I'm kind of worried: is Destiny going to be a 30fps game?

All the web stuff I understand being at 30fps, because nobody really can deliver 60fps flash content. However, I saw that sharing commercial on broadcast TV, where 60fps (or 60 fields per sec) is the standard. And yet, it looked like the game footage was at 30fps…

A lot of you may not know the difference, but since playing games on my mac for a while, 60fps has just become a huge luxury I can't live without. The experience is measurably better, especially since Destiny is an action game and we want to be immersed in the world, the high frame rate will be appreciated. I honestly cannot even conceive of playing a game like Bioshock infinite at 30fps, yet so many console players did.

Does anybody know if the framerate as been confirmed anywhere? I only really care about the PS4 version. Resolution targets would be nice to know too, but they have less an effect than fps on the experience.

Especially since Destiny is built for its engine to run on older tech, the new systems should be able to do 60fps, similar to MGSV and the fox engine. Right?

I'm kind of worried

Shocker.

I, for one, really don't care if its 30fps or 60fps. I'd imagine it couldn't be less than Halo, and I've never heard anyone complain about the fps in Halo.

It was 30fps at the E3 press conference, and 30fps seems to be Bungie's thing.

If you desperately need a bright side, look at it this way.
On your Mac, you probably use M&K, which imposes a direct high-precision correspondence between mouse motion and look angle, which means you really feel low framerates. Dual analogue controls are less precise and direct since they work on look angle derivatives, and one result is that a given low framerate usually won't burn as badly.

That said, the performance of Bioshock Infinite on consoles is obnoxious. Very serious case of pick your poison: use triple-buffered vsync and suffer the most stuttery adventure of your life, or enjoy okay responsiveness with vsync off while the screen tearing stabs at your eyeballs.

It was 30fps at the E3 press conference, and 30fps seems to be Bungie's thing.

Guess that's that.

If you desperately need a bright side, look at it this way.
On your Mac, you probably use M&K, which imposes a direct high-precision correspondence between mouse motion and look angle, which means you really feel low framerates. Dual analogue controls are less precise and direct since they work on look angle derivatives, and one result is that a given low framerate usually won't burn as badly.

I played both Remember Me, and Bioshock infinite (the second time) on a gamepad. Still immensely prefer 60fps.

That said, the performance of Bioshock Infinite on consoles is obnoxious. Very serious case of pick your poison: use triple-buffered vsync and suffer the most stuttery adventure of your life, or enjoy okay responsiveness with vsync off while the screen tearing stabs at your eyeballs.

Bungie's pretty good about solid imagery, Reach's temporal AA excepted. I wouldn't worry about THAT.

I played both Remember Me, and Bioshock infinite (the second time) on a gamepad. Still immensely prefer 60fps.

Sure, but it'll be fairly tolerable once you acclimate. Really.

Bungie's pretty good about solid imagery, Reach's temporal AA excepted. I wouldn't worry about THAT.

It'll be interesting to see what approach Bungie takes for image quality with Destiny. The new snazzy thing seems to be temporal AA with reprojection, backed up by very accurate motion buffering, followed by a post-process pass. Not that every graphically impressive game is doing that; The Order 1886 is apparently relying on 4xMSAA to stabilize geometry, and shading with accurately-filtered reflectance functions to make everything else work correctly.

(MSAA is basically out of the question for 360, and it would be an extremely ambitious choice on PS3 as well, not to mention that Bungie has never used it. Ah, who knows.)

Also, buffering schemes. Will Bungie yet again go for an adaptive vsync model? Or will they go back to their sixth-gen days of shouting "YOLO" and double-buffer vsyncing a path into the sunset?
Will it differ by platform?
Will the PS4 version be another unlocked triple-buffered game that runs mildly above 30fps most of the time, and causes the community to rise up and demand a framerate-locking option? (I'm looking at you, KZSF and InFAMOUS Second Son)

Why?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Why do people give a shit about FPS in gaming?

I just don't get it. It's one of the silliest pissing contests in PC and console gaming.

Oh game X on PS4 is XFPS but less FPS on Wii U [ooooooooooo.jpg]

I don't care.

I just want my games to be fun.

A game can look like "shit" and still be fun.

Look at these graphics! LOOK AT THEM! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAPHICS OMG

\end rant

Sorry.

- No text -

Why?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Why do people give a shit about FPS in gaming?

1. Action games play much better when they are smoother.
2. The world is more immersive and immediate when it is smoother.
3. VR is the future and high framerate is essential there.

I don't care.

I just want my games to be fun.

A game can look like "shit" and still be fun.

Look at these graphics! LOOK AT THEM! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAPHICS OMG

\end rant

Graphics are the primary way you feedback with a game. How they are presented impacts your 'fun' a great deal. The hardware is clearly there to do it. Even Halo is getting the 60fps treatment with Halo 5, and it's been a series stuck at 30. It's important. Shooting things is way more satisfying at 60fps. Navigating the world is way more satisfying at 60fps. It makes the game more fun!

Cody Miller,

I am not a smart man.

I do not know much.

But I do know this:

The way I define fun, and the way you define fun are vastly different :P

Enjoy your superior FPS, I'm too busy to notice!

Yuck, ew... frames? That paradigm inherited from cinema to fake the impression of motion? From the analogue film world - no less - that digital cinema has yet to break itself free from trying to emulate. Which, essentially, is just doing still photography a few times per second.

What we need are frameless renderers so we can all get over this childish pissing contest of 'FPS', 'Render Resolution' and 'Graphics' and can focus directly on more important stuff like Perceptual Image Quality, Aesthetics and Responsiveness. (heh)

Destiny is a game I know I'm already interested in though, and am buying unless the Beta turns out to be horrid. So I really don't care about these details.

// I've been reading a lot about advanced rendering techniques recently. I'm kinda sad I was a kid (or unborn) for the most of the interesting generations of games in the past, but I'm pretty excited I'm an adult just in time for VR ^_^

I think its only 30 FPS... Sucks I wish it would hit 60. Every game plays better at 60 FPS. Especially shooters, racers, fighters.

I can understand people not caring that much, but people who prefer 30 over 60 are strange, strange people.

Why?

Who cares?

Why should I care?

Why do people give a shit about FPS in gaming?

I just don't get it. It's one of the silliest pissing contests in PC and console gaming.

Oh game X on PS4 is XFPS but less FPS on Wii U [ooooooooooo.jpg]

I don't care.

I just want my games to be fun.

A game can look like "shit" and still be fun.

Look at these graphics! LOOK AT THEM! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THE GRAPHICS OMG

\end rant

Sorry.

It is partly an aesthetic thing; smoother motion often just plain looks better.

But it's very much a gameplay discussion. Games with fast game logic and graphics cycles offer a more nuanced view of input and response, and have lower input lag (if we imagine a classically double-buffered case and assume non-graphics costs are negligible, the average time from button press to screen response will be 25ms faster in the 60fps case than the 30fps one; the difference is frequently more extreme in real-world cases).

Or look at it this way: would you still say framerate is irrelevant to fun if someone locked your Xbox to output to something silly low like 10fps? Obviously it will start to seem meaningfully if you push it low enough. Is 30fps high enough that we shouldn't care? It sure isn't high enough that would can't perceive or make use of higher.

...let's get rid of discrete spatial sampling as well. No more pixels. Pixels are stupid.

Game consoles should output a spatially two-dimensional analogue function which varies continuously in time.

What is this? Why do some people think virtual reality is so great that it will become the standard? Am I the only one who thinks seeing a game as though it was right there would be midly unpleasant and kind of annoying?

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate. Of course, if they're not multiples of the frame rate, it'd be awkward, but they can easily be a lot higher than the latter.

Hell, I do it all the time in simulator projects in my internship. Physics usually do about a thousand iterations before the screen updates while screen updates at 30fps.

Have you played Halo 4? Okay. All your questions just got answered.

Haha just kidding. Sort of.

I dunno. I really prefer 60fps, but I notice that I'm beyond fine with 30fps and rarely seem to care. Only a few games bug the living daylights out of me if they aren't displaying at 60fps. I've also just sort of accepted the fact that consoles have never kept up with what my PC can do, so I've never really minded.

Don't get me wrong, 60fps has some massive benefits to gaming as a whole, and I honestly think you would benefit from games going this route (and yes, it may even increase your level of fun and immerse you further), but it does really depend. As a whole, I think it'd be great if Bungie went the 60fps route.

What is this? Why do some people think virtual reality is so great that it will become the standard? Am I the only one who thinks seeing a game as though it was right there would be midly unpleasant and kind of annoying?

In certain situations I think it could be fun, but overall I would find it annoying, mostly because I like being able to interact with the real world easily whenever I need or want to, which VR will make more of an inconvenience.

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate. Of course, if they're not multiples of the frame rate, it'd be awkward, but they can easily be a lot higher than the latter.

Hell, I do it all the time in simulator projects in my internship. Physics usually do about a thousand iterations before the screen updates while screen updates at 30fps.

Of course, but that doesn't contradict what I said.

That "average 25ms" figure I gave was, as I noted, purely the contribution of rendering performance in a simple situation where game logic cost is assumed to be negligible.

Accounting for what the player is doing at a high frequency and with low latency isn't going to completely make up for low-frequency high-latency player feedback.

- No text -

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate.

That's not really correct. You have to run the physics every frame to see what's changed and where things need to be on the new frame. In fact, many games have tricks that are only possible on high or low frame rates (depending on the trick). The ones you all probably know the best are the jumps in Halo that only work in PAL's 25fps, but there are others like jumps in Quake and the graveyard skip in Bioshock Infinite.

The physics and input sample rates don't need to be the same as the frame rate.

That's not really correct. You have to run the physics every frame to see what's changed and where things need to be on the new frame.

That doesn't make ZackDark wrong. Obviously if you render multiple frames based on unchanged scene data, you're doing redundant work for no reason. But running game logic cycles multiple times per frame can improve the game's temporal precision (and ZackDark was mostly referring to these cases).

Well, I was referring exclusively to those cases, but rendering multiple frames for the same physics "time step" isn't necessarily a waste, depending on the rendering scheme.

You could, for instance, only render the player's cone of vision, so even if the physics itself doesn't update, what part of it you're seeing is. Again, I do lots of that in my internship as well, zooming around results of simulations with Z-buffer type rendering programs.

Those tricks come from the very fact that the physics are distorted to accommodate the different frame rate. If the physics sampling rate were a multiple of 5 per second and higher or equal 30 fps (so that accommodation could be easily scaled to either 25 or 30 fps (multiplying the time step by 5/6, for instance)) I don't think there would even exist any difference, give or take CPU load.

To be fair, I don't think that Cody actually stated that it IS more fun. Just that it's the future. Meaning he thinks it's likely that a lot of games will go that route.

Well, I was referring exclusively to those cases, but rendering multiple frames for the same physics "time step" isn't necessarily a waste, depending on the rendering scheme.

You could, for instance, only render the player's cone of vision, so even if the physics itself doesn't update, what part of it you're seeing is. Again, I do lots of that in my internship as well, zooming around results of simulations with Z-buffer type rendering programs.

When I said "unchanged scene data", I was imagining that to the extreme of constant viewpoint*.

But yes, decoupling physics and user view response in that way could potentially make sense in some applications. Doing lots of motion extrapolation between "real" frames in VR, for instance, could solve ghosting/blur issues that happen when people eye-track static objects while rotating their head (which can evidently arise because of the actual movement of the screen relative to the eyeball during the display of each frame).

*edit: But I suppose Cody's post I replied to had specifically said "physics."

Yeah, I just don't see how someone would think something would become the future unless they thought at least most people thought it was more fun.

Right. And thinking that OTHER people find it appealing is not the same thing as believing it yourself.