Will EA UFC 3 be 30fps or 60fps ?

[Bigg Cee]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

I think everyone would welcome the option to choose between 1080p 30fps and 720p 60FPS. 1080p 30FPS can be preserved to make the game look as awesome as possible in commercials, trailers, and print ads (and to the average gamer) whilst allowing the hardcore audience who deep-dives into gameplay to play the game with maximized frame rate. I would be totally happy dropping the resolution and losing some effects and texture quality in order to play the game at 60 render. The Battlefield 4 devs patched in the option to unlock frame rate on consoles, so there is already a precedent at EA for allowing users to trade fidelity for frame rate if they want to.

I dunno if I would like that. I want the best looking game possible and best FPS but not if it means textures and effects get the Axe.

[GameplayDevUFC]

Quote: Originally Posted by drinklime

No one is accusing you guys of anything. The fact is you keep making statements that are contrary to what Brian Hayes said multiple times. He said that people preferred 30 fps with motion blur instead of 60 fps. None of you devs have addressed this. In fact, GPD said the opposite. Ok. This thread is about RENDERING. When asked about RENDERING, Brian Hayes said the following: Now SkyNet is saying "if we could have feasibly given you 60hz sim and render for UFC 2, we damn well would have done it." But Brian Hayes said people in testing preferred 30 fps with motion blur. Again, no one is accusing you of anything. I just want to know why Brian Hayes said that people prefer 30 fps with motion blur while everyone else, including the devs, say that 60 fps is better. Brian Hayes says 30 fps is better. Which is it? This has nothing to do with a digression about netcode.

I said no one is arguing that you can't tell the difference.

Brian said the tests he ran showed people preferred 30 with motion blur over 60 without.

Obviously if they preferred that, then they could tell the difference.

There is no inconsistency between the two statements.

[Skynet]

Quote: Originally Posted by drinklime

No one is accusing you guys of anything. The fact is you keep making statements that are contrary to what Brian Hayes said multiple times. He said that people preferred 30 fps with motion blur instead of 60 fps. None of you devs have addressed this. In fact, GPD said the opposite. Ok. This thread is about RENDERING. When asked about RENDERING, Brian Hayes said the following: Now SkyNet is saying "if we could have feasibly given you 60hz sim and render for UFC 2, we damn well would have done it." But Brian Hayes said people in testing preferred 30 fps with motion blur. Again, no one is accusing you of anything. I just want to know why Brian Hayes said that people prefer 30 fps with motion blur while everyone else, including the devs, say that 60 fps is better. Brian Hayes says 30 fps is better. Which is it? This has nothing to do with a digression about netcode.

This was also at a time where we were weighing the pros/cons of going between 60 and 30. 30fps allowed more power for features, and if people were ok with how 30 played, then we were happy to have the ability to add more things into the game.

The tests that were run tipped the scales in the favor of stuff over speed. My comment was the say that if we could have done both, then obviously we would have. That was not the case, and the educated and tested decision came down to 30 winning over 60.

[SUGATA]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skynet

For those interested in a more visual explanation of how some kinds of netcode work, and what some of the tradeoffs can be. Please keep in mind, this video talks about FPS style client-server netcode, which is not the model that UFC uses. However, it might help you better understand netcode in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTH2ZPgYujQ GPD is not lying or making up excuses to somehow hide a 60fps version of UFC from you guys. It's almost like some people on the forums think we purposefully don't release the best product possible. We do everything in our power to give you the best gaming experience we can, and if we could have feasibly given you 60hz sim and render for UFC 2, we damn well would have done it.

This video is about Overwatch, Overwatch as many other FPS uses _dedicated servers_, which are recieving & sending pockets between players (dedicated server = host), worldwide there are many dedicated servers for the game (Battlefield 4 for ex) and they are regionally linked (us players are playing on us servers to minimalize lags but still can to play w europe).
Netwrok code for games based on dedicated servers is different than for P2P.

Many other games especially 2 players games (fightings) are using P2P, where one of the players is a host. There are some technologies that allow to neglect host's advantage and large distance between 2 players in P2P - this is roll back based network codes, especially GGPO, which as i said before costs low and used by many studios from Netherealm to small low budget indy.
Here is info about GGPO, if you can make use GGPO like netwrok code in EA UFC 3 or make a patch to EA UFC 2 (like MKX did) that would be awesome!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGPO
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...Os_netcode.php



GPD, very thanks for your large post and your time anyway, but there is one small fact that buffling me:
UFC Undisputed 3 - which was in 2012 on old previous gen PS3 weak system made by lower budget (i am sure) than EA Sports.......
was stable 60 fps and mostly normal online not much worse than EA UFC.
Paradox....

[GameplayDevUFC]

Quote: Originally Posted by SUGATA

This video is about Overwatch, Overwatch as many other FPS uses _dedicated servers_, which are recieving & sending pockets between players (dedicated server = host), worldwide there are many dedicated servers for the game (Battlefield 4 for ex) and they are regionally linked (us players are playing on us servers to minimalize lags but still can to play w europe). Netwrok code for games based on dedicated servers is different than for P2P. Many other games especially 2 players games (fightings) are using P2P, where one of the players is a host. There are some technologies that allow to neglect host's advantage and large distance between 2 players in P2P - this is roll back based network codes, especially GGPO, which as i said before costs low and used by many studios from Netherealm to small low budget indy. Here is info about GGPO, if you can make use GGPO like netwrok code in EA UFC 3 or make a patch to EA UFC 2 (like MKX did) that would be awesome! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGPO http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...Os_netcode.php GPD, very thanks for your large post and your time anyway, but one there is one small fact that buffling me: UFC Undisputed 3 - which was in 2012 on old previous gen PS3 weak system made by lower budget (i am sure) than EA Sports....... was stable 60 fps and mostly normal online not much worse than EA UFC. Paradox....

No paradox at all.

Fight night rendered at 60 as well. There's nothing special about Undisputed in that regard.

If we chose to make UFC look like Undisputed or Fight Night in terms of visual quality, we could have rendered at 60 as well. Quite easily.

Someone decided that moving to a new generation of consoles meant the consumer would expect an improvement in visual quality.

In addition, the focus test drinklime so kindly posted.

Those factors informed the CHOICE to render at 30.

It was a choice.

No paradox.

[SUGATA]

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

No paradox at all. Fight night rendered at 60 as well. There's nothing special about Undisputed in that regard. If we chose to make UFC look like Undisputed or Fight Night in terms of visual quality, we could have rendered at 60 as well. Quite easily. Someone decided that moving to a new generation of consoles meant the consumer would expect an improvement in visual quality. In addition, the focus test drinklime so kindly posted. Those factors informed the CHOICE to render at 30. It was a choice. No paradox.

Unfortunately, it seams that for EA UFC community this choice was wrong.
You can admire the picture first days but then only gameplay remains, so more smooth movements becomes much more important than 1080p with high render.
So, now is it possible for you to make _another choice_ for EA UFC 3 (60 fps)?.................
Hayes said that he made this choice for EA UFC 2, not 1 which both have the same graphics engine - it means that he can to change it again for EA UFC 3 at least.

[GameplayDevUFC]

Quote: Originally Posted by SUGATA

Unfortunately, it seams that for EA UFC community this choice was wrong. You can admire the picture first days but then only gameplay remains, so more smooth movements becomes much more important than 1080p with high render. So, now is it possible for you to make _another choice_ for EA UFC 3 (60 fps)?................. Hayes said that he made this choice for EA UFC 2, not 1 which both have the same graphics engine - it means that he can to change it again for EA UFC 3 at least.

Of course.

But that doesn't mean it will happen.

[Soupkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

We found benefits to moving the sim to 30Hz, and no one could tell the difference. We did a lot of focus testing on that, and not a single person could see a difference. If rendering were at 60Hz, for sure you'd see the difference. So we changed the sim to 30Hz. After that interview.

What benefits did you find running the game at a lower fps?