Author Topic: Framerate vs Detail (Read 10039 times)

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).

Ceric · « **Reply #1 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.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #2 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).

Nephilim · « **Reply #3 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

Requiem · « **Reply #4 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...

Athrun Zala · « **Reply #5 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....

Requiem · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2006, 07:52:30 AM »

What are you talking about?

With 4 players, the game can become INCREDIBLY slow!

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #7 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...

WindyMan · « **Reply #8 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.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #9 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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2006, 11:43:28 AM »

Framerate.

Multiplayer games alone need this over detail, always.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #11 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....

Ceric · « **Reply #12 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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #13 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).

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #14 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.

Dirk Temporo · « **Reply #15 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!

A challenger appears.

http://www.wallpapersdirectory.com/papers/perfectdarkss.jpg

eljefe · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:18:18 PM »

framerate coupled with proper animation
and a distint visual style

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:31:50 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
What are you talking about?

With 4 players, the game can become INCREDIBLY slow!

A challenger appears.

http://www.wallpapersdirectory.com/papers/perfectdarkss.jpg

Forgot about Perfect Dark for N64, I felt framerate really ruined the experience.

Sir_Stabbalot · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:37:58 PM »

Framerate, then view distance.

Crimm · « **Reply #19 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.

Smoke39 · « **Reply #20 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.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #21 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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #22 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.

IceCold · « **Reply #23 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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #24 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.

News:

Author Topic: Framerate vs Detail (Read 10039 times)