Ubisoft: 30 FPS Feels More Cinematic, 60FPS Not Important - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 09 October 2014 / 8,529 Views
The Assassin’s Creed developer stated earlier this week that Assassin's Creed Unity will run at the same resolution and framerate on the both the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. In an interview with TechRadar they stated 30 FPS was more cinematic and that 60 FPS is not required.
"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," said world level design director Nicolas Guérin. "It’s a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird."
"30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic," said Unity’s creative director Alex Amancio. 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."
________________________________________________________________________________________
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. Outside, in the real world, he has a passion for the outdoors which includes everything from hiking to having received his B.A. in Environmental Studies. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Sorry Ubi, that was the last straw. You now join EA in my game embargo
So it is a movie now?
Aye that's good news really, since people will be bycotting this mess of a game they can watch it in the real cinematic experience on youtube.
Personally don't care as I am not buying the game. But fuck me Ubisoft have pissed off everyone they can find over this fucking game.
I feel you bro.
Are they calling 900p @ 30 fps "push[ing] the limits of everything to the maximum"?
Launch PS3 and XB360 games were 720p @ 30 fps...
It's yet more proof that these turd party developers will just peddle to the tune of the highest bidder.
Launch X360 games were 720p? No, they were not. Gears and Halo 3 for instance were way below 720p.
ubi, dont be Microsoft
One just has to play the recently released demo of Bayonetta 2 to know that these AC devs are full of it. 60fps>resolution. Its a game, not a movie. What matters is the gameplay experience, not the cinematic one.
I agree.
I've been arguing they need to knock that down to 24 fps for that cinematic feel.
I personally think the game should ship on VHS format to give it the real old school feel as well.
And, in fact, doesn't the Xbox One look like an old VCR? Here we finally unveil their whole scheme!...
Not bad.jpg :D
Ok, they are starting to look a little too childish...
Then retire making video game industry & go make stupid movies
Cinematic
There's that fraud word again.
So are video games now fucking movies? It really depends on the game you play. But, something like Metal Gear Rising is better at 60 fps. I have played it at 30 to 40 fps and at that frame rate it feels off.
The Order 1886 runs at 30 frames per second to preserve its cinematic look, game director Dana Jan has said. Jan told Kotaku that he enjoys playing games which run at 60fps, but that affects the aesthetic of the game. Most films run at 24 fps, so The Order's framerate bridges that gap in the interest of matching the aesthetic while feeling good to play"
To be fair AC at 60fps isn't a massive improvement. The entire game is built around 30 fps. But to generalise like this is stupid. Most action games to benefit from a higher framerate.
Cinematic they want their games rofl. Okay then why do I have to pay 60 or even 70 bucks for the "movies"? I would like to buy my "cinematic experiences " for 5-10 bucks then Oh wait I already buy your "cinematic experiences" for 5 bucks on steam 1 year after release nevermind then.
You know whats not important? Visuals (in terms of bleeding edge realism crap with brown and grey) and your paycheck.
I agree in regards to a game like Assassin's Creed. It gains nothing from being 60fps, as it isn't a twitch movement game at all. The game plays perfectly well at 30, and to the vast majority of the players, the extra processing power is much better spent adding more eye candy to he lush worlds of the series.
Ubi, you know what's cinematic? My Ass.
I started playing FF XIV on the PS3. Didi it for over 6 months, and the frame rate there caps at 30fps. After moving to the PS4, where you can get 60fps, the change is huge to say the least, and I really can't go back.
So let's get this straight, everyone here knows that the game director of the Sony PS4 "exclusive" 1886 THE ORDER. Said EXACTLY the same thing right ?.
"The Order 1886 runs at 30 frames per second to preserve its cinematic look, game director Dana Jan has said.
Jan told Kotaku that he enjoys playing games which run at 60fps, but that affects the aesthetic of the game. Most films run at 24 fps, so The Order's framerate bridges that gap in the interest of matching the aesthetic while feeling good to play"
wow so funny, Ubisoft: 30fps is better than 60fps cause we say so ...lol so hard
Locked 60 fps looks far better than locked 30. The difference is very noticeable if you know what to look for. 30 isn't a slide show like 15 fps and I think that's what people look for when casually comparing the two and I believe that's why many mistake 30 for good enough. I don't believe anyone with functioning eyes can't tell the difference if they know what to look for.
I find 30 fps especially noticeable on fast moving backgrounds as seen in 2d side-scrollers or 3d games when panning the environment. It's nothing to do with twitch reflexes, it's about image quality and having the content look solid. There are plenty of online video examples and you can do test you can do to see the difference yourself.
I would speculate this is because my eyes attempt to follow the background or objects as they move. Yet, although my eye's might follow an object smoothly and try and gather as much light as possible to build the clearest picture, the fact the image itself makes a series of jumps as it travels across the screen means my eye is actually gathering a messed up jumpy image making it seem less solid, and in some games, such as 2d side scrollers (Which fortunately are normally 60fps), it can make things hard to follow and even an eye sore.
60 fps only looks more cinematic because you're used to that on the big screen. It certainly does not look more realistic. We don't see the REAL world in slow framerates. 60 fps isn't perfect but it's a vast improvement over 30 and it's close enough for most purposes.
I think actually 24fps would be ideal for every game except shooters and fighters.
I think you haven't even played anything at 24 FPS and thus fail to understand it also affects user input, i.e. the responsiveness of you mashing buttons on your controller.
I 100% agree with their decision to lock at 30fps. 60fps is only necessary for games that require twitch reflexes. Otherwise, it makes everything feel fake and weird (well, moreso than usual).
Now, 900p? I'm not so sure.
I agree with them. Now the reaction of some people is just hilarious, like the world is going to end tomorrow because of that :)
If you accept anything people tell you, you're going to end up being pushed around a lot. Other people seem to think Ubi's reasoning for this decision is false, and so do I. The decision itself might be the correct one, for the most part at least, but the reasoning definitely isn't. No one chooses 30 FPS over 60 FPS for any other reasons than technical because 60 FPS is superior to 30 fPS in every single case in video games.
