Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2006, 01:52:05 AM
Title: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2006, 01:52:05 AM
I was unsure which board to place this in, but since I can put it here I am going to do it, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me! Anyway, when it comes to graphics, what do you prefer, a smooth framerate or more detailed graphics that is hampered by an inconsistent or a less "Smooth" experience. Though the problem hasn't been as rampant lately, it is still there, even with with higher end PCs along with the Xbox 360 (Oblivion anyone?).
From my own personal experience I tend to be more impressed with a smooth or fluid framerate, which does suck me into the gaming experience more so than a game with a jerky or overly slow framerate. For me, I would much rather fancy lighting or texture detail in exchange for a smooth framerate (Which is one of many reasons why I enjoy Nintendo's games so much).
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Ceric on July 28, 2006, 05:09:59 AM
If it's a game that involves doing such things like taking photos, where you'll be staring at the screen alot and its relatively static, I don't mind it being a little jerky when I move away. Now if its a game where I'm constantly moving, I'm looking at you P.N. 03, then I want it really fluid and smooth. Good example of this in my mind is Warcraft Series. Warcraft 2 Blizzard choice on art style that complemented the technology. It looked really nice and ran smooth. Then look at Warcraft 3 they decided to go with the effects and the like. The game changed style doesn't look/run as well as Warcraft 2 but has some pretty effects and backgrounds. Rayman 3 so far had done a good job knowing how far to reach. I'm excited about the Wii version because the team seems to know where to stop. Then we look at another Ubisoft project, Red Steel, and that teams seems to be shooting for the stars without the know how. Knowing when to back down is just as good as knowing when to push the limits. Doing things because you can doesn't make it right or better. As long as the style is consistant I prefer Smoothness it seems.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 28, 2006, 05:31:38 AM
Smoothness plays a huge role in interactivity. It is my understanding that Nintendo wants the Wii-mote to be an extension of yourself, allowing interaction on a whole new level. Smoothness in frame rate complements this very well. As long as the environments still look good, smoothness is key. It's all about using the right tools in the right spots and you can make things look great. Photorealism isn't what its all about. Style is what its about and developers need to start learning this. Style and clean graphics have always been a huge reason for me being a Nintendo fan(not to mention the awesome gameplay).
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Nephilim on July 28, 2006, 05:47:02 AM
framerate, aslong as its over 30
for racing and online games, having around 60 is the best target to aim for
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Requiem on July 28, 2006, 06:57:13 AM
I can still enjoy a game with really really bad framerate (Super Smash Bros. 64), but in this day an age we should never have that problem. Detail is far less important to me and is something I could see being left out when making a game.
But then again, you have games like Metriod Prime which pull off both...
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Athrun Zala on July 28, 2006, 07:46:05 AM
SSB isn't a low framerate game, Zelda OoT is
and I'd take framerate over pretty graphics any day of the week....
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Requiem on July 28, 2006, 07:52:30 AM
What are you talking about?
With 4 players, the game can become INCREDIBLY slow!
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 28, 2006, 10:51:39 AM
Ocarina of Time is one of the few N64 games I DON'T have trouble with the framerate...SSB isn't even playable to me anymore...
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: WindyMan on July 28, 2006, 11:24:53 AM
Even with the extra power, games on the 360 are as choppy as they were on the current-gen systems. Except for the high-def output, there should be no other reason why games don't have a solid, fluid framerate. I would rather see the minor details at consistent 30/60 frames a second than see major details at 15~45 frames a second.
There are no reasons or excuses for Wii games to ever have unstable framerates. It's twice as powerful as the GameCube or Xbox, and only outputs in standard definition. Any developer that puts too much emphasis on graphics/effects to where the framerate suffers isn't making a Wii game the way it should be, designed around the controller first.
That's not to say developers shouldn't make pretty looking Wii games, of course. The graphical difference between a game that has a rock-solid framerate and one that looks better but is less fluid is small enough where the framerate stability is worth it, I say.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 28, 2006, 11:27:56 AM
FRAMERATE IS KING
Not only does it affect tangibility of the environment, moreso than texture detail, it affects your control accuracy if inconsistent or too low.
Seeing how F-Zero GX and Burnout 2, and sure let's throw in GT4 too, ran flawlessly at 60fps, seeing PGR3 at 30fps makes me roll my eyes. 30fps looks good in a cinematic context, but I want to see 60fps in racing games for the "solid" movement and feel. Collisions seem "harder" in F-Zero and Burnout 2 thanks to the framerate; the world is more lifelike and "touchable" since it more closely fits the "rate" at which your eyes collect images (which is extremely high and constant if you're not intoxicated). To me, going 30fps in a racing game is a step back. So WTF is next-gen for then?
I want to see all games running at a solid 60fps, especially for action-adventures. It's good for control and feel. If a game is going to scale to 30fps, then the change in resources had better yield a Resident Evil 4-level of BALANCE.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 28, 2006, 11:43:28 AM
Framerate.
Multiplayer games alone need this over detail, always.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: ShyGuy on July 28, 2006, 11:47:47 AM
Are you one of those people who "can totally tell the difference" between Quake 3 running at 100fps and Quake 3 running at 120fps?
60fps for Excite Truck and Wii Plane and Final Furlong, but SOLID 30fps for everything else and I'm ok.
Although... I wonder if 30fps vs 60fps is going to affect the feel and responsiveness of the Wiimote in games. hmmmm....
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Ceric on July 28, 2006, 11:56:58 AM
That is a good point. How is the framerate going to effect the feel of the Wiimote? Especially if you have a target of some sort follow it. You'll be like "I now I moved that there just a little bit ago." Nothing major just a feeling of it being off because you know how your arm moved.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2006, 12:03:11 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Ceric That is a good point. How is the framerate going to effect the feel of the Wiimote? Especially if you have a target of some sort follow it. You'll be like "I now I moved that there just a little bit ago." Nothing major just a feeling of it being off because you know how your arm moved.
I know I can't tell anything over 60fps on a computer, all I really care about is how fluid it is. I try to differentiate between the fps with how the framerate works within the game. It is my understand that Mario Sunshine runs at 30fps and personally I find that framerate perfect for a game like that. It is quite sad that Xbox 360 still has trouble with this, heck look at Madden 06, I could hardly play that game due to choppy visuals (they weren't even that imrpessive anyway!) and ended up going back to to the current generation versions. Hopefully the inconsistent framerate is due to the newness of the system and developers have yet to get a grasp on it. Heck the game I most impressed with visually this new generation is Dead Rising, and that is mainly due to a fluid framerate, not because of its superior detail. Speaking of framerate, remember back in the N64 days? Now those were nasty times when it came to sacrificing framerate for pretty visuals (all you need to do is look at Turok 2 or Banjo Tooie).
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 28, 2006, 12:13:10 PM
Framerate to me is more important. Artistic style can go along way without detail, but framerate issues will kill artistic styling every time.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Dirk Temporo on July 28, 2006, 01:30:58 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Requiem What are you talking about?
With 4 players, the game can become INCREDIBLY slow!
Forgot about Perfect Dark for N64, I felt framerate really ruined the experience.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 28, 2006, 02:37:58 PM
Framerate, then view distance.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Crimm on July 28, 2006, 04:57:53 PM
Put in F Zero GX and pull out to the middle of the track. Then slow way down and have a look. After you've had a good look pull back up to full speed.
That's graphics done right. It still looks fine going slow, but they designed the stages to look good at high speed without causing slowdown.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Smoke39 on July 28, 2006, 05:20:56 PM
Frame rate. Good art design is much more important to me than technical superiority. There are some old games--dated graphics and all--that I still think are gorgeous even when compared to new games with modern graphics engines.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: KDR_11k on July 28, 2006, 08:33:27 PM
If you can't keep the framerate up you're doing something fundamentally wrong. No amount of detail can make up for a bad framerate because the detail may be nice on the box but when you're in the game all you see is a slideshow. Oh, hi there Shadow of the Colossus!
Really, Ocarina of Time is horrible because of the framerate and camera.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2006, 08:36:22 PM
Quote Originally posted by: KDR_11k If you can't keep the framerate up you're doing something fundamentally wrong. No amount of detail can make up for a bad framerate because the detail may be nice on the box but when you're in the game all you see is a slideshow. Oh, hi there Shadow of the Colossus!
Really, Ocarina of Time is horrible because of the framerate and camera.
I did enjoy Shadow of Colossus, but the framerate did ruin the experience quite a bit. That was a game that could have sacrificed some visuals or just waited until it could be released on a system that could handle it.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: IceCold on July 28, 2006, 09:23:41 PM
Everyone's right; give me smooth games or give me death. F-Zero GX is wonderful because of it, even thuogh it sacrificed a bit of quality on the track and vehicles. But do you even notice that when you're going at 1200 km/h? Also, as someone else mentioned, draw distance is very important too. Mario Sunshine's draw distance was brilliant, and it really added to the game.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 28, 2006, 10:53:22 PM
The only game I can think of where limited draw distance actually worked (even though it was probaly due to technical limitations) was Superman 64, j/k. No actually the game I was thinking of was Turok 1, even though the draw distance was limited it gave the game fantastic atmosphere, sadly limited draw distance detracts more than it adds in most games.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: getter77 on July 29, 2006, 03:49:59 AM
Framerate is paramount in terms of the gaming experience. Every game should aim for 60FPS if for no other reason that if something goes unexpectedly wrong with multiplayer or co-op the game will still likely be outputting at least 30FPS.
The Wii has enough challenge on its hands in the first place...adding framerate issues to further complicate the matter of control/gameplay would be foolhardy. There is no legitimate reason...EVER...for a Wii game to have a less than optimal framerate.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Ceric on July 29, 2006, 06:35:19 AM
F-Zero on my system sacrificed stability for Smooth framerates. I still haven't been able to finish a circuit without it restarting.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: ThePerm on July 29, 2006, 08:35:19 AM
yeah warcraft 2-3 was a good example....i remember not liking their switch to 3d, my logic was that starcraft/warcracft 2 werre limited in the amount of uniuts you could have on screen and that sucked...however it would be cool if the game had starcraft graphics but had 1000s more units. Warcraft 3 was 3d......had a hero system...and yeah....um wasnt as big..just prettier.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Requiem on July 29, 2006, 09:32:21 AM
Quote Originally posted by: Ceric F-Zero on my system sacrificed stability for Smooth framerates. I still haven't been able to finish a circuit without it restarting.
I suggest you buy a new disk (or return yours), because that's not suppose to happen.
I have never had a problem with my F-Zero...
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: KDR_11k on July 29, 2006, 10:11:55 AM
however it would be cool if the game had starcraft graphics but had 1000s more units.
Blizzard won't let you select more than twelve units at once, I think with their anti-user GUI paradigms 1000 units would be hell to control. Leave the mass warfare to Chris Taylor.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Smoke39 on July 29, 2006, 03:31:47 PM
Quote Originally posted by: VGrevolution The only game I can think of where limited draw distance actually worked (even though it was probaly due to technical limitations) was Superman 64, j/k. No actually the game I was thinking of was Turok 1, even though the draw distance was limited it gave the game fantastic atmosphere, sadly limited draw distance detracts more than it adds in most games.
I was thinking the same thing. The incredibly thick fog obstructing your view kind of takes the place of thick, polygon hungry foliage obstructing your view. It also made caves and the catacombs level feel darker without making everything impossible to see. It may have been primarily to limit the number of polygons being drawn to maintain a decent framerate, but Turok is a good example of artfully working around limitations for the sake of gameplay.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: couchmonkey on July 31, 2006, 09:04:20 AM
As long as the framerate is consistent, I don't care. 30 fps is fine by me, as long as it doesn't slow down. 60 fps is nicer, but I'm willing to sacrifice it for more detail.
Someone mentioned draw distance, that's pretty darn important as well. It's the one thing I was disappointed by in Wind Waker, all those crow's nests popping out of nowhere.
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: MattVDB on July 31, 2006, 12:01:58 PM
So this past weekend I played a lot of 360. Great system. Totally buying one after this weekend's time with it. That still doesn't change the fact that I had issue with several of the games graphics.
Dynasty Warriors is the first one that comes to mind. Extremely fluid frame rate. Dozens of characters on screen. Co-op. The one thing that killed the graphics for me though, was the crazy short draw distance. We're talking 64is here. Maybe it's better in single player, but that game did not impress me like a next gen game should.
Next was GRAW. Extremely good looking game single player. Extremely poor looking game multiplayer. They seem to have kept all details for each of the screens in multiplayer, and what that did was just kill the framerate. Like to the 15 and below range. Still a fun game. Still playable, but very annoying. The most 'next gen' bit about it to me though, was not the graphics. It was the size and scale of the levels. Many many paths to take through the city helped draw you in SO much.
COD2 was where it was at though. They knew what to do. A gorgeous game single player, and an extremely fluid and good looking game multiplayer. The fact that bodies stay around on long after they've been killed is impressive (same thing in GRAW). It even gave me a kill I wouldn't have been able to get before (hiding lying down with dead bodies is fun).
I figure that if I can play TimeSplitters 2 at 60 fps, I should be able to play a FPS on the 360 at 60 fps as well. Is that to much to ask for?
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: ShyGuy on July 31, 2006, 12:23:33 PM
Hey Matt, have you played Dynasty Warriors on the PS2? How did the 360 version compare? My biggest gripe with the Dynasty/Samurai Warriors games on the PS2 were the technical limitations: draw distance, number of enemies onscreen, and much, much slowdown.
Title: RE: Framerate vs Detail
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 31, 2006, 02:06:25 PM
Framerate plz, I would like to leave the days of N64 far behind. Though with Gears of War on 360 running on a 4MB Expansion Pak, I guess that dream will never come true!
Title: RE:Framerate vs Detail
Post by: MattVDB on August 01, 2006, 08:32:53 AM
Yes I did play Dynasty Warriors for PS2, but very litte. I played less on 360, so I'm hardly qualified to make full comparisons. In my time with the 360 verson I was impressed with the number of characters on screen and the lack of slow down. The draw distance, if I had to say, was very similar to what I remember being in the PS2 version.
Although saying that, I would still have a look at it, as I really didn't play much of either.
