E3: PGR 4's Lack Of 60 FPS A 'Conscious Decision' Posted by XanTium | July 13 16:58 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From gamasutra.com: [QUOTE] "We looked at that," commented Adam Kovach, PGR 4's global product manager during an E3 demonstration. "We debated for a long time... we looked at what we would be giving up if we tried to go to 60 versus 30 frames a second. We don't want to lose the visual fidelity... we made a conscious decision that 30 frames plus all the effects in the game was far more important than having a pure 60." He added: "If we take a look at 60 frames a second in Forza, which looks great, if you look at the visual fidelity with PGR - you look at the motion blur, all the particle effects, and everything that we put on the screen to ensure that's it's visually stunning - it's really a rich experience, not just a simulation experience." [/QUOTE] Full Story: gamasutra.com

for the average racing games (aka this sorta game) it might not be a bad idea to use the 30fps with top notch graphics.

but for forza2 60fps was a must... cause forza's all about gameplay so it dont need the great looks.

PGR4 aint going to be nothing special anyways... cause Forza 2's the king of simulation race games/race games in general.

As long as I can rock dubs with that motion blur I don't care..

Also important is to wheelie half of the track on my motorcycle, just like they do in real Moto GP races.

TBH I thought that Forza is overated. It's pretty boring. Its the same things all the way through, a bit like Gran Turismo and looks like Gran Turismo in terms of graphics where as PGR has different things to do. Im glad that they stuck with 30 fps because if your playin forza at 60 fps, I dont feel like im going fast. In PGR however, i feel like HOLY S**T! THIS IS FAST!. So yeah im glad they stuck with better visuals and slower fps.

It's really pathetic. It's no secret that American developers have a long history of have difficulty developing a 60fps game. I still remember that sad-looking greenish xbox 1 console menu running at 30 fps while PS1 and dreamcast running theirs at 60fps years ago. Beside all the Japanese developed 60fps games for xbox 1 & 360, I can't seems to recall any 60fps running xbox games beside some ea sports games.


The main reason of no 60fps is that all those lazy programmers don't have to work that hard at all for the optimization. Now they basically have twice the polygons to use, so they would waste it on here and there, and the graphic can still look a lot inferior, less realistic when compare to Gran Turismo 4 for PS2 (and that's not even account for the frame rate difference, yet.)


And it's even more pathetic when ppl here would simply accept whatever low quality wasted Microsoft give you, and find a reason to justify. If you prefer low fps then who don't you go back to "Hard Drivin" running at 15fps.

If the game still offers a great gaming experience and is still visually stunning and stable regardless of FPS who cares? Graphics are not everything.......................... and pleease Forza kills Grand Tourismo.

Who gives a crap what the dashboard runs at?

Apparently everyone cares about framerate, from the 2d console era, saturn-psx era, to the dreamcast-ps2 and PC gaming, for the smoothest and realistic gameplay. Only when xbox/360 appear to the market, framerate mysteriously no longer becomes important. Nice job MS.

Forza 2 the GT killer "again"? Maybe it's GT killer if all the FAKE screenshots (rendered from the development machine, not real time) on the Internet are real. It's the typical Microsoft hype and full of the disappointment after you fired the disc to the console. Where are the gorgeous racer we saw on the Internet promised by the Microsoft?
Check out both the Gamespot and IGN Forza 2 screenshot page,
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/743/743956/imgs_1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/driving/fo...tag=tabs;images

Did you notice NOT A SINGLE REAL IN-GAME REAL-TIME RENDERED SCREENSHOT WAS POSTED even after the game released? Maybe because real-time rendered in game looks like real shit when compare to the fake pre-rendered shot? At least in the past ign posted like 10 Forza 1 in-game screenshots (which look pretty bad) after the release. In comparison, GT4 pages has like thousands real in-game screenshot. It's the fact, Forza 2 looks and plays worse compare to GT4, after all the 360 horsepower and all these extra yrs.

For the xbox1 dashboard, I just want to point out that in the early day, they are incapable of even making that ugly menu at 60fps.

I'm not sure why we are talking about GT4 and Forza in a PGR4 posting but oh well

I traded me PS3 for a 360 because lack of games and lack of up coming games until 2008 that interest me.
So i played the Gran Turismo PS3 demo and I've played GT4 and i rented Forza 2 (P.S I hate Forza 2, just seems slow and boring to me) but the game's graphics and realism look far superior to both GT4 and GT demo on PS3... it looks like I'm watching racing in real life, so i don't know how people can say GT4 looks better, unless your drinking that cheap watered down American beer
Anyway, that being said 60fps or 30fps who cares, look at the graphically achievements thus far and there are great for most games. What we need to get back to is gameplay... Take games like The Darkness and Prey, they look great but gameplay is lacking. I find myself trying harder and harder to enjoy gaming, when it should be natural
But that should change since X360 has the most hotest upcoming titles from now until Christmas holly crap

They do a good job at 30FPS although, I'd like ALL bells and whistles just like everybody.

I was pissed when they said PGR2 was 30FPS and it looked good. I was also pissed when they reported the resolution of PGR3 and it looked OK.


Maybe this will look great at 30FPS. I have a feeling it will.

It doesn't matter as long as the game looks great and plays well.



I don't think you've actually played Forza 2. You can take screenshots all day long that look that outstanding, the game is superb, it's got 9+ on every review and it's one of the number one selling games on the 360.



Fire up the game and take all the in game shots you want, they all come out gorgeous.



No one gives a damn what the dashboard looks like. If you care that much about the dashboard then you don't own a gaming console for the right reasons.

did you seriously register just to troll and and bash American developers?

It seems you need to do your research, because honestly you come off like an uninformed DICK
1. PGR is developed by Bizarre Creations, a European studio (Liverpool UK), not only that they're not even MS exclusive they have developed for Nintendo Sony Sega and PC in the past and they even have Nintendo and Sony games in development now.

2. Forza was never meant to be the best graphical racer. From it's inception it's goal has been Realistic physics. which it does have and it calculates all of the cars physical characteristics and reactions in real time. AFAIK it's the only game that does that. Even the GT series just uses pre-calculated numbers and stats. It doesn't matter which console you're working with, there is only so much power to go around and if you're going to calculate all of your physics in real time then the graphics are going to be toned down a bit as a result. You might as well go poke fun at some ducks down at the pond because they can't quack as loud as your dog can bark... but really they were meant for swimming and flying, and your dog sucks at one (physics) and can't even do the other (crash damage). I'm sorry but any "simulator" that leaves out crash damage is no simulator at all.

Even at that Forza 2 still runs at 60FPS, even with all those lazy American developers bogging it down.

3. From your dis of Hard Drivin, which is arguably one of the most realistic driving simulators in terms of gameplay and physics, it's obvious the only thing you care about are graphics. In which case I implore you... GO WATCH A MOVIE.

No. I'm posting it mainly try to question the intelligence of the previous poster(including YOU), and trying to bring some balance to the matter.

Beware of your word usage, "troll and bash" ? I just merely point out the fact that most US and EU devs make 30fps games. Where is the freedom of speech, "American" ? It's like saying oppose to war == unpatriotic , pls leave your kind of american spirit to yourself or maybe in Texas.

You're right. My mistake. I played MSR back in Dreamcast and I should know. But it does not change the fact that vast majority of the US and EU developers only dev 30 fps games. Only explanation is either they lacks the skills (unlikely), or just plain lazy, unwilling to put the extra efforts to optimize.

And wow beware of your word, head mod? If i'm the dick, I guess you're the dick head, head mod.

Those are all just marketing term. In the end only the results (graphic and gameplay) matter. It's just like term "HEMI" or "VTEC", at the end it's the HP and speed that counts. Just to remind you, rendering actual 3D object is the basis of the real physical simulation. The fact is PGR3 at 30fps and GT4 at 60fps. Saying PGR3 renders physics at 360fps is like saying my optical laser mouse render at 8000fps. Ridiculous and highly misleading.

And you called that kind of crash damage a real simulation? A real physics simulation of the crash damage would be blown the car into many pieces, tire exploded and wheel falling off. A few bumps and fake glass shattering here and little slow down there are hardly a realistic physical damage simulation. The car looks like damaged but in term of physical damage simulation in a racing game, both PGR3 and GT4 hardly get it right.


I appreciate both photo realistic graphic and convincing gameplay, that's why I'd go extra effort of playing GT4 in the KAI network. Seems like ppl here have a tendency of lowering their gaming standard for the developers convenience. That's why I suggest you further lower yourself and settle on hard drivin. Who knows, you might like it if it's from Microsoft not Atari. I sure know I wouldn't settle for anything less than 60fps. For christ sake it's 2007 and the next next next gen gaming, if you like 30fps you've a problem.

By the way, I have a 360. Madden from 30fps => 60fps is for a reason.

60 fps do really matter at least for me.
PGR1 was 60 fps and had that really superfluid feel.
PGR2 disappointed, because all of a sudden the speed feeling was lost and camera sweeps and stuff became stuttering because of the 30 fps. I don't care about the graphics detail. The game must run absolutely superfluid like a good arcade game.

I still have an old PAL-TV and run the games in PAL60 on a XBOX1.
The 60FPS games runs supersmooth on that TV.

For testing purposes I brought my XBOX to friends with plasma and LCD-TVs.
Only the plasma TV could rival the old PAL TV in terms of response time and "smoothness" of 60 FPS.

60FPS on LCD-TV? Forget it. Blurrish and not pleasing for the eye...

You may think different, but for me smoothness is top priority. I hope my old TV won't blow any time soon, as it seems to become near to impossible to still get good 50/60Hz TVs (Sony Trinitron anyone?).

A good monitor test is the rotating "Diamond" in the Quantum Redshift Title screen. I was totally shocked when I saw it moving on 100Hz TVs or LCDs. Playing the game itself on the 100Hz TV was not fun either...

Twisted, pull out the ban hammer. ixus is obviously one of these eurotrash guys with half a brain. Don't come on a forum questioning someone's intelligence when you can't even speak or type English properly. It makes you look even more worthless than you already are. And Forza is a prime example as to why devs are choosing 30fps over 60fps for alot of games. You lose overall graphical quality when attempting to go 60fps. Same thing goes for 1080p. The performance hit you take when trying to run REAL 1080p is so great, you'd end up with a high resolution game with low-res textures. Not to mention, the human eye can only process 30fps, which is why movies are run at something like 28fps at the theatre. 60fps and 1080p are buzz words used to push hardware to the ignorant people like yourself. The guys working on PGR4 are going to up the ante on the 360 when it comes to visual fidelity and effects with real-time weather, lighting, etc. I'd rather have a game that looks absolutely amazing, than a game like GT4 or Forza 2 running at 60fps with ho-hum graphics.

you can tell a diffrence between 30 and 60. that whole human eye thing is a lie. they can get away with 30 in games in movies because they use motion blur.

WIKI "Computer animation
Similarly, in real-time computer animation each frame shows a perfect instance in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem 'jumpy' and strange, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears continuous. To compensate for this, much higher frame rates are desirable, of 60 frames per second or more. The majority of next generation video games feature motion blur, especially racing or flight simulators feature motion blur effects because of camera high relative speeds.
"

Wow that really sucks. I would give up a few gfx effects for a smoother gaming experience. Seriously, this has got to be the most annoying thing this gen. FPS slow downs are becoming too common. Why the hell is this issue becoming more mainstream? Everyone I know chooses the lower settings for a faster framerate on a PC. How exactly did they come to the conclusion that it was worth it?

Wkipedia

You need to read your sources a little more carefully next time.

A troll is someone who signs up for a forum with the explicit intent of creating controversy. There was no controversy and creating it where there was none before isn't bringing balance. BC decided to make the game 30FPS... that's it end of discussion. Discussing the merits of dropping other features to bring up the framerate or visa-versa would be a good balance. proclaiming other games with different goals are superior simply because they made different choices with little to no factual backing as to WHY it might be better is looking for trouble.

Also blindly proclaiming that developers are "lazy" as your only real reason for the choice is bashing. I hold software developers in high regard, and your brazen and unfounded accusations to that effect are not appreciated.


Despite popular believe, X-S is not an American site, and regardless of where the site is hosted it's a private site... free speech doesn't exist here. Lets leave politics out of a game discussion, the fact that you even brought it up further proves your tolling intentions. Also you might want to look at a map of the US some time... Texas is nowhere near Canada.

And while we're on the topic of free speech I'm in no way shape or form repressing what you have to say... simply disagreeing with you and pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in your argument and observations about your intentions here. Why should I not be able to voice my own options?

...if you continue the trend you've been following I will relieve you of your posting abilities.



60fps doesn't come out of nowhere, the games that typically have higher frame rates usually suffer in other areas by having lower resolution texture, lower count polygons, less special effects, etc.
Sometimes I'm quite impressed with what a developer was able to do with a game, other times I find myself wishing that a developer opted for 30FPS over 60 or 720p over 1080p because the trade-offs were too great.

optimization will only take you so far, most games that opt for the higher frame rate or higher resolution while visibly smoother, suffer in other areas. It's a decision by the developer which is more important, it seems to me that US/EU developers care more about higher resolution textures and higher detailed/polygon count backgrounds while JP developers care more about higher framerates and fluid gameplay.

It's a design decisions and has nothing to do with being lazy or unwilling to optimize. Parading that line is quite frankly insulting to the intelligent men and women who work ridiculous hours at relatively low pay to cater to our hobby.


I don't know where you got the idea of a marketing term but Forza genuinely does calculate the car's physics 300 whatever times per second based on conditions, and GT does not... it's not some marketing ploy its a fact. Your examples are poor as well because they do actually make a difference..

HEMI is short for hemispherical which refers to the unique shape of the top of the cylinder and the fact that the sparkplug is mounted at the very center. which provides more even pressure on combustion across the piston and allows for higher reliably when pushed to it's limit.

VTEC refers to the computer controlled timing adjustments within the engine, the VTEC system which while not a unique system it's not a common one either. it does imply that the vehicle has more power than a similar vehicle without the system. And since the VTEC system doesn't kick in until higher RPMs it implies that the power offered by the vehicle is heavily loaded towards redline.

Some might argue that 60FPS is just as much of a marketing term considering in tests done by Activision (I can't find the link right now) found that over 80% of gamers couldn't tell the difference between the same game running at 30FPS and running at 60FPS. I can see the difference and I do realize it does make a difference but most people cannot. I also notice the difference in physics characteristics between something scripted and something calculated live despite the fact that most probably cannot... I also notice the difference between a game with low res textures and a game with high res textures, despite the fact that most cannot.

Sometimes things are just marketing terms... other times you just aren't appreciating the difference.


No I don't call that kind of crash damage a real simulation, but it's MORE of a simulation than not even trying. The realism of the crash damage in the PGR and Forza series is no more fake than the physics in the GT series.... that is to say it's scripted and not actually calculated in real time.


See I go for realistic gameplay and convincing graphics... while I enjoy great graphics I'd rather they suffer a little for the sake of better gameplay and physics. I have a good enough imagination that any flaws in the graphics are easily ignored but I find it difficult to ignore things moving in unnatural and scripted fashions.


I don't think anyone is lowering their standards... I just think that many people feel there are more important things than frame rate. Not everyone holds your views on what the most important factor in a game is... apparently the developers don't either.

I don't think anyone LIKES or prefers 30FPS but sometimes it just doesn't make enough of a difference to have other aspects of the game suffer for the sake of 60FPS. That's my personal opinion and it's pretty clear that a lot of other people feel that way as well.

and I do really love hard drivin, I play it quite frequently actually because I enjoy the gameplay, I'm guessing you don't like it because it was made by Lazy American developers.

And no I don't particularly care for MS, I never owned Forza 1 and I don't own Forza 2, I own GT3 and GT4 and personally thought GT4 was a piece of junk compared to 3. And I quite enjoy the PGR series as well, even if most of them do only run at 30FPS.