Ubisoft: Nah m8 30fps feels better than 60fps

Nicolas Guérin, World Level Design Director on Unity, told TechRadar that the decision was partly to give the game more of a cinematic gloss - though did admit that it was also tough to achieve.

"At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps. I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.

"And in other games it's the same - like the Rachet and Clank series [where it was dropped]. So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that standard because it's hard to achieve, it's twice as hard as 30fps, and its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."

Alex Amancio, the game's Creative Director, reiterated this point: "30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps. It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum.
"It's like when people start asking about resolution. Is it the number of the quality of the pixels that you want? If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?"

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/viva-la-resoluci-n-assassin-s-creed-dev-thinks-industry-is-dropping-60-fps-standard-1268241

What the hell are Ubisoft doing? I can't wait to see IGN say that 30fps and non native HD is fine for games.

I guess they haven't played TLoU Remastered, then. A higher frame rate almost transforms that game.

Didn't IGN already say (last E3?) that the eye cannot tell the difference between 30FPS and more? What a gem that was

Beyond parody

The truth is possibly in those quotes; they couldn't achieve everything at 60fps. But no, that would be too straight forward and instead we get the 30 > 60 is more cinematic bullshit started by Ready at Dawn. Bastards.

Clever move from Ubisoft. They’ve set their stool out maybe hoping other developers will support them.

>convince consumers that 30fps is best
>next generation release games at 60fps and proclaim a gaming revolution has begun

Lazy lazy ubisoft.

[iup=3585426]Dual[/iup] wrote:Clever move from Ubisoft. They’ve set their stool out maybe hoping other developers will support them.

>convince consumers that 30fps is best
>next generation release games at 60fps and proclaim a gaming revolution has begun

Lazy lazy ubisoft.

[iup=3585415]Buffalo[/iup] wrote:I guess they haven't played TLoU Remastered, then. A higher frame rate almost transforms that game.

Is it a higher framerate that made the difference or just a consistent framerate?

I'd prefer a steady 60fps but if that isn't doable I normally prefer a rock solid 30fps over an inconsistent 60fps.

Oh good. Next it will be "The target was 30fps, but there are slight dips here and there but they really aren't that noticeable".

Next Ubisoft game confirmed for paper

That is the handheld version. The next UBI platform will be MS Powerpoint.

Website

The Last of Us: Remastered is not a lesser game because of it's switch to 60fps! :fp:

Ok, are you sure this isn't a Play4Real article (gaming version of the Onion, for the uninitiated) or something, because it reads like one. Every single line is just pure, unmitigated stupid.

This reads like pure damage control, to cover up the fact that these new shiny expensive consoles can't do what they were being hyped for.

a literal idiot wrote:So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that standard because it's hard to achieve, it's twice as hard as 30fps, and its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."

My strawberry floating sides, 30fps "feels" better? No, absolutely not. Anyone who says so is at best misinformed and at worst a compulsive liar with stockholm syndrome or something, especially this "the eye can't see past 30fps anyway so it doesn't matter right?".

Go here and see for yourself. Pick a game, watch the video on the left for a few loops then watch the one on the right.

[iup=3585413]suzzopher[/iup] wrote:
Nicolas Guérin, World Level Design Director on Unity, told TechRadar that the decision was partly to give the game more of a cinematic gloss - though did admit that it was also tough to achieve.

"At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps. I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.

"And in other games it's the same - like the Rachet and Clank series [where it was dropped]. So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that standard because it's hard to achieve, it's twice as hard as 30fps, and its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."

Alex Amancio, the game's Creative Director, reiterated this point: "30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps. It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum.
"It's like when people start asking about resolution. Is it the number of the quality of the pixels that you want? If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?"

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/viva-la-resoluci-n-assassin-s-creed-dev-thinks-industry-is-dropping-60-fps-standard-1268241

What the hell are Ubisoft doing? I can't wait to see IGN say that 30fps and non native HD is fine for games.

Why would they pick 30fps over the actual cinematic standard 24fps if they're trying to recreate the cinematic look?

They can't even botch the job right.

[iup=3585439]Trelliz[/iup] wrote:
This reads like pure damage control, to cover up the fact that these new shiny expensive consoles can't do what they were being hyped for.

But games already exist that prove that's not the case. The only thing is, Naughty Dog said it was hard work. Imagine not just being able to bollock out a game with new settings and buildings and repackage it as a sequel, whenever you fancy it.

It'd be quite a culture shock at Ubi, I suspect.

bear wrote:
[iup=3585415]Buffalo[/iup] wrote:I guess they haven't played TLoU Remastered, then. A higher frame rate almost transforms that game.

Is it a higher framerate that made the difference or just a consistent framerate?

I'd prefer a steady 60fps but if that isn't doable I normally prefer a rock solid 30fps over an inconsistent 60fps.

Both, from what I can gather. It makes a big (and awesome) difference to the game.
Ubisoft aren't doing themselves any favours lately, eh? If I was an Assassins Creed fan I'd be a bit concerned. Or gamers in general to be honest - one of the largest game companies can't be arsed to hit 1080p/60fps despite having about 25,000 or what ever staff.

Venom wrote:The Last of Us: Remastered is not a lesser game because of it's switch to 60fps!

I err, didn't say it is.

I think all of us look back fondly on the days of movies on VHS. Ubisoft should forget all this HD nonsense and aim to make games as fuzzy as possible.

Website

[iup=3585452]Buffalo[/iup] wrote:
Venom wrote:The Last of Us: Remastered is not a lesser game because of it's switch to 60fps!

I err, didn't say it is.

Er. Hold your horses I'm not talking about you Buff! I'm referring to the implied meaning of Nicolas Guérin's words. He said 60fps "doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird... its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."

[iup=3585454]Moggy[/iup] wrote:I think all of us look back fondly on the days of movies on VHS. Ubisoft should forget all this HD nonsense and aim to make games as fuzzy as possible.

Maybe UBI soft should focus on those 80s style graphics games that keep coming to PSN+ that everyone other than me hates?

Ubisoft: Nah m8 30fps feels better than 60fps

Who is online

Affiliates