Raven's Cry - Anything Over 30fps Doesn't Matter

Aubrielle

Noveliste
Joined
December 16, 2013
Messages
2,789
Location
1920
Reality Pump Studios is saying that anything over 30 fps doesn't matter for the gaming experience in Raven's Cry: Vendetta.

Vendetta – Curse of Raven’s Cry – formerly known as Raven’s Cry – appears to be lacking SLI support and from the looks of it, there won’t be any in the foreseeable future. And according to one of its developers, anything above 30 FPS does not matter for the gaming experience.

When a fan asked Reality Pump Studios to further optimize its title, Reality Pump’s Raidor responded that the team is analyzing the game’s performance issues, claiming that this is an expensive, complicated and time consuming research.

“On the one hand it is quite understandable, that a customer who spent 600+ bugs on a high end card (e.g 980Ti) expects that a game runs faster than on a 2 years old (e.g.780 GTX) – on the other hand … if you put two or four engines in a car it will be probably not run faster than with one powerful engine. It will for sure be more heavy and bigger, consume more fuel and be very expensive. Please notice, that the developers of the well known Benchmarks receive any support, money and any hardware they want from the graphic card manufactors … we received the last free graphic card 5 years ago, never ever any money and have to purchase graphic cards like an end user without any discount in retail.”
More information.

More information.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,789
Location
1920
aozWb5x_700b.jpg


disgusting
 
If they had simply said SLI wasn't within their budget or a good use of limit funds, great can't argue with that.

Though that analogy with car engines, I don't know whether to shudder or feel embarrassed.

As for 30FPS, even normal desktop use at 30 is unacceptable, it wasn't over 10 years ago and that's not going to change today, nevermind any game other than something archaic like an arcade cabinet. It is indefensible. At this rate they may as well go full retard and start spouting nonsense about the human eye only seeing in xx frames per second.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
147
Developers, any, can say whatever they want.
But on PC, 30FPS in a game that contains animations, is an insult.

I'm a member of TB's "30FPS police" or what's it now called group on Steam.
PC gamers do not want 30FPS. It's a thing of the ancient history and can be acceptable only on phones.
New games should at least try to get close to 60.

About SLI, sorry guys, I couldn't care less. A game doesn't work withit (correctly), tough luck.
New games IMO should drop SLI/crossfire and start supporting DX12.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I played through Max Payne at 18 FPS.

I played about 100 hours of Elite on the C64 at 2 FPS.

I played about 20 hours of Star Wars on C64 at 1 FPS.

Fun isn't measured in FPS.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
635
Location
Germany
I played through Max Payne at 18 FPS.

I played about 100 hours of Elite on the C64 at 2 FPS.

I played about 20 hours of Star Wars on C64 at 1 FPS.

Fun isn't measured in FPS.

You have the patience of a saint. :)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,789
Location
1920
Well I maintain my stance that 60FPS is not necessary for games to be good, or enjoyable, and that too many gamers are obsessed with having 60 FPS.

As the real question to ask is why a game may, or may not have 60 FPS. Maybe the developer had to sacrifice more framerate just to make the game playable?

Edit: Though Raidor could have responded better in his reply.

Anyway I have played worse games that couldn't even reach 30 FPS.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,185
Location
Spudlandia
Wasn't TV and Cinema for many many years 24 FPS in general?
I don't remember that people were unhappy with FPS in particular.

But I guess developers shouldn't say something like this. Admitting problems and inability to compete with the best of the best hurts your image. Just say something like "we are looking into this issue…" :)
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
228
When talking about cinema someone should have brought up already that first cinema, factory workers exit documentrary by Lumiere brothers, was actually 16FPS.
Not 24.

Your monitor refresh frequency is definetly 60Hz and if better can go higher.
Your TV frequency is - who cares.

On your monitor, your PC should be capable to put 60 pictures in one second and cover monitor's capability. Okay, some games are "too tough" for usual rigs and won't be able to pull out 60, but that doesn't mean a game should be locked on 30 or even less just because - PC that couldn't pull enough FPS will be upgraded.
On your TV, sorry, but it should be considered as inferior hardware so feel free to connect phones on it. :)

Developers should not mention 30 vs 60 FPS at all costs, especially not defending pathetic consolestandard of 30FPS in front of PC audience.
Ubisoft's similar statements were rediculed already by the audience a year ago.
The market wants 60 FPS. You want to sell a product? Put it to 60 FPS. You, a developer, don't believe it's needed? Who cares what do you believe, you're not making a product for yourself but for paying customers - care only what they believe.

It's true that fun and FPS are not the same thing. But if you have an airplane and a bicycle, would you travel to another continent on a plane or on a bicycle?
Developers just have to stop treating PC as phone/tablet/phablet/console garbage. "Unlimited" FPS PC is an airplane. 1 FPS max Gameboy is a bicycle.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I care about FPS when FPS matters. If the game mechanics require fast and responsive gameplay, I want fast and responsive gameplay. Dota-likes (low fps will get you killed all the time, might as well not play), action games, first person shooters (dont play the latter), I want high fps. TB games, low fps is fine.

Now my hardware isnt anywhere near high end so I usually have to put up with less than 60 (I used to play modded Oblivion and Skyrim at <30 FPS) and was okay with it but I understand the frustration of those who can play at much higher but are told they should be happy with 30 because >30 doesnt matter.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
586
I've been a PC gamer since the release of 'Jill of the Jungle' in 1992. Lots of advances have happened since then obviously, including 60fps. Part being a PC gamer is experiencing technology as it progresses and all this time that's managed to hold my intrigue. We're at 60fps now so in my opinion games should strive to keep it there. It's just a new way gaming is moving forward.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
211
It's bizarre that a small studio that admits they have little $ for optimization and testing are even trying to create open world rpg's in the first place.
Start with smaller, more "unique" titles ( Dontnod, Neocore, Telltales are good examples) and slowly build your fan base instead of pissing them off with something like this.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
3,898
Location
Croatia
I've never understood this fps argument. I can't tell the difference between fps when playing games. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive as others. 30 fps is fine for me.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
52
Maybe you didn't see a game on 60FPS or a game that "cries" for as much frames as possible.

I'll take as an example the overhyped mediocre helicopter simulator with horrible PC controls - GTA5.
I wish you fire up GTA5, lock it on 30FPS and play for a while, then switch to 60FPS.
Sensitive or not, you'll spot that the difference is drastic.

On the other hand, if you play a chess simulator, solitaire or reversi, it can go 1FPS, in such games it doesn't matter.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I don't think I've ever checked my FPS. I just play. Isn't Fallout-4 optimized for 30fps too or is that just on consoles?

Edit: I see it is optimized for 60 fps on pc. All hail the master race :D
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,821
- 60 FPS is noticeably different than 30 FPS.
- I'm given to understand that movie frames at 24 FPS are not noticeable due to the methods of exposure and the blurred motion in each frame mitigating jumps in position from frame to frame. 30 FPS is noticeable for precisely this reason
- I can play a game as low as 15 FPS.
- But only on a smaller screen and with preferably with limited action.
- 30 FPS and lower, I've noticed, is more likely to make me dizzy and give headaches more often on a large screen.
- That is plenty of information to demand that developers, especially of action games, try to pursue 60FPS as a technical goal at least.
- Locking to 30 FPS is a mis-allocation of development resources and at the beginning of 2016 a producer should be called to the carpet for not allowing a PC port to unlock and render at higher rates.
- Game design done with the expectation of 30 FPS is a malpractice similar to locking game execution to processor clock speed such as with Ultima VII or Morrowind physics. You may get away with it for awhile, but these are kludge solutions to performance and design problems and these bad habits will increasingly become a development liability.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
520
I have heard it say that your eyes don't see anything faster than 60 fps anyway. Its one of the reason you don't want to run a monitor at 60hz.

30fps is what films used to use for cost reasons.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
I've never understood this fps argument. I can't tell the difference between fps when playing games. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive as others. 30 fps is fine for me.


You seem to think that ignorance and defective eye sight is something to be proud of. It's not.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
10
Well good to know that's not a game dev I should give a chance.
Movie/TV fps is horrid so sure hope the whole industry wise up and start giving out some proper eye candy.
Also worth noting that while usually cheaty and inferior to a monitor, TV's often go way past 100hz for improved picture quality.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
201
Back
Top Bottom