Do you buy into the "cinematic" frame rate and letterboxing fad?

@mikhail

It adds to the "Atmosphere"

No, this is nothing more than PR speak from console developers as an excuse for performance problems.

Cranler, can you stay on topic and not attack a fanbase please?

Read the OP, this was a simple question/answer thread.

Is this about The Order? Because I'd say it has other questionable design choices that catch my attention other than the aspect ratio and framerate, such as the shitty weapons and enemy design, and those very linear they play themselves moments of the game. Visually though it looks fine, and that's what cows care about, right? They can turn a what should be 6/10 game into GOTY and I bet that's where The Order is going.

All of this is really starting to get old now. I've begun to feel that what Microsoft and Sony need to do next gen is build machines that cost $1000.00 and tell gamers to start saving now so they can afford the new machines when they come out. That way, when the new games come out, there will be no whining about resolution, frame rate issues, or graphics problems of any sort as the new machines will be absolutely bleeding edge, or close to it anyway. Gamers need to learn that nice tech don't come cheap. PC gamers have known this forever, and it's time console players learn the same. Of course, Nintendo will keep goin to the beat of their own drum, but that's ok for them.

Laughing my ass off for all the peasants, just buy a proper 21:9 cinematic display so you don't have to choose this sorry ass choices from idiotic peasant developers to play with your sorry ass cheapo gaming hardware

Rolling on the floor laughing at you peasants

@kratosyoloswag: There's a problem though: I buy my games to play them, not stare at them, all the artsy beautiful graphics are useless if the gameplay is subpar or if the stupid letterboxing is giving me motion sickness and hinders my ability to play the game since i have so little visibility thanks to the damn black bars

@Roler42

Bu... But but... Teh Atmosphere ! :(

Kind of figured that as well. How many games are actually doing the letterbox thing anyway? I only know of the Order. If the game turns out fun, who cares?

Talking about the black bars, it's an artistic choice but I find it completely unnecessary.

Games aren't movies. I'm not sitting there and watching. My eyes do not pan from side to side of the screen, they stay pretty much focused in or around the middle. Those black bars are counter intuitive to that. You're narrowing the horizontal field of vision as an attempt to emulate cinema but it only lessens the amount of information my eyes are getting.

The whole 30 fps is more "cinematic" is total bullshit from devs trying to cover the fact the consoles can't do the fidelity they want at a higher FPS. I don't believe every game needs 60fps, in fact I believe the vast majority in a console setting with a controller are fine at 30 fps, but I don't like it when a dev is trying to make it out like 30 fps is somehow better. It's never better. It's acceptable, but it's never better.

Just don't fucking talk about it. Don't mention framerate, don't mention resolution. As long as the game doesn't look like ass and doesn't have noticeable framerate drops, nobody is going to give a shit. We haven't for the past 20 years why should we start now?

@Wasdie

Gamers Change...

No they don't. We just have the internet now and the vocal minority can make a big stink.

I didn't see Destiny not sell because it was only 30 fps or people hold off on buying GTA V until the inevitable PC version or next gen version in 1080p. Gamers haven't changed one bit. It's just the amount of gamers have grown so that 1% of gamers who actually makes a stink about these things have grown in number and now have a public soapbox to shout on.

I'm curious how you reconcile the fact that games like The Evil Within cite letterboxing as an "artistic choice" yet can't even maintain 30 fps on the consoles. If there weren't letterboxing, the frame rate would be even lower - to me this is proof that it was a technical decision and not an artistic one. In the case of The Evil Within we're talking about 40% of the screen not being used, that would be quite a bit of extra horsepower needing to be used if it was in 16:9 instead of 2.5:1.

@Wasdie

I think the minority are actually the gameplay enthusiasts, the Vocal Majority wants all this cinematic non-sense. Nothing we can do about it.

The majority don't know what they want. They'll buy what they think is cool. This whole "cinematic" trend is people trying to figure out the aggregate opinion of the masses and cater to that.

Considering you need to determine that kind of an aspect ratio in the initial design phase if you want everything to look right, it's going to be more of a design decision. Level design, concept art, UI, HUD, general lighting and level layout, and all of that stuff is going to be shaped by the idea of a 2.5:1 ratio over a 16:9. Losing that horizontal field of vision is going to change a lot of things about the design of the game.

When games like Killzone Shadow Fall are doing 1080p30 and looking better than The Evil Within, it's pretty obvious that it's not just some tech limitation.

@Wasdie

Well thats not any better... Indecisiveness is a pain.

Really? Are you a game developer or are you just assuming that?

Development cycles are years long - you don't think it's possible that something like letterboxing could be something that came later on when they realized the consoles weren't powerful enough to run the game they had originally envisioned?

As I said, the horizontal field of vision change really does change a lot of aspects of the game. It's a lot easier (and far less noticeable) just to reduce the internal rendering resolution of the game like they do for 99.9% of other games.

Going from 1080p to 900p isn't a huge drop in visual quality but throwing up 2 massive black bars that greatly decrease the horizontal field of view completely changes how the game looks and thus how a lot of the game had to be designed. If it was a technical decision they would have just dropped the internal rendering resolution.

It's called an FOV adjustment...there are numerous problems in Evil Within relating to the FOV and letterboxing, such as going up and down ladders when enemies are around and you can't see them because they are obscured by the black bars. Was that an artistic design decision too?

What precisely would need to be changed other than the FOV and UI placement if the letterboxing was removed? Because I removed the letterboxing and changed the FOV on PC and the game was perfect that way, that is why I am having such a difficult time accepting your argument. And it can't be "cinematic framing" or "camera angles" because the player controls the camera placement at all times in The Evil Within.

This might have been a good point if The Evil Within wasn't also a PS360 game. The letterboxing was there even in the E3 2013 gameplay demos.

Poor sorry ass peasants still debating this sorry ass choices? As proven with such video, there shouldn't even be the necessity to choose between the stupid premises presented on the original post!

/thread.

Explain what you mean by that, Cranler.

Letterboxing is just a cheap way of rendering less pixels due to sub-par hardware (see The Order 1866)

30 fps (due to sub-par hardware again) cinematic excuse is just PR nonsense that unfortunately many gamers are starting to believe and actually defend.

Same for the "oh, 900p is the new 1080p" crap.

It's all about lowering gamer's expectations and making them forget what was promised before this gen began.

Sad thing is, it looks like it's working.

If this were 1999 and limited hardware actually put a damper on developer ability.

8GB of RAM and a good GPU should be more than enough to create 1080p60 with stunning visuals.

Why choose when you can have both?

/thread.

And again...

/thread.

The hardware is crap relative to the graphical scale and new technology the devs want to use.

The devs need to make flashier games to impress jaded gamers but sacrifice fps,resolution,screen space as a result.

The hardware is clearly not powerful enough to fulfill their "next-gen" promises.

So you're saying they realized at a certain point in development that the consoles that have been out for 8-9 years weren't powerful enough for the game they envisioned?

Not Cranler and how is it that you post so much yet have been a member since 2003? Looks like Mikhail was a dormant alt that was resurrected when another one of your accounts got banned.

Cows are the experts on this topic.

Not a fan of it, but I don't mind if it's in the game aslong as the game is fun.

You got me.

I am Cranler.

Real cinematic gaming without idiot quality sacrifice

/thread.

60hz? Yuck. I'll wait till they have 120 or 144hz models.

ZZZZZZZZZZ

I don't really understand the idea behind a cinematic frame rate, unless it is like a David Cage game which would work with that sort of frame rate, and would give it a cinematic look. Every other game though the higher the better really.

As for aspect ratio, that depends on the game as well, with wider aspect ratios in movies it gives you a wider shot. I think this would work well for like a tank game where the vertical aspect isn't too important, but seeing a larger horizontal view of the battlefield would be more desirable. With the Order 1886 it doesn't make too much sense, because it looks like it is mostly small areas you are in.

The Evil Within's widescreen presentation is just strange to my eyeballs.

If you think black bars are a vision of the developer you're just uninformed or ignorant. It makes absolutely no sense, NONE. Same goes with 'cinematic framerate'.

@undefined: It's only Sony's developers that say letterboxing and 30fps is just a design choice and it makes games more cinematic. Their fan base is very gullible.

Done't believe filters or black bars add anything to a game. Nor do I think that 30FPS is better than 60FPS. It's PR lies at it's finest.

Anyway, games shouldn't be more like movies. That's just silly !

Good point. Besides, there'll always be mods on PC that let you play in fullscreen like for The Evil Within.

Why are you referring to timster as carnler?

Well there is truth to 30fps giving a more cinematic look and I could see why a Developer would choose this frame rate as an artstyle choice. Just like i can understand when a Director chooses to shoot 24fps when making movies. There is just something about 24fps in movies that allows you to be more immersed in a film. I watched The Hobbit at 48fps and everything looked so fake, totally ruined the experience for me. A 30fps framerate makes sense in a game like Beyond: Two Souls which focuses more on narrative than actual fast paced gameplay. Where as a game like Call of Duty really benefits from a 60fps framerate.

Implying that framerate has anything to do with "look".

Letterboxes however, do. I think it's a smart decision. Letterboxes look cool imo, and then you also have less pixels to render. Win/win.

Everyone, say hello to Cranler alt #435

24 fps in film creates a surreal look. I don't think it works for games. 60 fps is more realistic thus it's more immersive

I'm not this Cranrel fella you speak of

@Sushiglutton: Would be kiind of funny if someone from the year 2114 got to read one of those "30fps is more cinematic"-PR-statements. I have a feeling they would laugh pretty hard :

year 2014 and I still laughed pretty hard

never seen such a load of shit in so few sentences

I wouldn't want 24fps in games. 30 is close enough for that cinematic look without affecting actual gameplay too much. I wouldn't want to play a game like Beyond: Two Souls at 60fps since it is a more story driven experience.

Would you care to elaborate? If you think I'm wrong then at least put effort and explain why.

Film directors are trained to work with 24 FPS. They know not to show stuff moving too quickly and they know how to position cameras correctly. In games the user has control over the camera and character movement. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that because it works in films it must also work in games.

Even in Beyond: Two Souls you control the character and camera, so even that will only benefit from higher frames rates.

film and tv has motion blur baked into every single frame, games don't. It's also been 24fps since the dawn of film, you're used to the low quality, like many people, because that's all you know. It can also get away with 24 because you aren't interacting with it. 30fps is not an art choice in a game, nor a cinematic one, it's failure and the absolute minimum required. Playing any game or movie at a higher fps is objectively better, especially so for games. I have a 144hz monitor and a 60hz one next to each other, and even that gap is an objective improvement for every type of media in favor of the 144hz one. Playing a game at 30fps is headache inducing once you've gone 60 and over.