
Carmack: Next-gen games will still target 30 fps - Pr0
http://www.develop-online.net/news/42817/Carmack-Next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps
======
viseztrance
Insomniac Games (the developers of Ratchet and Clank, and the Resistance
series) wrote a blog post some time ago about their decision to focus on using
a lower framerate (all their previous games were 60 fps).

[http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-
matter...](http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter/)

The summary is that prettier games get better reviews and sell off more
copies.

~~~
lloeki
Turn 10, of Forza Motorsport fame, refuses to compromise render rate in the
series. Forza 2 to 4 (no idea for the 1st one, which ran on the original Xbox)
are running at a steady 60fps (physics loops at 360ips), even in split screen
(at the cost of a few effects, notably cockpit mirror reflections).
Technically this really matters when getting the braking point at 400kph down
Old Mulsanne. In terms of enjoyment, sure there's only reduced antialiasing,
but driving down Bernese Alps close to the guard rail in Forza 4, especially
with Kinect head tracking (not enough cash nor room for a triple-head+seat
setup), is incredibly immersive.

Forza Horizon though, developed by an all-star team[0] distinct from Turn 10,
chose to drop to 30fps, notably for full AA, effects such as motion blur, and
features like continuous day/night cycle and realistic car headlights (old
bulbs look deliciously warm, and the chromatic effect on the crisp edge of
xenon headlights is awesome). As realistic and gorgeous as Forza Horizon is,
at speed it feels buttery smooth but not exactly crisp as Forza 4 is. It's
like you'd take a low-resolution image and try to make it look nicer by using
a blur filter, only this applies to time instead of space, and thus movement.

[0]: [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-
making-...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-
forza-horizon)

~~~
viseztrance
Well a better example would be Ground Turismo 5 which runs in 1080p @ 60fps,
but that's besides the point. Games that look good in screenshots will always
sell better.

~~~
w0utert
GT5 is definitely _not_ a better example, because it suffers huge framerate
drops in some situations, which completely defeats the immersion effect. Try a
race in cockpit view and multiple cars in front of you, when one goes off
track creating some sand clouds, the framerate often dips far below 30 fps.

What makes Forza 2 and 3 so impressive is that it keeps up 60 fps _all the
time_. If you a game can't keep up with that, I'd much rather have a constant
30 fps than an erratic 60 fps.

------
goldenchrome
Thirty frames per second is depressing. I don't know how some people can stand
it. I get annoyed when I notice the frames drop below forty five.

~~~
jlgreco
I suspect it matters less on consoles where you are trying to move/look around
by pushing a tiny little joystick with your thumb. With a mouse though it is
absolutely crippling. Even minecraft is painful at 30Hz with a mouse.

~~~
HelloMcFly
"Crippling" seems a bit hyperbolic. I'd reckon most PC gamers probably don't
even notice, though once you start noticing it's hard to "unsee" it, but that
doesn't make the game unplayable.

~~~
Torn
If any of you have Dark Souls on PC, with a decent graphics card, use the
'dsfix' mod to toggle between 30fps (the default) and an unlocked 60fps mode.

It's night and day - suddenly the game becomes that much more fluid, and when
toggling between the two, 30fps feels amazingly 'shuttered'.

------
zokier
Frankly I would be happy if next-gen games would actually achieve _steady_ 30
fps. Doubly so if the games would achieve that with some reasonable
resolution. That would already be a massive improvement to the current state
of affairs, where games dip to 20 fps or so with sub-hd resolutions.

~~~
return0
I am not a gamer, but aren't high FPS tiring to the eyes because of the lack
of natural motion blur which gives the sense of unnatural movement? Isn't that
more important than increasing FPS?

~~~
sp332
You may be confusing film with game rendering? If you shoot a movie with a
camera that keeps the shutter open for a little while, you will get some
motion blur. This lets the motion in the film look smooth. But if you render a
game at only 24 fps, each frame will have no motion blur and it will look
choppy. (Some games try to add motion blur as well, which helps a little.) In
film, if you increase the frame rate, you will get less motion blur and I
guess it might look less smooth. But if you increase the fps of a game, it
will look smoother. (If the game adds motion blur separately, you could still
have huge amounts of motion blur even with a high frame rate, because it's a
fake effect.)

~~~
Torn
Good examples of frame interlacing here: <http://www.100fps.com/>

------
lispython
Carmack's comment:

 _For the record, just in case it wasn't clear, we continue to target 60fps,
and 120fps will be an option on PC. 120fps stereo VR, even. Eventually we will
get displays with gaze tracked foveal insets, which will be rendered as a
separate view. 120fps_ stereo _foveal=480vps_

<https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/281409030369472512>

------
jiggy2011
30fps? I remember the mid - late 90s "3d accelerator" boom and the games that
came out of that. Unless you dumped serious $ into your PC you were lucky to
get 15fps.

~~~
josefresco
Bought a Dell for just under $2K in 1999 (remember prices were much different
then) with some serious gaming power for an off the shelf PC. 30 FPS was
generally a minimum for this rig when playing games like Q3, UT and HL. If
that's costly to you, the TNT2 and other cards were cheaper than my voodoo3
3000 AGP and still delivered good results.

------
lucian1900
The problem are the consoles. Both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are absolutely
ancient. Let's not even talk about the Wii.

I think I might prefer something like a Steambox, where upgrades would be more
frequent. I generally prefer PC gaming, but I like being able to play from the
couch with a controller.

~~~
Shorel
Anyone can play in the PC from the couch with the right controller.

Even old games, just use Logitech controller mapper to convert the gamepad
input to simulated mouse + keyboard.

Honesty that old complaint is very tired now.

~~~
lucian1900
Not really. The setup is complicated and fragile, the hardware is bulky and
annoying. Some games can't really work with mouse mapped to analogs. Not
everything can be done with just a controller (OS updates, etc.)

It's not great, but a Linux machine with Steam on it could be.

~~~
Shorel
You are only giving your opinions.

I on the other hand, have done it. As expected, I use the computer more for
movies than games (girlfriend demands). The gamepad is actually a very good
Media Center controller.

The only real issue is passwords. But you don't have to enter them all the
time.

My point is: having to get up and use a keyboard from time to time doesn't
kill the experience of gaming in a computer and a big TV.

I want the Steam box because of the possibility of better games and a general
MS distrust, not because the actual experience is something totally
unmanageable, as some people here try to assume.

~~~
lucian1900
But I never have to get up to use a keyboard with my PS3. That's the
experience I want.

Customizability and linux are just very, very nice perks.

------
snarfy
>“We always do 30 frames per second on consoles, otherwise it wouldn’t be
possible to fit in vehicles, effects, scale and all players.”

I'm with Carmack on this one. I'd rather have a good game with a solid 60fps
than 20+ vehicles and hundreds of effects. That's all filler anyway. A solid
60fps game is a much more immersive experience than the choppy 20-30fps most
developers achieve.

------
dscrd
I concur. I played through Skyrim originally on PS3, then got a powerful PC
and tried it on there.

I thought the game looked uglier. Now I realize that it might be that the FPS
is too high.

~~~
jerf
If you pull up a Nintendo 64 emulator or a Playstation 1 emulator and run it
at 1080P, it will look far worse than you remember it, because where the low
resolution of the old CRT screens used to cover over a lot of flaws, the high
fidelity will stick them in your face.

Likewise with a lot of console/PC hybrids. What looks pretty decent on your TV
at what is actually 720P or even 640P upscaled and blurry is revealed to be
somewhat lower detail than you thought on a crisp 2560x1440 screen.

On the other hand, if you get something _meant_ to be played there... wow.

------
mistercow
Then what the next generation consoles need is low-latency motion
interpolation hardware.

------
IheartApplesDix
This makes me sad and angry. Carmack of all people should be pushing for more
performance, but I guess he outgrew that after iD lost most of the market.

~~~
krakensden
You didn't actually read the article, did you. Christ:

Games developed for the next-generation of consoles will still target a
performance of 30 frames per second, claims id Software co-founder John
Carmack. Taking to Twitter, the industry veteran said he could “pretty much
guarantee” developers would target the standard, rather than aiming for
anything as high as 60 fps. ID Software games such as Rage and the Call of
Duty series both hit up to 60 fps, but many titles in the current generation
fall short such as the likes of Battlefield 3, which runs at 30 fps on
consoles. “Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen
games will still target 30 fps,” said Carmack.

~~~
IheartApplesDix
...

Carmack, is that you?

------
bradhe
And it makes perfect sense for them to do so! They are optimizing for
gameplay.

~~~
Negitivefrags
I think you have that backwards.

If they were optimizing for gameplay they would sacrifice graphical fidelity
until they hit 60fps. Targeting 30fps means they want to sacrifice gameplay
for graphical effects.

~~~
teamonkey
Not just graphical effects: more NPCs and gameplay entities on screen, better
AI, better physics, etc.

In terms of trade-offs, 60fps is pretty much always the first thing to be
sacrificed unless it's REALLY important, like in a twitch shooter or racing
game.

The truth is that for most games 30fps is not a deal-breaker for the majority
of people. If even a significant minority of players cared, the intensely
focus-test-led games industry would follow.

