Destiny 60fps vs 30fps

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

Mark Noseworthy has given a more in-depth response to this debate for console and then links to PC in the last bits he states.

 

His quote is below:

 

"It’s about the simulation of the Destiny world. Thirty AI at once, large open spaces, six players, sometimes with vehicles, and dropships coming in; that’s where we’re using the CPU.

 

Could we make a Destiny game that ran at 60 fps? Yes, but the space would be smaller, it would be less cooperative, and there’d be fewer monsters to shoot. That’s not the game we want to make.

 

 

First and foremost, we’re trying to make an incredible action game. We don’t feel we’ve been held back by the choices we’ve made about world simulation versus frame rate; in fact, we think we’re offering a player experience you can’t have elsewhere because of the choices we’re making.

 

But if frame rate is something that’s really important to you, there is a platform now where you can spend as much money as you want, to go as fast as you want."

 

As much as it would be great to see 60fps on console, if it was a deal between framerate and content of enemies and battles then I choose the latter every time.

[J4MES OX4D 10,060]

30fps in 2017 - there is no excuse.  The fact this wont even be 60fps in 1080p on an Xbox One X is quite frankly pathetic really. It's tiresome seeing developers coming out with the usual PR. I'd love to see a bit of industry honesty for once - either the hardware is shit or their software is. It's one or the other. With the PS4 Pro and XBO X; it's going to make it harder for developers to come out with such flimsy excuses.

 

If they actually invested in a better engine instead of a recycled Halo one that's beyond a decade old; the brand and games would be in a far stronger place with much more room for features and performance optimisation. Destiny is being held back just like Call of Duty was so this is Activision all over. Even the current Frostbite engine can get at least 50fps with 64 players within an environment along with planes, trains, blimps and a host of scenery destruction yet Destiny 2 not being able to handle more than a few monsters and a space ship on-screen is laughable. No 60fps downscaling or resolution downsampling so I don't buy this excuse on that basis either.  EA and Ubisoft are loathed but at least unlike Activision; they have invested in some high-end software with the evolving Frostbite and Snowdrop engines respectively. 

 

30fps should be satisfactory especially if you are used of it but by today's standards it really isn't good enough and when developers feel the need to justify their shitty software with cringeworthy excuses; it's just depressing to see but unaware people especially the majority of Destiny's fanbase will buy and accept it anything Bungie say. 60fps also is such a step up and in performance terms; it makes all the difference. I feel sorry for anyone that has a PRO or XBX as their investment in hardware is wasted. 

 

Activision are to blame as usual.

[The3rdWalker 1,274]

The more and more expensive consoles get the more folks they will lose to PC, to an extent. The day Scorpio/ X/ whatever released their hardware specs /r/buildmeapc had the identical build made on a PC for the exact same price. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

I'd love to see a bit of industry honesty for once - either the hardware is shit or their software is. It's one or the other. With the PS4 Pro and XBO X; it's going to make it harder for developers to come out with such flimsy excuses.

Maybe that's the point though. I'm certainly not going to take sides with them on this, however we know development started on the game way before the Pro and Xbox One X existed or planned.

I've been involved in these type of decisions before on projects. There comes a crossroads whereby they find out new info and have to make a choice; spend time stopping at starting from almost scratch for 60fps, or carry on the course. It has to be down to development time and the cost of the resources over that time and nothing else.

[J4MES OX4D 10,060]

1 hour ago, GazzaGarratt said:

 

Maybe that's the point though. I'm certainly not going to take sides with them on this, however we know development started on the game way before the Pro and Xbox One X existed or planned.

 

That would still be a tragic excuse for them to use still because the whole point of the brand of Destiny in the ten year strategy is surely the games are to get bigger and better rather than remain stagnant and restricted because of farcical software limitations regarding the engine. There is no point in having next gen consoles if the developers are still using old gen builds and it's games like this that could be harming Sony and Microsoft in people not investing in new machines because there is no point. 

 

Perhaps if Activision comissioned Bungie to develop a brand new engine in the first instance with a view that it would last for the planned 10 years and compliment the current and future gens; that would have been the best course of action. Instead; we get a billion dollar brand from a multi-billion dollar company running on an extended engine build from 2007 that may have to last until 2024 and if the XB1X can't get 31 frames stable; it's going to be painful still having 1080p 30fps framerate debates in six years time when 4K 60 will be comfortably mainstream.

 

This situation just stinks of Activision greed and a lack of forwarding investment for the benefit of their products and the gamers. Kinda reminds me of when EA showcased Frostbite 2 in BF4 when the skyscraper collapsed which looked spectacular. In comparison; Call of Duty Ghosts had a lamppost collapse which was pushing the 'engine dynamics to the limit' as Infinity Ward quoted. I don't blame Bungie as much as they are no doubt wrapped around Activision but it's frustrating to see the same PR waffle like this which sounds eerily similar to what the COD devs used to say back in the day..

 

''First and foremost, we’re trying to make an incredible action game. We don’t feel we’ve been held back by the choices we’ve made about world simulation versus frame rate; in fact, we think we’re offering a player experience you can’t have elsewhere because of the choices we’re making''

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

Good read. Thanks for sharing @J4MES OX4D.

 

Genuine question - when was 60fps first available on games? Regardless of platform.

 

One thing is for sure, Activi$ion get called out for their dollar dollar attitude within 12 months when we do have a 60fps version on console (thats my estimate), regardless of what we think now.

[The3rdWalker 1,274]

11 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Genuine question - when was 60fps first available on games? Regardless of platform.

 

Quake? 1996?

[Sweetandsour16 20]

11 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Good read. Thanks for sharing @J4MES OX4D.

 

Genuine question - when was 60fps first available on games? Regardless of platform.

 

One thing is for sure, Activi$ion get called out for their dollar dollar attitude within 12 months when we do have a 60fps version on console (thats my estimate), regardless of what we think now.

according to someone on this forum PC's began to be able to hit 60 FPS in the late 90's

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.884427-So-when-did-60-Frames-Per-Second-matter

[J4MES OX4D 10,060]

24 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Good read. Thanks for sharing @J4MES OX4D.

 

Genuine question - when was 60fps first available on games? Regardless of platform.

 

One thing is for sure, Activi$ion get called out for their dollar dollar attitude within 12 months when we do have a 60fps version on console (thats my estimate), regardless of what we think now.

A very long time surprisingly. The first console title that really reached these heights was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare back in 2007 which was very impressive back then and has been a staple of the COD series since. That's when Activision actually cared about their games and In retrospective; Halo 3 around the same time was running at around 30fps and that is a build of the engine that Destiny is currently using and that's why people are pretty frustrated. Framerate wasn't a as much of a prominent issue on the old gen but now it's heavily scrutinised as technology grows and performance becomes a very important factor for gamers who are heavily invested in their machines.  Sadly, publishers like Activision hold games back to save money and farm out games and DLC. EA and Ubisoft are hated but at least they are trying to build sustainable platforms for future games even if their developers are garbage. 

 

If someone said to me ten years ago when I was playing COD4 on my white Xbox 360 that the next gen of consoles would still be using technology from then; I would have been shocked. COD got away with it for years but Destiny 1 was already running on a seven year old engine when that was released which is why it's painful to see now.  Destiny 2 still looks great thanks to texture and video based overlays but the core of the engine is very restricted in terms of scale and performance and that means gamers are going to get very short-changed in terms of an experience which is a shame. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

Thanks for that Nick. I think playing Devil's Advocate with myself here, I possibly don't see the massive issue because I just haven't experienced it on PC.

 

Still though, its not about if they can or can't for me. Look at it as if you have 10 tokens to spend on features. The full works for games lets say would cost 20 tokens. I just would focus my tokens on other factors in a game. How more amazing can a game look to make you love it?

 

Via the FG App

 

 

 

 

[Sweetandsour16 20]

2 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Thanks for that Nick. I think playing Devil's Advocate with myself here, I possibly don't see the massive issue because I just haven't experienced it on PC.

 

Still though, its not about if they can or can't for me. Look at it as if you have 10 tokens to spend on features. The full works for games lets say would cost 20 tokens. I just would focus my tokens on other factors in a game. How more amazing can a game look to make you love it?

 

Via the FG App

 

 

 

 

We are spoiled on PC, I normally get 150+ FPS on average for siege and Nvidia bugged out and locked me at 60 for a few matches....it was like the game was moving in slow motion.

 

Once you experience high frames you truly can't go back, everything feels odd and slow

[Greboth 2,721]

I accept I might be in the minority here but I don't care about fps* - there I said it  

 

Side by side I can tell the difference, play one game at 60fps and change to one at 30 I notice a difference.  However any difference I notice is temporary at best and I need to have that comparison.  If I load straight in to a 30fps game so don't have the comparison or once I'm engrossed in a game I really don't notice what the fps is.

 

That doesn't mean I think Bungie or Activision (or anyone else) should be lazy with the games or game engines but I can accept that, especially with the limited power of consoles, there is always going to be a compromise between graphics and fps.

 

* as long as they are fixed, fluctuating fps does my tits in!

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

I'm with you @Greboth. I think that's a good way of putting it. Maybe I'd notice if I played 150fps like @Sweetandsour16 but going from 30 to 60 isn't much to shout home about.

 

I have Zelda for the switch and I see the slight difference from 60fps on handheld to 30fps through tv. It doesn't take away from the game in the slightest.

[J4MES OX4D 10,060]

The difference between 30fps and 60 is actually bigger than 60fps to 150 because of the ways your eyes and brain process what it is seeing. If you are accustomed to 60fps+; a drop to 30 is incredibly noticable and can cause motion sickness and headaches as you try to adjust. If you're playing Overwatch at 220fps let's say and it drops to 60; despite losing 160fps; you wouldn't notice it because your brain can't process the difference. Having a solid framerate outlay in the first place really mitigates any big drops and wont affect what is viewed on screen but going from 60 to 30fps is massive especially for a fast paced FPS where you brain is processing a millions of images and colours per second. 

 

I recently played through the Nathan Drake Uncharted Collection at 60fps which was a smooth and clean experience throughout but when I moved onto Uncharted 4 at 30fps; I could only play for a short period at a time before I began to feel nauseated at the choppiness, and blur whilst panning the camera with all the enviromental colours. That game is also a fairly static 3rd person game with cinematic aspects. 

 

In comparison; Battlefront 2 is targeting 60fps locked in 4K on the XB1X and PRO whilst Destiny 2 may struggle with 1080p native and 30fps. on the very same machines.  

[Sweetandsour16 20]

On 8/24/2017 at 6:22 AM, J4MES OX4D said:

If you're playing Overwatch at 220fps let's say and it drops to 60; despite losing 160fps; you wouldn't notice it because your brain can't process the difference.

I would like to argue that, if i go from 150 to 60 it's very noticeable to me. The game seems to be moving like a "slideshow". The big difference in 30 to 60 is not the big things in front of you, it's the environment and smoothness of things around you that's so much different. It may be why you don't notice it that much Lee 

[GazzaGarratt 11,066]

14 hours ago, Sweetandsour16 said:

I would like to argue that, if i go from 150 to 60 it's very noticeable to me. The game seems to be moving like a "slideshow". The big difference in 30 to 60 is not the big things in front of you, it's the environment and smoothness of things around you that's so much different. It may be why you don't notice it that much Lee 

 

Yeah, that's sort of what I expect based on the numbers and what I've seen already. Leta face it, a high fps doesn't mean shit if you can't have a good laugh with friends and what this game has done for communities like ours, fps just really isn't high up on the agenda.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, my money is on a 60fps console version in around 12 months time. So you have to rebuy the game again of course

[Sweetandsour16 20]

12 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

 

Yeah, that's sort of what I expect based on the numbers and what I've seen already. Leta face it, a high fps doesn't mean shit if you can't have a good laugh with friends and what this game has done for communities like ours, fps just really isn't high up on the agenda.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, my money is on a 60fps console version in around 12 months time. So you have to rebuy the game again of course

What made siege amazing for me on console was meeting the random people and the laughs I had with them. I was always a solo gamer up until that game and also never gave a shit about FPS like you said until I became a PC snob. Laughs and fun will always be more important to me in a game though like you said. 

[MrBiron 1,460]

30fps is fine for PvE but it should have been 60fps for PvP. There's no excuse for not doing it. Just scale back on the effects if they have to so it is 60fps.