PC LA Noire locked to 30 fps, WTF

[GigaHz]

I picked it up on the Steam Sale for that reason alone. I, like many of the people in this thread, know that it's locked at 30fps for the facial capture animations they've used. But now that I've spent some time with the game, I can't see myself playing and enjoying this game through a higher frame rate.

I'll explain.

There's a reason why Film Makers shoot at 24fps and not as fast as their camera will allow them to. A slower frame rate for whatever reason looks and feels more cinematic. And that's exactly what LA Noire is, a cinematic experience. Nothing reminds me more that I'm playing a video game than constant 60fps, especially for cinematics. It's why I never really got fully immersed in the Half Life 2 story. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible story. I was just taken out of it at moments.

 

[veloper]

I find it hilarious how nobody gives a shit about movies and TV playing at 30FPS, but if a video game plays at the same framerate it's world war mother fucking three.

That's because film is entirely passive. You won't notice a delay between your input and the visuals, becasue there is no input. That's a the big difference.

I notice choppiness in film a whole lot faster than I notice it in games. Just for point of example, I logged 39 hours in Saint's Row the Third, but the only time my FPS went above 25 was when I was in SERC or a tunnel. Did I care? NOPE! Having too damn much fun.

Well atleast you're not blind them, like some posters here, just slow to react.

In any case, choppiness in a film doesn't matter as much for most people, because the reel will reach the end safely even if you pass out during the show.
In a game, high fps will give the fast player an edge, while slow fps are a handicap.

Here, let me show you what my Give-A-Fuck-O-Meter registers regarding how well I do in a game.

I honestly don't care. I play games for fun. If I'm having fun at a 1:45 KDR, then so be it. I'm having fun. That's all that matters. I don't even play online all that much because of it, and when I do it's usually coop. In the off chance I do play against other players I'm usually A: The only one in the server genuinely having fun, and B: near the bottom of the score sheet. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

How you personally care to play, is irrelevant.
What's odd here is that you care SO much about this issue, that you reckon other people, such as the TS shouldn't be allowed to want higher framerates.

 

[Joccaren]

Here, let me show you what my Give-A-Fuck-O-Meter registers regarding how well I do in a game.

I honestly don't care. I play games for fun. If I'm having fun at a 1:45 KDR, then so be it. I'd rather have fun at 1:45 than be frustrated at 45:1. All that matters is that I'm having fun. I don't even play online all that much because of it, and when I do it's usually coop. In the off chance I do play against other players, I've got 120-ish hours in TF2 so sometimes I do have minor brain hemorrhages, I'm usually A: The only one in the server genuinely having fun, and B: near the bottom of the score sheet. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

1. Thankyou for that picture. That will be perfect for use on many occasions.
2. I find it funny you start out by saying that you don't get why OTHERS complain about bad FPS, then back up your statement with the fact that YOU don't care about the effects bad FPS have on your game. A fair bit of extrapolation to assume that all others care as little about success in a game due to FPS as you do. Numerous in this thread have stated they care a fair bit.


Semi - OT: I love how a lot of people say things like 'Why would you need above 30FPS, its not like an FPS where you need fast reflexes'. Walk around all day blinking constantly. If you start driving, or crossing a road, or performing an activity that might be dangerous, you can leave them open. I can guarantee no-one will follow this through. Why? Well for one it would be annoying, for 2 - you could barely see. Everything would be quite choppy, and it would cause delays in even the simplest of actions.
This is what it is like dropping from 60 to 30 FPS in a game. That extreme? Not quite. There usually isn't any full on blackness whilst doing so, but that stutter that you notice between what you see before you close your eyes and what you see when you open them is pretty much the same difference as 60 to 30 FPS, if you can blink at a reasonable pace. Otherwise it is slower (Between 2 and 3 blinks per second I count as a reasonable pace. That is an estimate, as I did not actually measure, but I think its a reasonable estimate).
When walking around your house though, you don't need to be able to see what's going on with lightning fast reflexes, you only need to see general changes so you don't hit one of the inanimate objects, or an animate one. The problem is, its annoying. If you are unwilling to carry out this challenge, and actually do it, for at least the next week of your life, do not tell the OP that they should be fine with 30 FPS.

OT: That is absolute crap. I had thought about getting it, though only if real cheap as its not the type of thing I'll usually play, but that rules it out entirely. Its this whole backwards process of Video Game Development, and I won't support it at all.
In all reality, I can only tell a slight difference between 60 and 30 FPS in a non-interactive scene, though it becomes far more noticeable when given the opportunity to interact.
Stuff like this shouldn't happen. Yes, your primary audience was console. It would not have taken that much more effort to record it at 60FPS the first time, then software downscale it to 30FPS for consoles, than to record it at 30FPS and cap a framerate because of it.
I personally put this on the same level as Skyrim capping at 2Gb RAM usage - Something done either through total neglect for the PC audience, or something done to deliberately piss them off (Sometimes I can't tell which one - I blame Ubisoft for that).

 

[veloper]

Here, let me show you what my Give-A-Fuck-O-Meter registers regarding how well I do in a game.

I honestly don't care. I play games for fun. If I'm having fun at a 1:45 KDR, then so be it. I'd rather have fun at 1:45 than be frustrated at 45:1. All that matters is that I'm having fun. I don't even play online all that much because of it, and when I do it's usually coop. In the off chance I do play against other players, I've got 120-ish hours in TF2 so sometimes I do have minor brain hemorrhages, I'm usually A: The only one in the server genuinely having fun, and B: near the bottom of the score sheet. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

1. Thankyou for that picture. That will be perfect for use on many occasions.
2. I find it funny you start out by saying that you don't get why OTHERS complain about bad FPS, then back up your statement with the fact that YOU don't care about the effects bad FPS have on your game. A fair bit of extrapolation to assume that all others care as little about success in a game due to FPS as you do. Numerous in this thread have stated they care a fair bit.


Semi - OT: I love how a lot of people say things like 'Why would you need above 30FPS, its not like an FPS where you need fast reflexes'. Walk around all day blinking constantly. If you start driving, or crossing a road, or performing an activity that might be dangerous, you can leave them open. I can guarantee no-one will follow this through. Why? Well for one it would be annoying, for 2 - you could barely see. Everything would be quite choppy, and it would cause delays in even the simplest of actions.
This is what it is like dropping from 60 to 30 FPS in a game. That extreme? Not quite. There usually isn't any full on blackness whilst doing so, but that stutter that you notice between what you see before you close your eyes and what you see when you open them is pretty much the same difference as 60 to 30 FPS, if you can blink at a reasonable pace. Otherwise it is slower (Between 2 and 3 blinks per second I count as a reasonable pace. That is an estimate, as I did not actually measure, but I think its a reasonable estimate).
When walking around your house though, you don't need to be able to see what's going on with lightning fast reflexes, you only need to see general changes so you don't hit one of the inanimate objects, or an animate one. The problem is, its annoying. If you are unwilling to carry out this challenge, and actually do it, for at least the next week of your life, do not tell the OP that they should be fine with 30 FPS.

OT: That is absolute crap. I had thought about getting it, though only if real cheap as its not the type of thing I'll usually play, but that rules it out entirely. Its this whole backwards process of Video Game Development, and I won't support it at all.
In all reality, I can only tell a slight difference between 60 and 30 FPS in a non-interactive scene, though it becomes far more noticeable when given the opportunity to interact.
Stuff like this shouldn't happen. Yes, your primary audience was console. It would not have taken that much more effort to record it at 60FPS the first time, then software downscale it to 30FPS for consoles, than to record it at 30FPS and cap a framerate because of it.
I personally put this on the same level as Skyrim capping at 2Gb RAM usage - Something done either through total neglect for the PC audience, or something done to deliberately piss them off (Sometimes I can't tell which one - I blame Ubisoft for that).

That's a large wall of text wasted on someone who has already backed out of his opinion and left the discussion.
OT: it's not a matter of pissing the PC audience off. It's just about making the port as cheap as possible, with very little effort or creativity.

If interpolating the facial animation was such a big effort for the devs, the logical next best thing would be to cap the frames, ONLY during facial close ups. Shame they didn't go that route.

 

[kasperbbs]

Didnt notice it, dont care. You dont need 60 fps while searching houses for evidence, what im more concerned about is that some dialogue doesnt make much sense, you choose doubt and your character threatens to smash someones face in.

 

[El Presidente]

I can't imagine it being a problem for a game like LA Noire, if it was a fast-paced shooter I can see the issue, but it's hardly an action game.

 

[Bad Jim]

I need at least 40-50 or the game feels like shit.
It's weird, on consoles I can take a shit framerate but not on my PC, it needs to be high.

The eye can't see individual frames even at 30fps. What you notice is when things start moving two or more pixels between frames. A single pixel spot, that travels two pixels between frames, will have no effect on the pixel in between, and the eye will pick up on that sort of thing.

Consoles can get away with lower framerates for two reasons.

1) You can't mouselook, which is by far the easiest way to make things move around the screen quickly. In theory there is a way to blur it, but I don't think they bother.

2) Console games run in fairly low resolution, like 720p. This makes one pixel a greater distance. Try running your PC games in 720p and see how smooth they seem, even if you were running higher resolutions at max framerate.

 

[lacktheknack]

Why do people make such a big deal about framerates? You can't notice the difference anyway.

My thundering head and the pounding in my eyes say otherwise. I can detect a change in FPS up to 80 to 90 FPS, and cannot deal with 30 and below for more than an hour or two.

How do you watch movies then? They are 24 FPS. Or TV. Or any video footage at all?

Simple... in small doses. I cannot marathon-watch anything.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Didnt notice it, dont care. You dont need 60 fps while searching houses for evidence, what im more concerned about is that some dialogue doesnt make much sense, you choose doubt and your character threatens to smash someones face in.

I can't imagine it being a problem for a game like LA Noire, if it was a fast-paced shooter I can see the issue, but it's hardly an action game.

I love the argument that all you do in this game is stand around and look at evidence or just look at peoples faces during questioning so the low frame rate is fine. If there were no high speed chases in cars and on foot or shoot-out's occurring all the time, I would have conceded the point. Unfortunately for your arguments there are plenty of parts to this game that are action orientated and seem to stutter when played through. This was my perception before even knowing there was a limit to the FPS. Hence why I started this thread once I found the source of my annoyance with this title.

I am loving the game for it's novel game play mechanics. I just wish it did not shout stutter at me when ever I'm driving around town.

I also love how whenever something that is standard for in PC games falls by the way side (like unlocked fps or anti-aliasing, etc), people are so quick to point out that it was not needed and they cannot see the problem. I have nothing but disdain for your ilk.

 

[ph0b0s123]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

You do know that films and games have different motion requirements, right? A game like LA Noire is third person, so everything on the screen moves except for the character being played. In movies, most of the screen / the background, is constant for most of the time and only the characters move. The only time you can compare to games is when you have a slow pan across a scene, like the one I just saw at the beginning of Cowboys and Aliens. Or the background when watching a panning shot in an F1 race. Those tend to stutter like hell.

That's why there are TV's out there with 100, 200 even 400 hz 'technology' that process the 24 frame image and puts in more in between frames so the thing looks smoother. If smoothness was not an issue for 24 frame media, that whole post processing technology would not be need to be sold with TV's...

 

[ph0b0s123]

Rockstar released a new patch during the week, bringing DX 11 support.

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/20611/directx-11-support-added-in-pc-title-update-for-la-noire-the-com.html

Although the new DX 11 path will add not new graphics wizardry, it is a more optimised path that removes all of the jerkyness for the game. It is still locked at 30 FPS, but is smooth as butter now. Anyone holding off buy this great game due to the 30 FPS lock should now have no excuse not to have a go...

 

[RA92]

I find it hilarious how nobody gives a shit about movies and TV playing at 30FPS, but if a video game plays at the same framerate it's world war mother fucking three.

Movies are shot with object blur, while games only support motion blur. So lower FPS is much more noticeable in games.