More Links

NYyankz225 · 05-02-2009, 12:26 AM

60 fps is INSTANTLY noticeable to me. I'm serious. I can tell, without fail, which games are in 60 fps. Watcher I think you're sort of mixing two issues together. Obviously you can have a game at 500 fps that still has crappy controls. But if you play the same game and switch between 60 and 30 you should definitely notice a difference in smoothness. It has nothing to do with responsiveness of controls, but visually it sure as hell does.

Motion blur has helped mask the issue and makes 30 fps much more bearable. A lot of games use this now.

Just because you didn't notice a difference in the PS3 version of 08 doesn't mean it's not there. I found it unplayable especially after playing the 360 version.

60 fps DOES make a difference...but just like other things some people are blissfully unaware of it

.

I'd take smoothness over detail ANY day of the week. I hate people that just want to throw a million effects over a game and run it at a crappy frame rate. The thing that will make Madden stand out is making it smoother. That's all it needs now imo.

CzecHitYou · 05-02-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYyankz225


	60 fps is INSTANTLY noticeable to me. I'm serious. I can tell, without fail, which games are in 60 fps. Watcher I think you're sort of mixing two issues together. Obviously you can have a game at 500 fps that still has crappy controls. But if you play the same game and switch between 60 and 30 you should definitely notice a difference in smoothness. It has nothing to do with responsiveness of controls, but visually it sure as hell does. Motion blur has helped mask the issue and makes 30 fps much more bearable. A lot of games use this now. Just because you didn't notice a difference in the PS3 version of 08 doesn't mean it's not there. I found it unplayable especially after playing the 360 version. 60 fps DOES make a difference...but just like other things some people are blissfully unaware of it . I'd take smoothness over detail ANY day of the week. I hate people that just want to throw a million effects over a game and run it at a crappy frame rate. The thing that will make Madden stand out is making it smoother. That's all it needs now imo.

Agreed.
Well done sir, well done.

NYyankz225 · 05-02-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CzecHitYou


	Agreed. Well done sir, well done.

I think you gave me a "Let's Go Packers!" response a few days back that I never responded to. So here it is in return... LET'S GO PACK! Can't wait for the season to start and we see our new defense. But we'll be able to check it out in Madden first, so that should be great! Cutlers going to be sorry he came to our division opening Sunday

.

Valdarez · 05-02-2009, 02:36 AM

You might be able to pick one or two games out, but I'd bet you money that you can't tell the difference between the 60 FPS and the 30 FPS without fail.

Again, if you look at the times I posted for the missing frames, we are talking 33 to 66 milliseconds on average and 133 in the extreme. Honestly, you're seriously not going to notice that, especially in a game like Madden. If there's a problem with the controls of the game, then it's the game, not the FPS. In Madden you can make a defensive adjustment and it takes nearly a second to respond. That has absolutely nothing to do with the FPS, that's all game lag.

Obviously any loss of control would be a bad thing that no one wants. IMHO I think we should take the loss of control aspect off the table, because we have no validation that's an issue with relation to Madden. It's all speculation. What we do know however, is that the team has constantly said they were unable to add sideline animations and other on field aspects due to the limitations put on the game by the 60 FPS rate.

TheWatcher · 05-02-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdarez


	You might be able to pick one or two games out, but I'd bet you money that you can't tell the difference between the 60 FPS and the 30 FPS without fail.

Exactly, but I think folks have fooled themselves into thinking they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valdarez


	Again, if you look at the times I posted for the missing frames, we are talking 33 to 66 milliseconds on average and 133 in the extreme. Honestly, you're seriously not going to notice that, especially in a game like Madden. If there's a problem with the controls of the game, then it's the game, not the FPS. In Madden you can make a defensive adjustment and it takes nearly a second to respond. That has absolutely nothing to do with the FPS, that's all game lag.

On the money again.

@Czhec... yes, but it's not as if you pressed to spin and it took two seconds to react, lol.

If you'd never played or saw the 360 version I doubt you would've felt the same way because it would've been all you'd have to go by. As I mentioned before, I played both versions and the only reason I could tell is because I had the 360 version, but I think the responsiveness stuff was incredibly exaggerated, and many of it's issues had on PS3 had to do with how it was programmed, not the framerate. This is the main point that you guys are refusing to accept. Heck, there were complaints like this when Madden 07 was 30 frames on both 360 and PS3; people complained that the PS3 version had all kinds of frame issues that the 360 version didn't have... again, both were 30 frames.

... it's all in the way the game is put together. The PS3 versions just didn't get the all-star treatment at the time.

@NyYankz... If you can tell a framerate immediately without fail in any game, without having seen its counterpart to compare at some point, then you possess an ability most Human Beings don't have.

Did you know that Madden 08 for PS3 actually hovered around 40 something frames depending on the movement of the scene? I'd find it hard to believe that you could actually tell that. A guy on a Sony fan board had some sort of frame calculator and he tested this. It took a piece of software to make this determination that the human eye could not.

The switch difference is beating a dead horse... I already made the point that if you switch between a game playing 60 and the same playing 30 you can tell the difference, that's a given. But had you never seen or played the 60 frames version, it wouldn't be a situation at all, and I having played both versions think the idea of it being "unplayable" at 30 is a ridiculous exaggeration. If that's the case, then how did we play any of the games we'd been playing for generations that ran at 30 and below? How do we still play those games today and still find great controls and have fun with them? The answer is obvious.

30 frames is not a "crappy" frame rate (how do you figure? LOL), but if you think so I'd stop watching movies if I were you because most of them are shot at 24 frames or less. You should also know that 30 frames is still considered the broadcast standard in North America and Japan... perception has taken over reality in some people's minds with this framerate stuff, there is no doubt about it.

NYyankz225 · 05-02-2009, 06:05 PM

A static frame rate is ALWAYS better than one that jumps. A constant 30 FPS better than a game that jumps from 60 fps to 45 fps. Games where the frame rate is not constant is even more noticeable. That's the problem with Madden 08. Had it been stable it would be less noticeable.

I still think people are confused about what the benefits of a higher frame rate are, the same way people think a higher resolution means a picture is sharper. You can have a 1600 X 1200 image but if it was taken out of focus it's not going to be sharper just by it being in a higher resolution. A frame rate does not make a game more responsive regarding controls. I never said that. Control inputs are pre-display...your actions are sent "into the game" and the result is displayed on the screen so there's no way the display settings(resolution, frame rate, etc) can have an effect on the responsiveness of the control inputs. It only effects what you see.

A higher resolution/frame rate allows the footage to more closely represent the original source. Content created in development is ALWAYS much higher quality than what is put into the game. Assets are always decreased in quality when put into a game, whether that's the texture size or the compression, polygon count, etc. So by having a higher resolution all it does is allow the game to be more accurate to the original source. Same with a higher refresh rate in games. If the original animations Ian created are not smooth, 60 FPS will not improve that. But it would be better than it being at 30 fps.

Without being too technical (because this isn't entirely accurate), you gain twice as much image information by switching from 30 fps to 60 frames. Picture those old flip books you used to play with where you'd have a slightly different image of a character on each one and you'd flip through it quickly to make it animate. That's essentially how footage is displayed on a TV. Now imagine you take out every other page in a flip book. That's essentially what you're doing by dropping to 30 frames. The jump from one movement to another is increased. For example imagine a person lifting his hand. imagine that there are 4 shots of this movement. First where the hand is flat by his side, one where the hand is at a 60 degree angle, another at a 90 degree angle, one at 120, and finally at 180 above his head. If you reduce that to 30 fps, as I said you're losing every other shot. So you might jump from the flat animation straight to the 90 degree and then the final 180 degree finished animation. It will appear more "jumpy".

A problem that Valdarez has often complained about is why animations look jumpy in gameplay that's been shown (especially the trailer footage). The footage is running at 60 fps in game, however the video that is played on your computer is converted to 30 fps. This conversion causes some jittery movement and this should be improved when you actually play the game.

The reason film gets away with 24 fps is because there is a natural motion and focus blur inherent with cameras. These things have to be emulated in game situations (such as the new depth algorithms that have been put into the game) When a video camera moves footage is blurred and is not jarring. When a game "camera" moves it does not do this.

Valdarez · 05-02-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYyankz225


	A problem that Valdarez has often complained about is why animations look jumpy in gameplay that's been shown (especially the trailer footage). The footage is running at 60 fps in game, however the video that is played on your computer is converted to 30 fps. This conversion causes some jittery movement and this should be improved when you actually play the game.

I have actually complained about the game's jumpiness/stutter/missing frames, that's to say, Madden '09's gameplay itself. It's just that the videos thus far released by EA of Madden '10 appear to suffer from the same problem. I don't think the appearance of missing frames in their game play has anything to do with the FPS. If you can't make it look smooth at 60 FPS then something is wrong with your animation or rendering technology.

For some reason everyone keeps pointing to the Replay framerate as an explanation for the gameplay stutter (anim8tor, Ian, and now you). The replays when played slowly look amazing, it's when the game plays at normal speed (not via the replay, but the game itself) that there are issues with missing frames / stuttering of the images.

CzecHitYou · 05-02-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYyankz225


	I think you gave me a "Let's Go Packers!" response a few days back that I never responded to. So here it is in return... LET'S GO PACK! Can't wait for the season to start and we see our new defense. But we'll be able to check it out in Madden first, so that should be great! Cutlers going to be sorry he came to our division opening Sunday .

YEAH man. I got season tix, so I hope our new D is the right move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWatcher


	@Czhec... yes, but it's not as if you pressed to spin and it took two seconds to react, lol.

Right...more like half a second, haha..(Czech, btw)

05-02-2009, 12:26 AM	#57
NYyankz225 Pro OVR: 9 Join Date: Aug 2008	Re: Difference Between Models in Madden and APF2K8 60 fps is INSTANTLY noticeable to me. I'm serious. I can tell, without fail, which games are in 60 fps. Watcher I think you're sort of mixing two issues together. Obviously you can have a game at 500 fps that still has crappy controls. But if you play the same game and switch between 60 and 30 you should definitely notice a difference in smoothness. It has nothing to do with responsiveness of controls, but visually it sure as hell does. Motion blur has helped mask the issue and makes 30 fps much more bearable. A lot of games use this now. Just because you didn't notice a difference in the PS3 version of 08 doesn't mean it's not there. I found it unplayable especially after playing the 360 version. 60 fps DOES make a difference...but just like other things some people are blissfully unaware of it . I'd take smoothness over detail ANY day of the week. I hate people that just want to throw a million effects over a game and run it at a crappy frame rate. The thing that will make Madden stand out is making it smoother. That's all it needs now imo. Last edited by NYyankz225; 05-02-2009 at 12:29 AM.

05-02-2009, 02:36 AM	#60
Valdarez All Star OVR: 51 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,093 Blog Entries: 33	Re: Difference Between Models in Madden and APF2K8 You might be able to pick one or two games out, but I'd bet you money that you can't tell the difference between the 60 FPS and the 30 FPS without fail. Again, if you look at the times I posted for the missing frames, we are talking 33 to 66 milliseconds on average and 133 in the extreme. Honestly, you're seriously not going to notice that, especially in a game like Madden. If there's a problem with the controls of the game, then it's the game, not the FPS. In Madden you can make a defensive adjustment and it takes nearly a second to respond. That has absolutely nothing to do with the FPS, that's all game lag. Obviously any loss of control would be a bad thing that no one wants. IMHO I think we should take the loss of control aspect off the table, because we have no validation that's an issue with relation to Madden. It's all speculation. What we do know however, is that the team has constantly said they were unable to add sideline animations and other on field aspects due to the limitations put on the game by the 60 FPS rate. __________________ Follow Me On Twitter: http://twitter.com/Valdarez Read My Blog - Vision Is Everything Last edited by Valdarez; 05-02-2009 at 02:39 AM.

05-02-2009, 06:05 PM	#62
NYyankz225 Pro OVR: 9 Join Date: Aug 2008	Re: Difference Between Models in Madden and APF2K8 A static frame rate is ALWAYS better than one that jumps. A constant 30 FPS better than a game that jumps from 60 fps to 45 fps. Games where the frame rate is not constant is even more noticeable. That's the problem with Madden 08. Had it been stable it would be less noticeable. I still think people are confused about what the benefits of a higher frame rate are, the same way people think a higher resolution means a picture is sharper. You can have a 1600 X 1200 image but if it was taken out of focus it's not going to be sharper just by it being in a higher resolution. A frame rate does not make a game more responsive regarding controls. I never said that. Control inputs are pre-display...your actions are sent "into the game" and the result is displayed on the screen so there's no way the display settings(resolution, frame rate, etc) can have an effect on the responsiveness of the control inputs. It only effects what you see. A higher resolution/frame rate allows the footage to more closely represent the original source. Content created in development is ALWAYS much higher quality than what is put into the game. Assets are always decreased in quality when put into a game, whether that's the texture size or the compression, polygon count, etc. So by having a higher resolution all it does is allow the game to be more accurate to the original source. Same with a higher refresh rate in games. If the original animations Ian created are not smooth, 60 FPS will not improve that. But it would be better than it being at 30 fps. Without being too technical (because this isn't entirely accurate), you gain twice as much image information by switching from 30 fps to 60 frames. Picture those old flip books you used to play with where you'd have a slightly different image of a character on each one and you'd flip through it quickly to make it animate. That's essentially how footage is displayed on a TV. Now imagine you take out every other page in a flip book. That's essentially what you're doing by dropping to 30 frames. The jump from one movement to another is increased. For example imagine a person lifting his hand. imagine that there are 4 shots of this movement. First where the hand is flat by his side, one where the hand is at a 60 degree angle, another at a 90 degree angle, one at 120, and finally at 180 above his head. If you reduce that to 30 fps, as I said you're losing every other shot. So you might jump from the flat animation straight to the 90 degree and then the final 180 degree finished animation. It will appear more "jumpy". A problem that Valdarez has often complained about is why animations look jumpy in gameplay that's been shown (especially the trailer footage). The footage is running at 60 fps in game, however the video that is played on your computer is converted to 30 fps. This conversion causes some jittery movement and this should be improved when you actually play the game. The reason film gets away with 24 fps is because there is a natural motion and focus blur inherent with cameras. These things have to be emulated in game situations (such as the new depth algorithms that have been put into the game) When a video camera moves footage is blurred and is not jarring. When a game "camera" moves it does not do this. Last edited by NYyankz225; 05-02-2009 at 06:17 PM.

	MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
	New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
	Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?

More Links

Difference Between Models in Madden and APF2K8