Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I don't want to piss one everyone's perception of what they "personally" consider to be "objectively" better, but I can't stand looking at things that are 60 FPS.

I can always tell the difference and it always looks worse.
So you can take your "objective fact" and shove it. I'd think of all people Jim would have the common decency not to call his opinion an objective fact and claim science supports something that is obviously his opinion.

Thank god for the improper usage of the word objective

Just have to note: "cinematic" itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Launching myself between rows of seats in the movie theater in Duke Nukem 3D or taking out every mook in a room as I slide across a table in slow motion in Max Payne is "cinematic"- that is, it feels like a well-produced scene successfully designed to bring feelings of excitement and a rush of adrenalin, much like an action sequence in a movie.

By contrast, of course, what Ubisoft is doing is trying to spin a shortcoming as a positive. Not surprising, but that's no reason to buy the line.

Yeah 30 certainly feels better than 60, it's not like when playing at 60fps the gameplay is buttery smooth or anything like that, that's just your mind lying to you. Let's believe Ubisoft instead.

Surely the people at Ubisoft that spout this garbage don't actually believe it. Of course they don't, they just assume that we will believe them because consumers are 'stupid'. Fucking Ubisoft.

Grach:
Oh, Ubi, Ubi... When will you stop getting flogged?

When they stop putting on the gimp suit and begging for it.

The problem is that console gamers do not put up much of a stink when their games don't hit 60FPS at full HD resolutions. That was the promise of this new console generation and it is not, by and large, being met.

Show me an Xbone or PS4 game that looks as good as The Witcher 2 and runs at 60 FPS. Granted, one required a computer reminiscent of the monolith from A Space Odyssey, but it also ran on the Xbox 360. That was a fucking incredible achievement.

Right now, console games look much as they always have with some shinier textures, occasionally at higher resolutions, but still stuck at 30 FPS.

ghalleon0915:
snip

Got a link? I'd like to see if it's nearly as bad.

Ubisoft: We totally borked the graphics of Watch_Dogs, downgraded them significantly from the E3 showing, and intentionally hobbled the PC release... and it was a smash hit that sold millions. Thank you, everyone, for letting us get away with it. We can't wait to get away with it again and again and again until you finally stop buying our games like sheep.

I really don't know how to "solve" this problem. The solution is to get people to stop buying the same old thing every year... but the people willing to do that are far fewer than the people who need their "fix", and Ubisoft (and EA, and Activision, and countless others) know this.

It was like Ubisoft decided to go with the worst possible answer for 900p/30fps. They might have been able to get away with "When we were designing Assassin's Creed Unity we looked at our main vision and goals and made every decision towards that vision and goals. When we set out to make a game with real time missions while simultaneously interacting with your friends we did not want to compromise. Could we get the game running at 1080p 60fps on these consoles? Yes, but because of various network types and speeds we wanted to take some of the load off of the network to ensure that as many people as possible have the same experience."

If that was what they went with I might have said, "yeah, a lot of people have crappy internet so if it makes the game run more consistently across various networks good on them."

But they went with, "oh, we wanted to avoid controversy"? You can't just say you want to avoid controversy by saying that. By saying that did nobody at Ubisoft think, "Think might actually be controversial."

"Framerate doesn't matter"

Have a gander here: http://gfycat.com/SaltyGraveAmazondolphin

This applies to most games not only FPS.

Thank you Jim for this video..thank God for you!

Can't they just be honest and say "look, we'd love to have it run at 60 FPS. But already, the game will need to sell 3-5 million units in order to break even. If we pushed for 60 FPS, we'd have to not only shrink levels down in size and delay the game for another YEAR, but we'd need to sell 10 million copies to break even. We are not willing to do that for the sake of 60 FPS. We are making the game look as gorgeous as we can, but there are some things that just aren't realistically feasible, and we're sorry reality can't match up to those expectations."?

I think that would be a lot better than the bullshit they're spewing now.

nevarran:

Akexi:
With that said, give it time for modders to look through the game code and files; if possible, they'll unlock the framerate just as they restored the graphical fidelity to Watch Dogs. IF you haven't noticed, some gamers will attempt to get all they can out of their games and the PC platform is a good platter for a dissection.

The problem is, that often when a game is developed with 30fps(for example) in mind, crucial aspects of the game are based on that number. And if you unlock the frames, you create a diss-balance within the game. Like Skyrim's physics for example, even a single frame above 60 would cause serious bugs (flying objects, underwater physics activating when not underwater, etc...). The AI, I think, is also refreshed with the framerate.
It's good to have those modifications, but they don't always solve the issue.

An all true circumstance when it comes to altering base code. That said, I kind of wanted to end my semi rant on a good note than concluding on Jim's glaring display of ignorance between the all too well known deficiencies in potential between the current gen consoles and modern gaming PC's. I hold no enmity towards the consoles, don't get me wrong. Jim's lambasting of Ubisoft of having to most likely lock the resolution and framerate for the sake of the console performance and then having to do the same for PC because last time I checked, time frames for any project need to be adhered to and then dropping in his growing interest into PC gaming just shows his lack of knowledge with said hardware. Also, the use of the remastered Last of Us as an example? By that circumstance, Jim should be comparing it to a remastered version of Assassin's Creed 2 instead of a brand new game.

ghalleon0915:
It's too bad the Bioware news blurb didn't make it in time for Jim's video, would have been interesting to see his take on that in correlation to Ubisoft's announcement. I do wonder about Ubisoft though, it seems that everytime they open their rhetorical mouth they get themselves in trouble.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Unity and Rogue come out.

Also, damn Jim your podium is crowded now; I remember when it was just Willem Dafoe now he's got friends.

I shudder if Jim gets the job of reviewing the games when they're finally released. All the bollocks that Jim calls out Ubisoft for might color his opinion of the finished product.

OT: Do Ubisoft's developers and spokespeople live on the same planet? It's like all their programmers and engineers are the cast of Dilbert, but all their press releases are done by the Pointy-Haired Boss.

Madd the Sane:
After doing some research, it seems like there is a female PC you can play as in Assassin's Creed: Unity... If you bought some DLC. Which, no doubt, people will buy just to get said character.

Not really in Unity, but if you buy Unity's season pass, you'll get a completely separate game (a stylized 2D side-scroller set in China) with a female PC. So Unity is still maximum dudeage in the PC section, but at least they made a new game in a new setting people have been begging for a long time. Only it's not a main game and it's an entirely different genre.

OT: Ubi pls.

Did Microsoft pay them to do this? That wouldn't even be surprising at this point. I mean, there is no other reason why Ubisoft would not utilize the PS4 the best they could, it doesn't matter to them which version people are going to buy. I guess? But it would matter to Microsoft if more people got the PS4 version because of 1080p/60 fps. I don't even know anymore, but Ubisoft should probably stop saying stupid shit if they are so eager to "avoid debate and stuff".

I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.

I don't get it, they should make it run stable at 1080p 60fps first and then pump more into the better lighting and textures. And i am sorry but if you cannot get a game to run at a solid [email protected] even on the xbox you are doing it wrong, your engine is just shit or your textures are not optimised or something

PC was running the first half life at 1600x1200 higher than 60fps year and years ago on hardware 100s if not 1000s of times less powerful than an xbox one. Just scale back the lighting a bit or remove a few people from the crowd or have people code more creatively.

People may not know why a game is better but it someone in front of the exact same game at 60 vs 30 and they will feel the difference even if they don't know what that difference is caused by.

I mean come on use your testers better. Ever heard of double blind trials ? Randomly put your testers in a room get them to play at 60 or 30 but don't tell them , don't even tell the people who are running the test and look at the results, i would bet you 200 quid that every single one who plays at 60 will rate the game higher on a scale of 1-10 for how it feels than the ones who play at 30, its not an objective thing it has been proven and tested in a manner similar to the above that 60 is better than 30, its not open for debate its simple testing.

And with resolution, yes on a tv several feet away its harder to notice a lower res but why sacrifice resolution for other graphical enhancements like AA when a higher rest will reduce the need for them. Why have an extra actor in that crowd or some more ground clutter when you can have a higher rest that makes things look smoother, its like making your game look better for free no extra code or new tech just reduce load so you can pump up the res.

Next big debate draw distance!

This frame rate business is really becoming tedious. Honestly having a game at 30 fps is fine so long as it runs smoothly, but across all platforms it seems like Ubisoft is failing to even keep it consistent at 30. Not enough time has passed between the eight gen's beginning and now but it's not a good sign.

60 fps? Not relevant if you can't get your frame rate consistent. Hence why Knack was not celebrated for its frame rate.

If 60fps is good for shooters why is Ubisoft Montreal aiming for 1080/30 with Far Cry 4?

So what are you going to do about it Jim?

You're the reviews editor at The Escapist, it should be easy for you to institute a policy that any game which runs at sub-60fps is specifically marked down and that it is mentioned in the review that this is why it's happening.

Hit them in their metacritic scores.

After all, the fact that reviews never have marked games down for failing to be 60fps and will frequently mention that graphical compromises have been made to get to 60 (equivocating over whether it's an overall benefit) is why game developers don't actually chase it as a feature.

canadamus_prime:
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.

Well they are still French ,so I don't think they can win that award. :P

I have a simpler reason Jim.

Ubisoft have bad coders.

If 4A games can with less people and a much smaller budget make a 1080P 60fps game like Metro Last light Redux that looks QUITE A BIT better then Unity...

THIS time it is NOT the (otherwise pathetic) consoles fault. This time. It is Ubisofts fault. For throwing money at incompetent coders.

BlueJoneleth:

canadamus_prime:
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.

Well they are still French ,so I don't think they can win that award. :P

Oh right. I forgot. Well there is Ubisoft Montreal, so worst company in Canada?

Or Ubisoft, maybe you should give Assassins Creed a year or two off so that your developers can actually catch up with the technology and make the best experience possible. And to give the people who are utterly burnt out on the series a chance to actually miss the games.

Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don't know.

The problem with Ubisoft is that they feel they can get away with trying to shove BS down our throats.

And we let them. Remember when we all bitched and moaned about all the horse crap revolving around Watch_Dogs, and proclaim Ubisoft was on equal footing with EA in terms of how they treat customers? And yet everyone, fucking everyone flocked to their local stores and made Watch_Dogs one of the fastest selling new IPs ever.

Ubisoft isn't going to stop until we stop empowering them.

themilo504:
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don't know.

Frames per second, so the number of images displayed every second on your screen. Framerate has to be consistent cause otherwise it cause a chopping effect in a game.

Most movies use 24 fps. For games 30 is usually considered the minimum bearable, but 60 has more or less been the standard for pc games for years now. People were hoping the new gen will move consoles up to 60 fps too, even devs announced it, but it seems the xbox one & ps4 are not powerful enough, so now we have ton of PR people telling 30 fps is fine.

Madd the Sane:
After doing some research, it seems like there is a female PC you can play as in Assassin's Creed: Unity... If you bought some DLC. Which, no doubt, people will buy just to get said character.

Oh wow, if that's true, then I see now where it was they got off stating it's 'too resource hungry' to create a female protagonist. At the money-draining platform. For fuck sake.

OT: Saying that 30fps is better and more cinematic to someone like me who spends about 2/3rds of my day staring at a 50" TV is just going to make me tell you to fuck off, Ubisoft. Now while it's not a huge-big-hairy (I can play most games that run at 30fps relatively well), I'll quote Shrekfan above:

shrekfan246:
game developers and publishers are actively negating one of the inherent benefits of playing on PC in the first place

The 30FPS thing is actually what made me sneer at the announcements for The Evil Within, the upcoming horror, because they said exactly the same fucking thing , that 30 frames is just 'better' and 'more cinematic' and it's part of the 'artist's vision for the game'. I want sixty frames because I like the smoothness and I'm quite a reflex-based gamer, therefore relying on a higher framerate to give my brain the feedback it wants. But now publishers are telling me that i'm "doing videogames wrong", apparently.

This sounds suspiciously like it's following in the vein of The XBOne having to change its name from "Xbox 720" because the thing can't actually reliably play games at 720p. This is showing the fallacy of a graphics driven game industry, where in the field of flashy particle effects and one million polygon faces and 1000 NPC scenes, eventually something has to give way.

BlueJoneleth:

themilo504:
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don't know.

Frames per second, so the number of images displayed every second on your screen. Framerate has to be consistent cause otherwise it cause a chopping effect in a game.

Most movies use 24 fps. For games 30 is usually considered the minimum bearable, but 60 has more or less been the standard for pc games for years now. People were hoping the new gen will move consoles up to 60 fps too, even devs announced it, but it seems the xbox one & ps4 are not powerful enough, so now we have ton of PR people telling 30 fps is fine.

It's more than that.

Between 30 and 60FPS there is a noticable increase in the fluidity of onscreen animations because more discrete steps are rendered and thus the motion looks more natural to the brain.

But also there's another element to the frame rate, which is the input delay, because the length of time between the game processing an input and the effects of the input beginning to happen on screen is tied to the frame rate, games with lower frame rates have a longer delay between input and onscreen effect and if the frame rate is low enough, or the input timings demanding enough, this can become perceptible.

In the specific case of Assassin's Creed I'm sure they can actually get away with 30fps because the input timings are famously loose, press X sometime in the same general era as an enemy attack, get an instant kill counter. Slow games get away with it as well, Dark Souls manages to survive 30FPS (if that occasionally) because combat is slow as hell and anticipating attacks and openings is more important than reacting to them.

So whilst 60FPS is always better, it's less worse for some games to be at 30 than others.

Silentpony:
Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?

I can sort of agree with you here, I'm in the same boat as not knowing what half this technological mumbo jimbo is about, but I think the anger mostly comes from Ubi's condescending attitude and the fact that it was developers who pushed this stuff in the first place.

Also, indie games pick less developed graphics for cost reasons and due to their choice of aesthetics, ACU has a realistic look and has been claiming next gen since day one so it can't use the latter reason and the first seems self imposed.

Charcharo:
I have a simpler reason Jim.

Ubisoft have bad coders.

In fairness, the code is probably fine. It's more likely that the artists have put too much eye candy in and no-one wants to scale down their precious artwork for something as trivial as making the game playable.

canadamus_prime:
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.

You probably mean the worst company in France. It would probably never obtain that title, since French probably would rather give that honour to Infogrames (which nowadays hides under Atari's brand label to avoid brand-exposure, it is that bad). Mainly because they are well-known there for making lots of shovelware (though a few of their titles are still well-remembered there, but very few).

One has to wonder though if they are as lying to the people in their home country. I do not know.

Bad Jim:

Charcharo:
I have a simpler reason Jim.

Ubisoft have bad coders.

In fairness, the code is probably fine. It's more likely that the artists have put too much eye candy in and no-one wants to scale down their precious artwork for something as trivial as making the game playable.

*looks at Watch Dogs on PC*

Nope. Am certain it is just shit coding/optimization.

Metro looks MUCH better. Not a little, MUCH better. The only thing it has less is NPCs and theoretical space around the character. The actual AI probably wont be that good on Unity though.

4A achieved more, with the same hardware, at higher resolutions and 60 fps. With less money and less people on the project.

Jimothy Sterling:
... That PC's have been doing for years...

Uh, I don't mean to split hairs here but we both know that it all depends on how much money you invested in your PC, Jim. To run any modern game at 60 FPS takes AT LEAST a $700 machine. A little less than twice what a new XOne/PS4 console costs. In fact, for 60 FPS with high graphics settings, it'll probably cost more.

Arnoxthe1:

Jimothy Sterling:
... That PC's have been doing for years...

Uh, I don't mean to split hairs here but we both know that it all depends on how much money you invested in your PC, Jim. To run any modern game at 60 FPS takes AT LEAST a $700 machine. A little less than twice what a new XOne/PS4 console costs. In fact, for 60 FPS with high graphics settings, it'll probably cost more.

Graphical settings are in games for a reason.

Remember when before the new consoles released people still said you need expensive PCs to play games? That was a lie.

Almost all PS3 and Xbox 360 games since 2010 have been on Low or ULTRA low settings.

Want to match the PS4 on a lets say 500 dollar machine? Lower to medium-high. And you may even BEAT it.

Remember people, Ultra settings = PC. Medium - High = Xbone and PS4. Low-Ultra low- even below that = X360 and PS3.

BlueJoneleth:

themilo504:
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don't know.

Frames per second, so the number of images displayed every second on your screen. Framerate has to be consistent cause otherwise it cause a chopping effect in a game.

Most movies use 24 fps. For games 30 is usually considered the minimum bearable, but 60 has more or less been the standard for pc games for years now. People were hoping the new gen will move consoles up to 60 fps too, even devs announced it, but it seems the xbox one & ps4 are not powerful enough, so now we have ton of PR people telling 30 fps is fine.

I wonder why the XBone and PS4 aren't powerful enough. You would THINK that improvements would be abound for a brand "new" console generation, but I see failure after failure with both consoles in proving why they should exist in the first place. If neither are going to improve gaming hardly at all, why should we even bother?

EDIT: Because I probably have no idea what I am talking about, would it be expensive to have powerful console machines?

Charcharo:
Want to match the PS4 on a lets say 500 dollar machine? Lower to medium-high. And you may even BEAT it.

Uh... Considering that I have a $750 recent laptop that can't even run Far Cry 2 on medium settings and a reduced resolution without getting choppy, I think you're very wrong.

Heh... Jim with children.

*Mental image of Jimmie-Boy pummeling his podium with that baby doll in Think of the Children.*

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here