The Division Aiming for 30fps

[carnex]

Both are relative, and you have to agree to that.

Input lag... it can show but even if it hits theoretical maximum of 33.33ms is hardly noticeable. Input lag from other causes trumps it and in most cases it stays well below 33.3ms.

Stuttering occurs when it falls below 30fps. Or below any other set frame rate. majority would prefer 30fps without dips over 60fps with dips since dips in frame rate is much more noticeable than difference between 30 and 60fps. Or it can occur due to overall poor animation.

We all have out own little annoyances. Or even physical problems like motion sickness. But, in my opinion whole debate is wonky from the start. It's not about which is better, that much is clear. It's more about is it worth it. And that's where I have to say "it depends". And it depends on lots of things.

Quake 3 is much better at 60fps since in that game you swoop around like a mad man. Gran turismo? Ofcourse, sense of speed is crucial, you don't have time to look at rev meter all the time. Fallout 3/NV? Not really, it's slow paced and steady, there are no fast movements that would really highlight the difference. See what I mean?

As far as personal issues go, I can't really talk about them. I'm really tolerant of lots of crap when the atmosphere is just right. Framerate, controls, sound, graphics... you name it. If it grabs me, I tolerate the rest.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Cant blame them at all that it runs 30fps on consoles. The game does seem ambitious and not just purely around textures and models, everything around it seems rather dynamic so yeah... hate the consoles, not the game.

Personally, after Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3 Ubisoft has lost my trust until they start releasing games that actually look like their "live demos" from E3. The Division does look good, but I'm not sure if what we're seeing is the Division or not. Maybe it'll be better since it's only current-gen but after Watch Dogs on PS4 looked like crap compared to the E3 demo I'm stills sceptical.

 

[Shadowstar38]

What FPS a developer chooses to run is never indicative of the actual quality of their game. So despite this "issue", I'm sure this game can still turn out fine.

 

[Manlyburger]

Who cares? I do.

You prefer graphics over gameplay? Fine. I would take shitty graphics with unlimited FPS any time. More information, more control, more fun.

Explain me how 30 fps affects gameplay outside fast paced shooters, fighting games and driving simulators. Now how it looks better and smoother, how it affects gamepley.

Lag? You do play online. 30vs60fps lag is laughable compared.
Sense of speed? Well, outside simulations it's not really that important.
Immersion? I played Fallout New Vegas at 30fps and I was more immersed in that than in any other game in recent memory outside Last of Us. Which is also 30fps...
hmmm, explain me...

Not saying that technically better graphics do that either. Better design and style do and immensely so but that's another thing all together.

Try playing games at 60FPS, you'll learn all about it.

 

[carnex]

Try playing games at 60FPS, you'll learn all about it.

I actually have played games at 120+ fps with my old CRT monitor (I'm one of those freaks used to turn off textures to gain more frames). In Quake 3 that makes a world of difference. But then again this is your usual Q3 match
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE5b_cTZzBw
try playing that with joypad.
Also playing Q3 and Need for Speed underground on Elsa Eraser III graphic card with it's 3D glasses gave me catastrophic headaches but also unbelievably awesome satisfaction.

I also play Gran Turismo games and I would hate that game at below 60fps. But again, it's relative to the game. Not is it better or no, just is it something I would care about.

Fast FPS, Driving simulations, flight simulations, VS fighting games - important
Fast paced games generally, fast animated games - really noticable
calm, slow paced games - don't really care

But in all reality, soon 60fps is going out and 120 is stepping in. The reason is VR. With oculus rift 60fps per eye has noticable effects of lag. It's a whole different ballgame there.

Stuttering occurs when I move the camera every fucking time in a 30 fps game. I don't talk about inconsistant framerates so keep that bs out of the discussion. I talk about constant X fps.

No, it is not relative. You may not notice it, I do. Many others do. Many others prefer unlocked fps. Unlike preferences in aesthetics it is measurable.

I frankly don't care about what the majority prefers. It seems the majority is fine with shitty technical standards. I'm not. But you are. Which is fine.

And please cut the bullshit that there is some kind of exclusivity. Constant 30 fps or 60 fps with dips. No. Constant 60 fps are not a bloody problem. Not even for this gen. Not for the last gen. You don't deal with frame drops when you settle on higher framerates. You deal with framdrops if you want a higher framerate but fail to optimise the game around it.

I repeat: I cut the devs slack for not finding excuses. They want more graphical fidelity and cut on the framerate. Why wouldn't they cut in the one regard where the consoles managed to convince people of the supposed lack of relevance.

Yet you sound like someone who has some strange concepts.

1) Steady framerate is much more effective at delivering immersive and convincing visuals than faster but inconsistent frame rate.

2) Frame rate and generations have nothing in common. That is most common misconceptions people have. There were 60fps games in 8 bit era. God damn Uridium for Commodore 64 ran at 50fps for PAL and 60fps for NTSC regions. And that on 0.976MHz 8 bit computer (in PAL regions, a bit over 1MHz in NTSC). Take cheapest phone you can find. You know, those phones that can't even reproduce digitized sounds. They still have greater computational power than that computer by at least two orders of magnitude. Its a tradeoff and steady 60 fps costs halleluiah much in GPU time and development time if you don't want to sacrifice everything and a goat to 60FPS altar. That's why developers go for 30FPS.

My standards are lower, obviously. But then again I don't care about that that much. I care about different things in games.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

We all agree 60fps is better than 30fps. End of the day if you really are that annoyed go complain to the developers of The Division and moan at them. Go moan at MS and Sony. I really cant see what you hope to achieve with this thread that states the obvious.

 

[mysecondlife]

My thoughts? This is just another Console at 30 fps, pc can run 60 fps thread. Moving on..

 

[Able Seacat]

Surely the majority of people who care about this will be be playing at 60fps on their PCs anyway. So what's the problem?

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

And there's another reason why the PC mustard race gloats about the latest console generation. PC always could reach 1080p and 60+FPS for several years, but consoles are going to have to wait for another year or even another console generation.

http://www.30vs60.com/mirrorsedge.php

It really matters the most in the aspect of multiplayer, where everything's quicker and more intense so you want your response to be quicker and clearer. And hey, The Division looks pretty multiplayer-centric, so it needs 60+FPS for the best experience.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Some people obsess too much over FPS. As long as it can stay smooth and doesn't spike or tear, then it can work out just fine. Back when I had a lesser PC, I would sometimes sacrifice frame rates over 30 for more eye candy.

Although first PC gaming on a 286 (not counting "games" on old monochrome machines) and being like OMG WTF THIS IS SO AWESOME to Doom in low detail mode back on a slowish 386 probably helps me not be quite the FPS whore a lot of the newer gamers are. Learn to appreciate what you have and stop being such a obnoxious snob about it people.

I used to play Ultrabots on a RAM drive at less than 1 FPS. Beat that!



It is funny to think my cellphone is hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than my first PC.

 

[FrozenLaughs]

It really matters the most in the aspect of multiplayer, where everything's quicker and more intense so you want your response to be quicker and clearer. And hey, The Division looks pretty multiplayer-centric, so it needs 60+FPS for the best experience.

But if everyone is running 30fps across the board then your advantages of frames 31-60 are only imagined... The question is whether or not PC and PS4 servers will run together or separate. If separate then all PS4 players will be multiplaying on equal ground, and its the PC players who will be worrying about that extra 31-60 amongst themselves.

 

[seaweed]

If we go for [60fps], we'll have to make a trade-off on fidelity and other things

Wouldn't it be great if they actually gave us the option though?

I'd much rather play a game at 720p without HDR lighting or ambient occlusion or anti-aliasing if it means it plays at a smooth 60 FPS.

This nonsense by publishers is going to make this gen a repeat of the last one where games often dip down to 20 or lower FPS at times. What happens when they want to increase fidelity even further? Other things like framerate and resolution will have to take the hit since the hardware isn't going to get better. Is 600p and 25 FPS the future of 8th gen?

I wish 60 FPS was easier to market than fidelity. With fidelity you can show off a nice bullshot that looks great. It's hard to show off a smooth running game in the same way because most video sites are capped at 30 FPS.

 

[MrBaskerville]

Why is it that every next-gen related discussion is about Fps and 1080p? Is it because the upgrade in visuals is so insignificant that we don't have anything else to discuss? Personally i don't really care, i'm probably not going to notice unless you showed me the game side by side in 30 and 60 fps. As long as it runs at a consistent speed without drops. If i had a problem with low fps, i probably wouldn't play as much Wii, Ps2 and Ds as i do (Assuming that these consoles runs games at 30fps, i honestly couldn't tell you).

It would probably be better if Dvision ran at 60, but it doesn't and i'm not sure i would have noticed if i wasn't told beforehand. Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most ps3 games running in 30 fps? If so i don't have a problem with it, Ps3 suffers a lot from frame drops, which suks, but when the games runs smoothly it seems fine to me.

 

[Kerethos]

To me the discussion seems too often miss one thing: Console users are used to 30 fps. It's all they've had for years, aside from a few very rare exceptions.

Yes, 60 fps is objectively better than 30. There's nothing more to say there. But if you're used to 30 fps and get more games running at a stable 30 fps, there's no change and you simply get what you're used to.

If you, like me, have later migrated over to play some PC games at a minimal 1080p and 60+ fps (which the PC I've had for about 3 years now still provides), then going back too and/or simply seeing 30 fps is noticeably inferior. It just doesn't feel as good any more, as it's noticeably sluggish. To some that's simply unbearable.

But if you simply go from Xbox 360 and/or PS3 to Xbox One and/or PS4 you'll only see an upgrade in graphical fidelity, the difference in fps isn't there to be seen because it hasn't changed. If anything it might have even become more consistent, with fewer instances where it drops below 30. It's just plain better looking, and probably runs better ? that?s what you?ll experience.

Now, simply put, this is why PC gamers complain about 30 fps:
Many of us are used to 60 fps, or more, and a minimum of 1080p resolution and on top of that we also expect additional graphical features like higher resolution textures, better lighting effects, better AA and so on.

Our standards are simply higher than what a console provides. And so, when we get what is console standards presented to us in a PC game, it is substandard to us. It's not as good as we are accustomed to, and so we rightfully complain because we will not accept inferior performance in new games. We (PC players accustomed to 60 fps or more) simply have higher standards than the console experience, and we expect them to be satisfied - because the power is damn well there to provide that experience.

This is why we complain about 30 fps. It's half of what we are used to ? and that?s not counting other issues that might be present in a multi-platform game. And we will not accept our standards being lowered for the sake of the consoles any more than you'd accept the speed limit being lowered from 100km/h (~60mph) to 50km/h (~30mph), on the basis that two popular models of cars can't drive that fast.

30 fps has no right to exist as the target frame rate in a PC title, it's as simple as that - it?s 60 (or higher, if you have the power) or you can go fuck yourself.

Personally though, if I'd stuck with consoles, I'd probably not give a damn as I'd only experience a more stable frame rate and prettier graphics. That's what you get when you move from the previous console generation to the current one, and that's probably all you'll notice if you haven't become accustomed 60 fps or more. And personally I don't blame you at all if you think that's fine and that it lets you to enjoy your console version of a game. But it's completely unacceptable in a PC version.

So yes, most PC players don?t want to play and don?t enjoy games running at 30 fps. But many (dare I say most) also forget that it?s not (even though we think it should be) what the latest consoles are selling. They are selling prettier graphics, and a more stable 30 fps that doesn?t dip as often. That?s substandard to a decent gaming PC, but a welcome upgrade if you only play on consoles, or even a PC that doesn?t provide more than around 30 fps and comparable graphics to a console.

So, in conclusion: 30 fps is and continues to be fine if you move from console to console. You?ll only notice the upgrades in graphics. It?s substandard to what most PC gamers expect, thus they naturally see the consoles as just that: substandard.

Even simpler:
Last generation console to current generation console = upgrade, prettier graphics, same frame rate, smoother gameplay, higher standards provided.

Decent PC to current generation console = downgrade, inferior graphics, lower frame rate, slower gameplay, lower standards provided.

PC version of a console game running like a console game = See decent PC to current generation console.
This is what causes the resistance from PC gamers, as we do not want standards to decrease.

Now that all of that is over; I'm still cautiously optimistic for the Division. It looks like a game I'd enjoy and I will continue to follow its development, for now. Sorry about the wall of text, I hope I got my point across.

 

[Gankytim]

AHAHA
AHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ubisoft. THEY FUCK ARE YOU DOING? 30 frames per second in 2014? Oh wow. Is Ubisoft becoming that kid in school everyone made fun of and avoided cause he's fucking wierd?