-
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.
Years later after the controversy, do you agree that 30FPS are more cinematic than 60FPS?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
- Status
It might surprise you but i know plenty of people that do get nauseated from terrible framerate.
They use the server farms to render the 3d scenes to the digital files distributed to theaters or printed onto Blu ray
Video Games and movies are fundamentally different.
I think 48 FPS movies/TV look weird, i don't get that same sensation with video games. It's a completely different medium that can't be compared 1:1 like that.
There's nothing "cinematic" in 30 fps compared to 60 fps. I couldn't return to 30 fps modes in God of War, tLoU, Gears 4, Hellblade, Witcher 3 after i played them in 60. For this reason i still didn't try performance mode in Forza Horizon 4, I'm afraid lol
I mean, cinematic doesn't really apply to framerate specifically. You can pull off better visuals at 30 FPS or do more complicated things because you're not using up the system's power to maintain double the framerate. And a 60 FPS experience can be more fluid and potentially visually stimulating. They each have benefits for the developer and their vision. It's up to that developer to actually utilize and recognize camera movements and actions on the screen/the shot to frame the video game in such a way that it "becomes more cinematic." I know some people swear by 60 FPS or die, but it really depends on how you're designing your game and what you're intending for the player to see/interact with. Bad developers will not make a game any more or less cinematic at 30 FPS or 60 FPS, while good ones can work with both.
More cinematic doesn't mean better playing. 30 FPS objectively is closer to the motion of 24 FPS. It looks more similar.43 YES voters...
That doesn't mean it's preferable to 60 though. Both things can be true.
I wholly agree with the statement above.
The weird thing is seeing gamers lost their mind when you suggest the best creative decision may be different to the best gameplay decision.
You can have both and it's a reason why we've seen games mix frame rates with high FPS gameplay and high level of detail lower FPS cutscenes.
I prefer playing at 60 but cutscenes at 30 are more cinematic to me because they look more like cinema.
It's an argument that doesn't make sense, no. It CAN work in certain instances, for example as a horror game enthusiast certain things at a low frame rate can be surprisingly effective (though that's usually the animation of things rather than the performance), but I don't think 30 fps stand-alone makes things look more "cinematic" unless there's some creative direction and good execution to follow through with it.
This said, I don't care if most games are 30 fps myself. For faster paced games 60 fps does add to the fluidity of controls, there's certain games where 60 fps does add a lot to the experience. But there's many other games it really does not matter and I think some make too big a deal out of it.
This said, I don't care if most games are 30 fps myself. For faster paced games 60 fps does add to the fluidity of controls, there's certain games where 60 fps does add a lot to the experience. But there's many other games it really does not matter and I think some make too big a deal out of it.
Start of this gen it got pretty memeworthy with "silky smooth 30fps" which i think Ubisoft said about AC4 on PS4 & a lot of people expected it to be 60. So shitposting ensued with a lot of people defending 30fps as more cinematic.
This isn't necessarily true.
If you take the same game on two different PCs, and run one at 60fps with all the bells and whistles, and one at 30fps with all the same bells and whistles, I would bet my savings that the majority of people to see both would answer that the one at 30fps looks "more like a movie".
Because it does.
I don't understand why so many people are conflating the information in the OP. The OP doesn't ask anyone which frame rate is better for video games. It explicitly asks if 30fps is "more cinematic" (and even then, that's still a rather vague question because you can only answer it on a case by case basis). Cinematic, being the operative term here, is referring to a video games ability to recreate a "film like appearance" (with regards to movies we watch in the theater). 60fps, while better in many cases, is at an immediate disadvantage when it comes to "looking cinematic" because it is already "foreign" in appearance to movies, even with motion blur, etc. It can still look and play better w/out being "cinematic".
I think this thread would have been saved by a more clear definition of the word "cinematic", as this discussion went off the rails after the first few replies with people not understanding the intent of the thread.
that "cinematic" doesn't mean crap... it's a videogame not a movie, so the whole poll is pure nonsense.
It does though? I mean we can clearly define it as "looking like a movie". It's pretty straight forward, no?
I take cinematic to mean "like cinema" so yes, it is more cinematic since 30fps is closest to the movie-standard 24fps. Not to say that 60fps can't be "cinematic"
Is it inherantly better than 60fps for games in any scenario, I would have say no. I feel like a lot of people in this thread is missing that distinction and are getting upset at the "yes" voters. Don't think anyone is saying 30fps is better.
Either way I don't see what this thread is accomplishing lol
Is it inherantly better than 60fps for games in any scenario, I would have say no. I feel like a lot of people in this thread is missing that distinction and are getting upset at the "yes" voters. Don't think anyone is saying 30fps is better.
Either way I don't see what this thread is accomplishing lol
Exactly this. The thread is literally only taking about what is more cinematic, as in, looks like cinema.
We're not talking about gameplay or feel.
Given the scope outlined in the OP and the literal definition of cinematic the correct answer is that 30 is more cinematic relative to 60.
What's preferable for gaming is a completely different question.
The argument is still as stupid as the day it was first toted out. That's not to say there's anything intrinsically wrong with 30 fps, after all with solid performance and steady frame pacing you can absolutely make something that plays like a dream (Destiny on console is a prime example of this). Still, that doesn't mean that 60fps will always be preferable from a raw gameplay standpoint.
are we still arguing about this
it's obviously just an excuse to cover for technical constraints
it's obviously just an excuse to cover for technical constraints
Probably because 30fps games have motion blur, film grain, chromatic abiration and vignetting to help which makes them feel more "cinematic".
60 is objectively better.
60 is objectively better.
No, since you watch a movie and you play a videogame.
A videogame that runs at 30fps is just a game that runs at 30fps, so you just the decent amount of information when you rotate the camera and do stuff.
Almost all games aren't made of still images, frequent camera cuts and slow pans... games are dynamic, so you need as many frames you can get to have a better experience.
You can enjoy 30fps games? Of course... but the same game at 60fps will always feel better to watch and play, always.
Games aren't like movies so you can't use the frame rate to compare those type of experiences other then in cutscenes... again, the whole "cinematic" thing related to videogame is such a pile of crap.
p.s. movies runs at 24fps btw, try play a game at constant 24fps and then come here to say how "cinematic" it is...
OP
OP
I mean, if you're going to create a topic so devoid of ground as 24<30<60 iono what to tell you.
You don't watch movies at 30 fps either.
It's 23 point something
I'm happy gears 5 has the option to leave it uncapped in cinematics
I explained to you why you topic is about nothing, if you keep ignoring how differently framerate works in movies and videogame then this topic can be closed since there will be nothing to discuss other then your abstract idea of what the hell "cinematic" means.
I'm in the minority and prefer 30fps for 3rd person games. It is definitely more cinematic. I'm also a graphics whore so if sacrificing performance nets me some more shiny things to look at, I'll take that 10 times out of 10.
60fps is totally fine in FPS and racing/sports games. And I actually prefer it in games like those. But if implemented in a 3rd person game, it is like giving it the "soap opera" effect that enhanced motion options on modern TV's do to the picture.
I'm sensitive to the change and know when I'm seeing 60fps in TLoU on performance mode and 30fps in "bells and whistles" mode.
60fps is totally fine in FPS and racing/sports games. And I actually prefer it in games like those. But if implemented in a 3rd person game, it is like giving it the "soap opera" effect that enhanced motion options on modern TV's do to the picture.
I'm sensitive to the change and know when I'm seeing 60fps in TLoU on performance mode and 30fps in "bells and whistles" mode.
Yes, I feel like 30 fps is closer to how we experience things in reality. But for games responsiveness is more important.
We should also do "Are capping the frames on animations on anime fighting games like DB FighterZ a good idea or we should uncap them?"
What? A rendered frame is a still image. A filmed frame is a still image. Motion blur is a solution that mimics how a filmed frame at 24fps captures a still image. They are not THAT different. No one is igboring
60fps being objectively better is subjective. Some people might have a preference for different artistic choices, such as higher fidelity shadows & models over more responsive controls. This is all explicitly subjective when it comes to "what is better".
A few things.
First, all games are comprised of still images. That's what a "frame" is. The engine renders a series of still images and sends them to your TV.
Second, I can agree that 60fps is better for player control and responsiveness. However, "better to watch" is subjective. Some people greatly appreciate video games that present themselves similarly to traditional cinema experience (examples include Uncharted, TLOU). To say "always better" to something subjective is to be disingenuous. Nothing more.
lastly, a game rendered at 24fps would still LOOK more like a movie than a game rendered at 60fps. It wouldn't be fun to play, but that isn't the topic of discussion here. It is explicitly about the visual representation of cinema in video games.
Games are perfectly capable of creatively standing on their own two feet, that said like film gaming is a no as you visual medium son is understandable that a lot of techniques are cribbed from Film.
Also people seem to like cinematic visual quality in games, the success Sony has in its single player exclusives confirms this.
Films should be upgraded to better framerate IMO.
24fps was the bare minimum compromise between costs and not having people barfing on the theater.
24fps was the bare minimum compromise between costs and not having people barfing on the theater.
I respectfully disagree.
imagine watching the dark knight but with the speed of days of our lives. Disgusting!
It's the reason I turn off any and all "motion enhancing options on my TV"
just my opinion though.
I fully admit that i don't understand any of the technical differences between how frames work in movies compared to video games, but there must be something because i can spot a 48 fps movie/show immediately, but i don't know if a video game is 30 or 60 until i move the analog sticks.
I used to say the same thing, but the last time I played Bloodborne I got one of the worst headaches in my life and when I played again a few days later I got extremely light-headed. Maybe it's an age thing, or maybe it's because I mostly play games at 120+ FPS these days and 30 is even more of a shock. Regardless, it sucked.
Yes it's more cinematic, movies are typically 24fps so that's what people have come to expect from cinema. If you've ever watched a movie or show at a higher frame rate it looks strange. The argument isn't whether 30 fps is more cinematic, it's whether a "cinematic" frame rate is worth it.
So many edgy answers on the first page...
I honestly feel like 30fps does give me an experience that, in comparison to 60, I can only really describe as "cinematic". I have trouble articulating exactly what's going on but if I ever saw a movie in 60fps, it'd look more like a soap opera to me. Kinda off-putting, in terms of something I'm just watching, that's not animated and has the lighting/atmosphere movies tend to go for, as opposed to a play or something like it...
I honestly feel like 30fps does give me an experience that, in comparison to 60, I can only really describe as "cinematic". I have trouble articulating exactly what's going on but if I ever saw a movie in 60fps, it'd look more like a soap opera to me. Kinda off-putting, in terms of something I'm just watching, that's not animated and has the lighting/atmosphere movies tend to go for, as opposed to a play or something like it...
When people say higher framerates are objectively better, they generally mean when all else is equal. We're talking about framerate itself, not the tradeoff between framerate and other graphical priorities.
- Status