30 FPS delivers better story telling than 60 FPS in games
- Thread starter DriedMangoes
- Start date
Motion blur will be the end of movies and gaming in a few years, according to Ketto. Because...well, you know....Ketto isnt a fan and all.
Talk about lack of reading comprehension. Clearly that's what I said…clearly.
Pfft. Note: I did say that I like the effect from being in the bizz? You know?, like film? I can appreciate the effect in movies and television--so I still have an appreciation for the effect itself, even if I dont see it so much while playing a game if it is there.ITT: Mcmasters says he doesn't pay attention and suggests you'd need a magnifying glass to tell if motion blur is on.
But it's an effect he likes!
Take that s*** somewhere foo....
Well, no. You think those of us who are making comparisons between film and gaming are a riot, right? I mean, thats why were all here, correct? To be laughed at by the mighty Ketto because some of us can see the direct correlation between film and gaming and thus make appropriate comparisons? Just wanting to bask in thine light, Ketto. We wanna be down wit-choo!
Again, I dont game on PC and on my television I dont notice motion blur in games when Im gaming. On a PC, I honestly wouldn't know if its there or no. You guys may as you are PC/console gamers. More power to you.... Whats the problem?
Like I said, I have to pick to and choose, which means I always try out both, and BF3 was just fine, for me. You can disagree with that and that is fine, but do not tell me I'm lying to myself because of it.
He didn't even know motion blur existed until someone else pointed it out.. according to him earlier in the thread, based on "being in the biz" it was low framerate that caused the cinematic effect.
Which I'm still wondering why anyone thinks this improves first and third person action game gameplay sequences... somehow the fact that Mass Effect also has "cinematic sequences" means the 100's of hours of gameplay sections I might explore and have FPS shootouts in are improved by motion blur?
Which is a fake effect added to attempt to simulate real side effects of filming live action... and not really a replacement for the real side effect either way.
Which I'm still wondering why anyone thinks this improves first and third person action game gameplay sequences... somehow the fact that Mass Effect also has "cinematic sequences" means the 100's of hours of gameplay sections I might explore and have FPS shootouts in are improved by motion blur?
Which is a fake effect added to attempt to simulate real side effects of filming live action... and not really a replacement for the real side effect either way.
For the challenged: I can appreciate the effect as its the standard for most films and creates a more cinematic effect. It can also be added in post if not during production. I admire the effect from working in the industry. Personal taste.Which is it , you don't notice motion blur or you like motion blur?
HOWEVER!, in VIDEO GAMES..... I hardly notice it if it is there as I simply just enjoy the game and fancy more the over all visuals and experience more than minute nuances (e.g. motion blur, resolutions, etc) Make sense? Seriously. Perhaps Im not being clear enough for some of you.
I STILL appreciate the effect [itself] and what it can do for visual medium.
You have a hard time f***ing reading dont you Bunz?! Or do you have a hard time comprehending basic f***ing english?!
Im stepping off this thread for a bit as the usual "know-it-alls have ruined my experience by showing just how little they actually know. Cheers.
You have a hard time f***ing reading dont you Bunz?! Or do you have a hard time comprehending basic f***ing english?!
No, I don't. You didn't mention motion blur in this thread.. starseeker did.. you then suddenly are talking about motion blur afterwords.
You have a hard time not becoming a huge insulting prick any time someone tries to disagree with you. I have no problems with English or reading comprehension.
More insults. Completely baseless insults, considering people are discussing actually EXPERIENCING varrying levels of framerates in games.. something you are admittedly ignorant on but insist it doesn't matter.
ITT: PC gamers who have spent tons of time tweaking games to varrying framerate levels, who say that this idea that 30FPS suddenly makes games more cinematic appears false = know it alls.
ITT: Guy trying to claim because he has worked in film he knows somehow that film applies to videogames, despite not knowing jack s*** about videogame framerates or effects = not know it all.
The ridiculous thing is also that it's not like 24FPS for film vs. 30FPS for TV and the differences it causes are only known by people in the business. I've spent almost 2 decades on forums like avsforum, and that is a conversation I've read dozens of times.. they call it the "soap opera effect" when discussing the 48 FPS Hobbit stuff... there really is no need to have ever filmed anything to have this incredibly basic "film 101" knowledge that you stand behind as some bastion of expertise on this topic.
Meanwhile you completely failed to realize that it doesn't apply to videogames.. unless they have faked motion blur effects.. and even that is a maybe.
Last edited:
Don't know if this is one of those things the writer in the OP was talking about, but it does make since if you have "shaky cam" effects they would get even more shaky at higher frame rates.
http://www.ign.com/blogs/vampirehor...er-definitive-edition-ps4-1080p-hd-screencaps
http://www.ign.com/blogs/vampirehor...er-definitive-edition-ps4-1080p-hd-screencaps
Oh wow, that's deep. I'll have to skip the Sam Adams and pop a Foster to think about that one!
Im speaking from experience of DOING. Your speaking from WATCHING or PLAYING. You dont have to believe me. You tossed out another insult, I see; so now my knowledge in actually working (as a professional mind you) is "basic". Tell you what Bunz. You believe what you want to believe, Mmk? We'll just leave it at that and agree to disagree. Cheers.
This entire topic is about the process of viewing content. Your experience filming things barely relates. That isn't an insult, it's just a fact. And again.. your experience in film doesn't necessarily relate well to videogames. As demonstrated, only when they attempt to mimic motion blur does it even come close to mattering.. notice how you didn't know that?
Even before motion interpolation became so popular, it was a fairly well known aspect of home theater.. the FPS difference between TV and film.. now it's something all consumers really need to be aware of:
https://www.google.com/search?q=soap+opera+effect
But again.. doesn't really apply to content without motion blur, which is most videogames.
Film doesn't relate to gaming. With gaming, you have direct control of characters on screen, and you "feel" the response of controller/mouse input in contrast to what you see on screen.
This is why you feel lowered fps when you're playing and not notice it so much when watching gameplay vids on youtube.
We have known for years, for many many years, that higher fps in gaming is better. Gaming is gaming, period. I play games to play the game, not to feel like I'm controlling something in cinema.