Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 127
- 5
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Tears of the Kingdom has leaked, so who else has been playing it? I wasted many valuable hours of my life fucking around with the various systems in BOTW, so I am in heaven with TOTK, which goes full garrys mod, letting you build all sorts of ridiculous contraptions to fly or sail or trundle about the place, and with a very intuitive control set up. I been playing the game all week but still haven't beat the first boss, I've spent so much time jerry rigging airships out of camp-fires and balloons, and building go carts out of refuse. I have beat a heap of hinox and lynels though, and some of the new mini bosses like the constructs and shadow ganon.
The new weapon system is quite inventive too - the new evil decays all weapons in the land somehow, making even something like the royal broadsword ineffective trash. It's mitigated however, by the fusion system, with which you can fuse almost any item to your weapon, augmenting its effect. At first this seems to be a compelling reason to chase down tough enemies - fusing the horn of a black moblin to your weapon makes it much more powerful than a regular moblin horn as you'd expect. But as you play around with it you find you can do much more impressive stuff with other items than just up the attack power. Attach a ruby to your weapon and it becomes a wand, or attach an electric lizfalos claw and it will shock enemies. Same with your shield, attach a rock for extra durability, or a flame emitter for a flamethrower shield, or get more creative and attach a spring that pushes enemies away when they attack, or a dazzle bud to blind them. There are some much cooler effects you can set up too, but I don't want to spoil them all.
There's also a new underground area, sitting beneath the main map. It's a lot more sparse than above ground, but there's still quite a bit to do, and some interesting puzzles. There are caves all over the place too - and the presentation of it reminds me a lot of elden ring. Only superficially of course, things like how the caves are tracked and the way the underground area looks, but I appreciate it all the same.
There's still a lot of the trivial annoyances only Nintendo gets away with, like that old 'bad actor' style of cut scenes where people act and talk separately, but overall I'm having a blast. If you have played it, what were your impressions? Just nobody mention the goatse shrines.
Maybe I'm weird but I find it really hard to go back to 30 fps gaming. It looks like a slideshow to me after spending years playing at 60+. Emulating TOTK as yet has a lot of issues with reaching 60 fps, so I'll wait a few weeks/months before jumping in.
You're not alone, 40ish the lowest I can take, especially since my pc is where the bulk of my discretionary income went. 30 looks profoundly terrible and choppy in comparison, and I genuinely don't know how people are so enamored with 24 fps in film, panning shots and action just looks outright juddery.
Goes to show that people will praise a shit sandwich for its distinguished aroma if indoctrinated since birth.
As someone who can't stand 30fps gaming but loves 24fps film, let me just (imprecisely) defend it here.
I'm pretty sure there are ways to mitigate the choppiness from pans, I'm not sure on the specifics. But generally I think it's a limitation that should be worked around as one of the weak points.
The strengths of 24fps film is how the natural blurring of movement in each frame creates the beautiful and subtle impressionistic quality movies have, and that's something that would have to be painstakingly simulated to do in games (and blurring effects in games are pretty bad so I feel like that is a ways away)
Without meaning any disrespect, I genuinely think this counts as cope.
Think of it this way, in a world where 24 fps wasn't the standard, and people without prior exposure to it were suddenly allowed to pick any arbitrary frame rate, how many do you think would choose that value? Not even 24 specifically, but a low frame rate, defined as anything below like 60-100 if it came with little other tradeoff.
Such arguments ring hollow to me, for the same reason as claims that burqas should be encouraged because they're a form of female expression and protection from sunlight also should prompt a raised eyebrow. You don't see the men claiming the latter wearing them themselves, for all the vaunted merits they possess.
I hold it in the same tier as claims that analog audio sounds "warmer" and is thus better (convincingly shown to be entirely the result of noise and scratches introduced from vinyl), or for a hypothetical example, someone arguing that black and white cinema should be the norm because it minimizes distracting colors, and allows the audience to focus solely on the performance.
24 fps is a historical artifact of the fact that film was once expensive, and 24 fps is near abouts the lowest you can go before it becomes outright unwatchable; similar to the reason that hand drawn animation was done at 12 fps, to save costs; with people ending up Stockholm syndromed when the original concerns became moot.
These days, it might be more expensive to shoot heavy CGI at high frames, but interpolation makes that much less of a hassle, especially if done in actual production instead of on a consumer device.
When I saw The Hobbit, I found the 48 fps jarring for about 30 seconds before I happily acclimatized and preferred it, leaving aside the movie itself was crap.
Further, motion blur is a function of anything moving fast, even an object at super high frames can appear subjectively blurred. You don't need the jank of low fps to get it, not that I consider it a worthy tradeoff in the first place.
Cope is far from the most likely explanation. What I have to work with is:
An intense revulsion towards high FPS film and television every time I have encountered it outside a nature documentary, that I share broadly with the film industry and enthusiasts.
Things I have noticed that I like about 24 FPS that appear degrade at 30 and even further degraded at 48 FPS, but also degraded in a different way at 12 FPS.
Finding 60 FPS games vastly preferable to 30 FPS games, despite growing up with games at a low FPS, which I also happen to share broadly with the games industry and enthusiasts (although it's only been more prioritized recently). Also, finding no degradation in 120 FPS or higher.
Empirically I don't think your analogies hold up well. The average record enjoyer does not feel revulsion towards digital audio outside of memes, the black-and-white movie enjoyers, as much as they even exist, don't feel revulsion towards color film. If this is Stockholm syndrome, it's on a far more massive scale than any other phenomena like it that I can think of.
When considering mass psychosis we should at least be curious towards what actually changes with different FPS choices. You say blur is in everything, but I was describing the amount and qualities of the blur, not just from fast movements but practically all movement because it's so low. There's also the ways even TV at 30 looks different from film. Watch Run Lola Run which mixes the two, and try to observe the different effects each have in how you process the scenes. I really think if collectively we act incurious, and if film goes to 48 or higher, film is dead. I watched the Hobbit at 48, I watched an interpolated Game of Thrones episode. Both were just absolutely revolting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link