do 30 FPS vs 60 FPS cut things like "atmosphere", or the general look of the game (except on very low settings). Usually downing resolution or shadow map fidelity or AA quality is what does it, not actually changing anything to do with art style.
I definitely think he's referring to cases where the hardware doesn't have the flexibility (like base PS4/XB1) for games of the scope he's referring to. At a certain point you'd be offering like 540p/imperfect 60FPS and you gotta' wonder if the sacrifice is worth the guff you'll get online for it.
Definitely higher end platforms have good leeway for it, though.
Last edited:
Problem is that it used to be the norm but then things took a turn.
I mean, yours is a "pretty fucking terrible response". ND games don't launch on PC (so far), and because they don't, they don't have to spend the time and resources to optimize around all of the different pieces of hardware that is available on that platform, and because they don't, they're free to spend those resources on other aspects of their games.
I say this as a predominantly PC player with a high end rig. I can still point some of the reasons why ND games look so much better than almost any other game.
ND games aren't on PC and he's specifically talking about ND games...
- Status