John Carmack: Next-Gen Consoles Will Still Target 30fps

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll be able to get the same titles, too. Right? Look what happened after Halo 2. No more Halos on PC.[/citation]

And that is a bad thing how? After the first one they all were filled with the same shooter trash that has nearly ruined shooters.

Auto regen, etc.

 

[phraun]

Movies may be shot at 24 fps, but they're played back in theaters at 48 or 72 hertz, with frames being displayed two or three times a piece depending on shutter action. The 24 fps number without context is misleading, which is why random derp fan from earlier this year is a dolt. It's also worth noting that there is no blur in a game the way there is on captured film, which further causes problems at low frame rates.

 

[phraun]

[citation][nom]Sakkura[/nom]Frames per second implies the same thing.[/citation]

No it doesn't. Frames per second in the context of games is pretty much always an average value, not a baseline minimum or a constant. There is no game on consoles today that runs at exactly 30 fps 100% of the time. When I was running through Halo 4 there were several spots where it obviously dropped into the mid/low 20s, as an example.

 

[shikamaru31789]

Honestly, I'm fine with this, I can barely see a difference beyond 30fps. I'd much rather have enhanced graphical features than I would less lag during scenes with fast movement. They do however need to aim for a steady 30, recent console games sometimes dip as low as the high teens during explosions and other intensive scenes. But the thing I want most on the next gen consoles is anti-aliasing. So many current gen console games have really bad jagged edges, with the increased power of the next-gen consoles and the framerate effiency of FXAA, anti-aliasing is really a feature came designers need to put into next-gen games.

 

[chibiwings]

I get dizzy when watching on 120Hz HDTV on Malls.
I prefer 60fps on PC. seeing the slow framerate on TV while Playing Gears of War 3 is irritating.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]supall[/nom]I wasn't aware that hz and fps were interchangeable.[/citation]

not exactly interchangable ,but when talking frame rate screen refresh rate , they kind of are


the hz listing on a monitor is the maxium speed the monitor refreshes the screen that's hz per second . so in a way the two are interchangable . but you can always have lower frame rate on a higher refresh rate and things looks fine for instance 30 fps on a 60hz tv set . where you bump into problems is going higher frames on a lower refresh rate , such as 120 fps on a 60 hz refresh rate , this causes visual tearing on the screen as the monitor can't keep up with the frame rate. Idealy you want to cap your frame rate at your monitor's refresh rate , or keep the frame rate lower, this is what the v-sync option does in most games , it locks the frame rate to go no higher than your monitor's refresh rate.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]drosencraft[/nom]Part of the confusion is between the speed of the image, and the quality. 30 fps of images loosely, poorly, tied together will look bad even compared to 24 or 20 fps. There is a limit to how many fps a human can perceive, to the point where there isn't much good that advancing fps above 30 will do. For games, however, fps accounts for more than just viewing experience. A higher frame rate usually correlates to better designed software, which means less lag or aliasing, which is what the bigger issue is. Additionally, a higher frame rate inherently means a higher pace of action within the game (enemies swarming faster, a more profound sense of speed). That also contributes to making a game look more polished.[/citation]

higher frame rate does not corelate to beter deisged software .... the smoothness of movement in a game once you get to 24+ fps or higher has noting to do with the frame rate itself and more to do with how the animators keyed the animations , it also has to with how well a game engine is at filling in the tween frames of the animation. you need to learn a little about the art of animation before speaking such nonsense.

 

[Sakkura]

No it doesn't. Frames per second in the context of games is pretty much always an average value, not a baseline minimum or a constant. There is no game on consoles today that runs at exactly 30 fps 100% of the time. When I was running through Halo 4 there were several spots where it obviously dropped into the mid/low 20s, as an example.

When you say 60 FPS or 30 FPS it's not because you're actually getting 60 or 30 frames distributed equally across a second, even though the term implies you do. This is why eg. microstuttering isn't apparent in FPS numbers.

 

[Soda-88]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll be able to get the same titles, too. Right? Look what happened after Halo 2. No more Halos on PC.[/citation]
Hmmm, Halo or Starcraft... tough one.
J/K

 

[Guest]

thing is, with 60 fps as the target, when the game does lag (to much going on) the frame rate drop to 40-30 wich isn't to much noticable. But if you target 30 fps, and the game lags the frame rate then drop to 20 and under wich is really painfull
to see.

 

[knowom]

[citation][nom]boju[/nom]LOL so what he's saying is that with 48fps film makers/directors cant trick people with cheap directing lol. dunno how far some game developers would go with trying to hide mistakes in the rendering motion.[/citation] Shouldn't have Peter Jackson filmed the movie at 72FPS rather then 48FPS for 3D seeing as in 3D is intended to give a 3 dimensional perception of depth with a axis for x, y, and z thus 3 times the standard film rate of 24FPS would seem to make more sense, but maybe I'm missing something and just thinking about in a overly technical and logical manner.

 

[Bloob]

[citation][nom]darkavenger123[/nom]CRT Hz is different from LCD, which actually not bothered by the Hz at all. Yes, you can see flicker on CRT at 60Hz thanks to the electron gun smashing on the fluoresent screen. But in LCD, there's no such thing, even at 60Hz, there's no flicker.Back to topic: I agreed there is DEFINITELY difference between 30fps and 60fps...i play both consoles and PC. But as some point out, 30fps is fine as long it is stable and consistent. Also, i find the 60fps is not neccesary in all games. Only racing, FPS and 3D fighting games affected the most.[/citation]
No flicker as in CRTs, but at least I can still see the screen "flicker" ( at 60 Hz ), and my eyes generally suck.

But yeah 30fps vs 60fps, could be argued is only situational, but 60 is just always better. If there must be a choice, for low-action titles, I'd rather have better graphics / aesthetics / content than frames.

 

[dthx]

Everyone can see the huge difference between a movie that was shot for cinema at 24fps and TV series that were filmed to play on 50Hz TV's (Europe/PAL) or 60Hz TV's (USA/NTSC). Especially if you see a scene with a travelling on buildings etc...
Anyway, I prefer a steady 30fps rather than something that varies between 18 and 60fps depending on how many objects are on the screen ...

 

[Guest]

This was the first monitor that convinced me to dump my 19" 100hz CRT : http://hk.viewsonic.com/en/products/productspecs.php?id=349
1680x1050 and real deal 120hz 2D with 3D support too. I don't give a shit about 3D and that's 16:10 thank you very much no toilet paper proportions 16:9 for me. The slightly lower than 1920 rez also let's me get away with a mid-range video card that still gets me 100+fps in the games I play. They can pry this monitor from my cold, dead hands.

 

[tstng]

30 fps is just way to low. If I play any game at under 40 it really ruins my gaming experience. I stopped playing AC3 because of this, the framerate is just horrible (still hasn't been fixed). With the new consoles I would have expected them to shot for 60, but the problem is in order to achieve anywhere near what PC's can show off in terms of eye candy, they have to stick to 30. So the new console games might look as good as current gen PC's but will not play as smooth.

 

[alidan]

i read page 1 only. so far
i want to comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNEEAkOnSuY

watch that first, it shows you within 1 minute something important.

if games want to loo more like real life, more cinimatic, than they will increase useing motion blur.
and as you can see from the video, how much of an effect that has on making it appear smooth.
you could have a 30 fps game, motion blur it, and there you go, it looks smoother than it is.

i personally despise all the blurring effects in games, like dof, motion blur, and in some cases bloom
i turn that crap off.
i get a smoother game, and i dont have to put up eith effects that make the game look wrose to me.

on a console, if they target a consistent 30fps at 1080p... im ok with it.
because im also hoping for a 720p version of the occulas rift by than too.
and i would be totally ok with 30fps with that on my head.

that said, im so glad cliff is out of the industry for now.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]eklipz330[/nom]i notice up until about 100hz, like most normal people. if you can't see past 24hz, i feel bad for you.[/citation]

you ever put active shutter 3d glasses on?
i can see the refresh rate on those things...
i need 120 hz versions before i buy into them.

[citation][nom]sacre[/nom]1000 dollars for a graphics card thats a tiny bit better than a 680, which is half the price?Whereas a console plays all of todays games which costs 250 bucks?I can see why people buy consoles. I hate consoles, but they make sense unfortunately. I love PC far too much to switch. The ability to customize the game, the graphics, etc.. have a nice monitor, a FOV of 90, mouse+keyboard is unbeatable.. its just too awesome.[/citation]

drop a 250$ GPU in a computer, (we all have computers, just not the gpu portion) and it will kick the consoles collective butts.

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Well, a 690 is about 70%-80% faster than a 680. It is a bit more than a tiny improvement, but the thing is, PC's let you decide how good the game will look. If high end hardware, you can go way beyond a console, or with a cheap PC, you will get console level quality.[/citation]

he was thinking the 670 and 680, the 690 is a sli card.
i dont think outside of intergrated you can buy a pc with console level graphics. [citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]Why stick with 30 FPS? unless they plan to stick some (sanction avoiding change) GPU in there there no excuse not to run at 60FPS[/citation]

ok. lets say that you can do 5 million pollys, with 8aa for 60fps
but you could add in some more lighting effects, some more filters, and some amount of ray tracing for 30fps.

they aren't using crappy gpus, they are pushing more than they should onto the gpu.

i game at 1920x1080 windowed and 1920x1200 fullscreen.
i dont notice shadows when the action is fast paced, so i set it to minimum
i dont notice most shadow effects, like ssao unless its deus ex level, or if its pointed out to me (witcher 2) so i turn that effect off too. water effects, again, unless im staring at the pretty water, i dont see it, so i turn it off, and with new games, and high detail models i dont notice aliasing, so i turn aa off most the time too.

i game on a 5770 right now. even if i had a 7870 i would still probably turn those effects down just so i have a buffer so i never go under 60fps.

 

[casualcolors]

[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]30 is the new 60 apparently.[/citation]

Not really. Your current-gen consoles, and the ones before them also played primarily at 30 fps. 60 fps has been reserved for select few console titles. 30 fps is the new 30 fps, and 60 fps is still primarily reserved for the PC master race.

 

[jaquith]

I'd rather spend $50~$75 more on the console with vSync up to 60 FPS/Hz. Either or both Sony and/or Microsoft should offer beefed-up versions and see which sells. Personally 'my' minimum for smooth play is 50 FPS or higher. Anyone saying they cannot tell the differences between 30 FPS and 60 FPS either doesn't play games or has a visual impairment.

However, I'm very pleased that both new consoles will be in native 1080 and thereby eliminating the bad 'interpolation' affects on LCD monitors.

 

[casualcolors]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]I'd rather spend $50~$75 more on the console with vSync up to 60 FPS/Hz. Either or both Sony and/or Microsoft should offer beefed-up versions and see which sells. Personally 'my' minimum for smooth play is 50 FPS or higher. Anyone saying they cannot tell the differences between 30 FPS and 60 FPS either doesn't play games or has a visual impairment. However, I'm very pleased that both new consoles will be in native 1080 and thereby eliminating the bad 'interpolation' affects on LCD monitors.[/citation]

Except that by the time the new consoles out, TV's are likely to have migrated to higher resolutions already. Simply put, the same issues that plague current consoles seem like they will continue to plague the next generation.

They're just too far behind the PC curve, with their exclusive titles being the best feather in their cap. Quite frankly though, aside from Nintendo's Mario and Zelda franchises I'm not sure there is a console exclusive series that I even care about anymore. Everything else is getting horribly derivative, and not in a nostalgia-inducing way.

 

[Sakkura]

Anyone saying they cannot tell the differences between 30 FPS and 60 FPS either doesn't play games or has a visual impairment.

Or they're playing on a crappy TV so it doesn't even really matter (some TVs have truly horrendous latencies).

 

[Guest]

John, how about you just stop making games? It's been a good run, but you're actually starting to hamper
the industry with your decisions lately rather than innovate it.

Maybe I'm some kind of freak, but I grew up on FPS games and 30fps does Not look smooth, especially during intense action and quick movements.

We make the mistake of thinking that if the game runs at 30fps, and we perceive motion at approximately
30fps, then well everything lines up perfectly, you catch every frame, and it looks 100% smooth.

Wrong.

In practice we fail to perceive most of these frames - we require a significantly higher number of what I will call "buffer frames" to fill in the gaps in our perception, to create a more convincing illusion of reality - where there is no such thing as frames being flashed before us - in real life it's a constant stream (and we are able to extract 30fps worth from that ultra-smooth stream in front of our eyes, if you will).

30fps sucks, it's unpleasant to play, and I'm completely opposed to the majority here: The "better" visuals are not worth a trade-off if that means limiting smoothness to 30fps.

Johns comments are taking things completely in the wrong direction. Frame-rate Matters.

Super-high resolution is completely overrated, if achieving it costs you color depth, visual boosts like hdr, and smoothness.

It does not take a very high resolution to trick your brain into seeing excellent visual fidelity. Boot up Crysis on 800x600 resolution with all other graphic settings on maximum and see for yourself - it looks incredible and runs buttery smooth. THAT is the experience we should be aiming for, on the big screens.

Another example: Play UT2003 against me and watch how my aim improves if I am running at 60fps, compared to 30fps.

Frame rate Matters. Once you see true smooth gaming, you don't want to go back. If you've never seen it, you just don't know what you're missing.

 

[Sakkura]

John, how about you just stop making games? It's been a good run, but you're actually starting to hamper
the industry with your decisions lately rather than innovate it.

Maybe I'm some kind of freak, but I grew up on FPS games and 30fps does Not look smooth, especially during intense action and quick movements.

Your reading comprehension sucks, because he's actually agreeing with you:

"There will still be lots of 30hz games, which I don’t think it is a good trade," he said. "If TVs didn’t add lag, it would be more clear cut."

He's simply saying what he thinks is likely going to happen. And he's probably right.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom] im ok with it. because im also hoping for a 720p version of the occulas rift by than too. and i would be totally ok with 30fps with that on my head. that said, im so glad cliff is out of the industry for now.[/citation]

Consoles get away with 30 FPS because their input method doesn't feel like an extension of your body, but use a mouse and 30 FPS is awful due to the input latency caused by low FPS. It causes me to get nauseated within a couple minutes.

The occulas rift is going to feel the same way, if not worse. The view changes as you turn your head. The extra latency associated with 30 FPS with a device that makes it so apparent that there is latency would make me sick, and many others.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]knowom[/nom]Shouldn't have Peter Jackson filmed the movie at 72FPS rather then 48FPS for 3D seeing as in 3D is intended to give a 3 dimensional perception of depth with a axis for x, y, and z thus 3 times the standard film rate of 24FPS would seem to make more sense, but maybe I'm missing something and just thinking about in a overly technical and logical manner.[/citation]
3D isn't created that way. You only need 2 images to create a 3D perspective. How do you think our eyes view 3D? We take two images from about 4 inches a part (from our eyes), and from that, our mind is able to see depth. 3D movies do the same thing. They generate 2 images, one from the perspective of each eye about 4 inches a part, and they have you wear glasses that make it so that each eye only sees one image while the other sees the one 4 inches to the side.

They also consider the two images created and shown for each eye as a single frame. So 24hz is used for both 2D and 3D, but as far as hardware is concerned, twice as many frames are created, but each eye only sees half, so it remains 24hz.