Sections

The Order: 1886 to run at 30FPS & 1080p, dev confirms

Thursday, 6th February 2014 09:39 GMT By Dave Cook

The Order: 1886 studio Ready at Dawn has confirmed that the PS4 action game will not hit 60FPS.

It follows the release of four new The Order: 1886 screens. Hit the link to see them.

Speaking with Play3, studio head Ru Weerasuriya said, “Currently we do not aim [for] 60 frames per second. In a first person shooter that [surely] makes sense. Also fighting games are undoubtedly predestined for 60 frames.

“But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.”

Does this bother you? Will you lie in bed at night fearful of a world where The Order: 1886 doesn’t run at 60FPS? Let us know below.

Via Gaming Bolt.

Latest

56 Comments

  1. mck3nzi3

    What?? But it was not the console for excellence 1080/60?

    #1 8 months ago
  2. Xbone

    I really really hate the excuse when they say: “well, its not an fps so Its ok if its not 60″. 30fps is a fail.

    #2 8 months ago
  3. Kieran

    Hate incoming lol

    They have a point 3rd person doesnt really need 60fps and i dont care really if its playable, no hiccups and has my interest by all means put it whatever use want

    #3 8 months ago
  4. super3001

    Is actually only run at 1920×800 with black bars top an bottom.

    30fps. Sub HD. Cinematic LOL.

    #4 8 months ago
  5. Madlink

    That’s great news. Not every game suits 60fps and for a cinematic game like this 30fps is just right.

    Of course, not everyone will agree that this should always be a creative decision and not some required technical standard, but then those people are probably going to moan that the ratio isn’t 16:9 either. (Wait! That means it isn’t even true 1080p! Burn it with fire!)

    #5 8 months ago
  6. Legendaryboss

    Some people wanting 60Fps is going to be disappointing especially because it is PS4.

    #6 8 months ago
  7. Fethennour

    @super3001 Yeah ? How you know that ?

    #7 8 months ago
  8. super3001

    @Fethennour

    RAD confirmed it. Bullshit excuse was ‘look more cinematic’

    Why not 24fps then lol

    #8 8 months ago
  9. Dark

    http://i.imgur.com/kIZqnGV.png

    #9 8 months ago
  10. Major Mayhem 70

    WHAT THE F YOU MEAN ONLY 30FPS?!?
    SAY IT AINT SO!!!!

    Like I really give a sh!t…
    I don’t get wrapped up in the numbers game. As long as it’s playable and I’m having fun playing it, that should be all that a gamer wants.
    CAN I GET A WHOOP WHOOP?!?

    #10 8 months ago
  11. Panthro

    @Madlink

    I love it when people make up excuses like this.

    60fps is BETTER for a cinematic game if anything.
    Hell, 60fps is better for almost everything if not actually everything…
    Dont be fooled by these “oh we were aiming for 30fps to be more cinematic like a movie” bullshit… They couldn’t hit 60 because they couldn’t hit 60.

    #11 8 months ago
  12. absolutezero

    As long as I’m happy playing in shit, fuck you for trying to get me a better experience.

    Max Payne 3 was sluggish and unresponsive at 60FPS I would hate to see what it was like running at 30. Perhaps if they hadn’t created an entirely new destruction engine for a back of the box tick mark they could have optimised a bit better.

    Oh wait its not even seen as a fucking goal worth achieving right now because the majority of console players have not had enough exposure to the difference to warrant them getting upset about it. Ignorance basically.

    #12 8 months ago
  13. Ghostly

    @Panthro

    Right, the dumbass stance right here. I mean, as long as it works, why should i want a better experience. I mean, a horse takes me to where i want to go, why do cars even exist, right? Settling for bad and little, when you can have more and better. Why ?

    #13 8 months ago
  14. _LarZen_

    Personally I think we are going to see 1080p running at 60fps only in the start of the PS4 life cycle. After a while the developers will push more eyecandy and it will be on the expense of fps.

    Eyecandy is easier to sell.

    30fps was the standard last generation, and it will most likely be this generation.

    #14 8 months ago
  15. Erthazus

    @_LarZen_ “30fps was the standard last generation”

    LOLWUT? you mean 15 or 25 at best?
    Standard lol.

    Standard is 60 fps. Period since the existence of 3D based videocards. Everything below that resolution is a hardware that is not capable of producing decent amount of power for the better experience and judging by The Order screens it is going to be a linear corridor Gears Of war Rip off in 30 frames per second with 2009 PC like technologies (AA, filters, decent textures for it’s time) and so on.

    #15 8 months ago
  16. Panthro

    @Ghostly

    Exactly; but like a guy further up said, console gamers haven’t had enough exposure to 60fps to be able to get used to it so these companies think it should be the standard because the buyers know no different.

    Suppose if there happy then there happy, I just have higher standards for how I like playing games, for me its like picking a blu ray over a dvd… If people didn’t care about the quality of entertainment we would all still be using VHS tapes and SD CRT TV’s.

    #16 8 months ago
  17. Madlink

    @Panthro Explain to me how 60fps is ‘better’ for a cinematic experience? Surely the term ‘cinematic’ in this case is purely an aesthetic consideration and as such the developers have chosen to go with a look that conveys that traditional sense of cinema (the wider aspect ratio and lower frame rate).

    @absolutezero But 60fps is of course a subjectively ‘better’ experience. It’s not as simple as more=better but rather what is appropriate and what’s desired creatively.

    Your example of Max Payne 3 highlights an interesting point too. You say that the game was ‘sluggish and unresponsive’ even at 60fps, so why should frame rate even be considered as a means of judging quality?

    #17 8 months ago
  18. Llewelyn_MT

    First game ever with “fluid 30 fps”. I’m sure 15 fps could be just as fluid, so there still is room to innovate. In bullshitting customers that is.

    #18 8 months ago
  19. absolutezero

    Frame rate is directly tied to input response and reaction of on screen characters.

    You know the entire interactivity thing that makes games different from watching a movie. You are interacting directly with a game, you are not a passive viewer, so sure watching a video of someone else playing is perfectly fine but actually playing yourself the difference between 30 and 60 is massive.

    As Ryse has already shown Resolution is not all that important when it comes to these consoles, they are still look stunning, FPS is now something thats actually achievable but its been thrown under the bus thanks to more easily marketable quotes like “1080p” and general apathy from the console specific user base.

    #19 8 months ago
  20. absolutezero

    There was a bunch of cinematic games on the PS2 right? They all had some pretty poor frame rates, SotC and such.

    I’m now emulating them on my PC at 60FPS and they look, and run fantastically. There is no negative impact to 60FPS other than making the “game” part of a video game better.

    #20 8 months ago
  21. Panthro

    @Madlink

    You are telling me that you truly believe that they chose to go for 30fps to suit a certain style?

    Don’t be so dim, 60fps is the best option for games… The only time they are capped by developers at any fps lower is when they have been developed for a console since they just aren’t strong enough to hit anything higher at a stable frame rate.

    Don’t let them fool you into thinking it was an aesthetic choice for a ‘cinema feel’ for the game… If that was the case they should of gone for 24fps.

    They went for 30 because they couldn’t get 60 and now they are making excuses, we have seen this one hundred times before.

    #21 8 months ago
  22. Panthro

    @absolutezero

    Couldn’t put it in a better and clearer way than you have here, so well done.

    #22 8 months ago
  23. _LarZen_

    @Erthazus 30fps was what every developer aimed for yes. And as you so nicely articulated many game failed to maintain a steady 30fps.

    Standard is 60fps on PC. That is not the case when it comes to consoles. And I believe most games will turn from 60fps on PS4 and be locked at 30fps in the time ahead.

    #23 8 months ago
  24. Madlink

    @absolutezero Yes of course I realise that. There are some games which rely upon extreme responsiveness; like I said though, the issue is about what is appropriate and what’s desired creatively.

    I’m willing to bet The Order isn’t a twitch shooter; it has never been positioned as such as far as I’m aware and so it probably won’t require lightning fast input response. What it has shown so far is a creative lean towards resembling cinema, so I don’t understand why people are up in arms about why it’s not 60fps.

    #24 8 months ago
  25. Madlink

    @absolutezero ” There is no negative impact to 60FPS other than making the “game” part of a video game better.”

    Well I suppose this is the key point of what we’re discussing. I mentioned earlier that it’s a subjectively ‘better’ experience. To you it’s better at higher frame rates, to me it affects my aesthetic experience (in certain situations) for the worse.

    #25 8 months ago
  26. Ghostly

    @Madlink

    no man, it’s not “subjectively” better, for fuck’s sake. IT IS BETTER. It’s a fact. How in gods good name there are still people in this day and age arguing about this sort of thing. It’s mind blowing. How is it that not ALL people want the best experience that is already possible and find excuses for half measures. In fact, they want sub par experiences. Please, give me some non hd resolution and low framerate, i dont mind, i don’t even want more. Sweet jesus

    #26 8 months ago
  27. Hcw87

    60fps? Please. 100 FPS on a 144hz monitor is where it’s at.

    When G-Sync monitors are out, it’ll be a whole other level.

    #27 8 months ago
  28. Erthazus

    @_LarZen_ you are right here. But also you need to remember that devs aimed at 30 fps so hard that to achieve 30 fps they sometimes sacrificed V-sync and we had screen tearing stuff.

    It’s going to be interesting this gen to see how devs will aim at 30 frames per second in the future especially at the time of G-Sync and Free-sync from AMD.

    #28 8 months ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    You can only get a certain amount of videliry with a certain amount it power.

    The current machines are decent but not spectacular. We all know this. These constant frame rate / resolution arguments are utterly pointless.

    If you want higher videlity, get a PC.

    #29 8 months ago
  30. deathm00n

    “I’m making a pizza, but instead of mozzarela I’m going to use provolone cheese.”
    “But pizzas need to be made with mozzarela!”
    “My pizza is just fine with provolone. It’s my recipe, it’s still pizza, it still uses cheese and people are going to eat it just the same and love it.”

    If you get the analogy.

    #30 8 months ago
  31. Luciferous

    I hate having to pull out this card, but 30fps is fine for a cinematic game, if you want an argument for not going over that in a cinematic experience I shall point you towards… a film… The Hobbit.

    But people will latch on to anything to whine about instead of focusing on the positive side of things.

    #31 8 months ago
  32. Panthro

    @Luciferous

    That is one of you’re “cards”?

    The hobbit is a movie, passive entertainment which you have no interaction with.

    You cannot compare it towards a game which you have control over.

    And even still The Hobbit rocking 60fps would be plenty better than 30fps anyway.

    #32 8 months ago
  33. Madlink

    @Ghostly Okay. So videogames are a medium that to a large extent involve visuals. We all interpret these visuals differently; we respond to them differently too. One aspect of this is how fast the images are refreshed on screen. As human beings we can recognise the difference between some of the varied frame rates we see. We react differently to the different frame rates in ways like ‘Oh, I like this!’ or ‘Oh…I don’t like this.’

    Now unless you view videogames are merely ‘toys’ or ‘tools’, you hopefully agree that they are creative endeavours, capable of presenting a myriad of different views and beliefs that good, developed, artful media can. They are also designed to elicit an emotional response from you.

    That design, SHOULD, cover every aspect of the visuals including frame rate. Now, I’ve never said that games shouldn’t be running at 60fps, but rather, the frame rate should be a creative choice, one that is appropriate for the game the developers want to make. We’re in a development environment now (especially on PC) where this should be a choice they can make.

    #33 8 months ago
  34. Dave Cook

    @30 fuck, I’m hungry now.

    #34 8 months ago
  35. Rockstar Vienna

    Let’s play the biggest crap in gaming history as long as it runs at 60fps, right? Srsly, i don’t care if it runs at 30 or 60fps. The resolution is more important imo. And you know what’s most important? The freaking game and its gameplay god dammit. This is so sad!

    #35 8 months ago
  36. Panthro

    @Rockstar Vienna

    FPS over resolution any day.

    If you drill it down to just the gameplay the FPS actually contributes to that experience, the resolution just makes i looks nicer.

    I would lower my resolution to hit 60 rather than to raise it and play at 30.

    #36 8 months ago
  37. Panthro

    @Madlink

    Framerate should come under the technical side of games development not design.

    They should be aiming for the highest FPS possible to ensure the smoothest gameplay experience,

    #37 8 months ago
  38. TheKeyPit

    What have we become?

    #38 8 months ago
  39. OlderGamer

    Say what you want, but imo, on the new systems all games should be 60fps @1080p.

    Wasn’t this one of the things that made the WiiU “old tech”? A “last generation system”?

    I am sorry but I can’t help but feel a little disappointed when I see stories like this. Once again consoles are bringing up the bottom end of gaming. I never expected Consoles to out perform PCs, but I was hoping for a bigger step forward with the new systems. Instead of a leap(and I never expected a huge leap either) in graphics we have a shuffle forward.

    A bit better would have been nice.

    #39 8 months ago
  40. Panthro

    @OlderGamer

    Through the magic of optimisation 1080p60fps standardisation will come!!!!

    ^ lol jk

    #40 8 months ago
  41. dotfaust

    Am I the only one who thinks varied framerate could possibly add to the experience of the game?

    Example: blight town from dark souls.

    Everyone and their mother complained about the noticeable frame dip in that section of the game, but for me, it seemed to add to the charm of this horrible swamp area. Its dark and you cant see anything, your character is getting poisoned with his health draining, and on top of it all the responsiveness feels a bit… off.

    In this way, I think that a lower framerate could occasionally be more desirable than the gold standard 60fps… it would just have to be very creatively executed.

    #41 8 months ago
  42. pukem0n

    it’s quite interesting how the PS4 fanboys start stating now that 60FPS aren’t neccessary anymore…weird

    #42 8 months ago
  43. Panthro

    @pukem0n

    I think everyone who gets overly attached to a console is that way…

    Whatever there systems throws at them is “better” in there minds no matter what it is.

    #43 8 months ago
  44. TheWulf

    Well, I guess I won’t be upgrading any time soon. And even my midrange machine manages to churn out sixty frames per second. And when you consider that there are 120+hz monitors on the horizon, meaning over a 100 frames will be commonly achievable? Well, I suppose that’s when I might upgrade, when most games are taking advantage of that.

    Framerate is nice. Never was a fan of fidelity, myself, for the reasons I’ve covered here countless times. To have a game that only cranks out thirty frames per second just admits a lack of horsepower within the system, to be honest. And instead of being smart and creating games that look slightly better with 60 frames per second, something that would actually create a next gen state for console gamers, they opt for cheap shader spam.

    And to this adaptable old curmudgeon’s mind: Cheap and nasty shader spam was never cinematic and never will be.

    The new machines aren’t even capable of proper tessellation, which has been around in DirectX 11 for yonks, now, and in OpenGL for even longer. And I value tessellation because it makes an aesthetic difference rather than one purely based around fidelity.

    So, tell me, new consoles… what do you do that the old consoles can’t?

    SHADERS! SHADERS! SHADERS! SHADERS! … SHADERS! SHADERS! SHADERS! SHADERS!

    Did Steve Ballmer transplant his brain into this new generation of consoles? Is that what happened?

    #44 8 months ago
  45. TheWulf

    I don’t know about anyone else, but is no one annoyed that the new consoles aren’t even remotely capable of proper tessellation, and haven’t shown any signs that they ever will be? That irritates me. I love tessellation because it can make such an aesthetic difference to a game when used properly, it’s lovely.

    But instead, we’re going to be held back because this new generation can’t even handle tessellation. No, it’s simply more shaders. That’s all they do! More shaders! It’s going to be XBox Two and PS5 or whatever, soon, and what will they do? MOAR SHADERS.

    Grumpf.

    #45 8 months ago
  46. fearmonkey

    The games I play on PC at 1440p are mostly 30FPS to 45 FPS, so if it’s thirty, it’s not a big deal. RPG’s and games like this it doesnt need 60FPS, racing games, multiplayer and such need 60fps.

    I would rather they make the game as beautiful as possible at 1080p than worry about making it 60fps., which would limit them.

    #46 8 months ago
  47. reversj

    I was gonna get this game hoping it would run at exactly 47 FPS. Now when I’m reading it will be 30 FPS I am not so sure anymore :(

    Where did this FPS fanaticism come from? I swear I never saw anyhing about FPS in the media a year ago, at the moment it seems like the most important aspect of any videogame?

    #47 8 months ago
  48. Panthro

    @TheWulf

    Tessellation? What the hell is Tessellation?

    -Said every gamer who only uses consoles

    Whats the point in giving them tessellation, decent frame rates and better AA if they don’t know what they are? It would only have only cost the console manufacturers more money when the crowd who would be benefitting have eyes that can’t see jaggies, brains which can’t register more than 25fps and an ignorance towards anything that isn’t on there console.

    I knew the consoles wouldn’t live up to there incredibly high expectations, I know its early days so my judgement is still fairly open but so far Im not impressed, too many corners have been cut IMO.

    #48 8 months ago
  49. polygem

    i just jumped into pc gaming and i´ve been playing far cry 3 sp and mp all maxed out with a 2560×1440 resolution today (on a samsung 9 series monitor. it´s the most gorgeous piece of tech i have ever used i believe, certainly the best display i´ve used in my life) everything running very smooth. it´s pretty mindblowing.

    i never was a graphics whore but i don´t think there´s a way back for me now. it´s just that impressive really.

    marketing is a bitch. while these new consoles are great, the term next gen is, compared to the pc, only that, a marketing term. empty. not true. pimped, colourful words filled with air.

    the wiiu feels more next gen to me because it´s at least different. x1 and ps4 are just x720´s and ps3.5´s. absolutely nothing wrong with that but people should realise it.

    steam with it´s community features and voice chat/keyboard chat ingame and out is also miles ahead.

    no wonder that so many are jumping ships and go for pc these days. what´s on offer there is just hard to beat even if the entry price might be a bit of a barrier on the surface. in the end it pays off. deus ex was 4,99 euro yesterday. bought bioshock infinte for 9,99 today, spec ops the line 4,99 as well. it pays off after a few years.

    #49 8 months ago
  50. Daniel_N7

    First world problems…

    #50 8 months ago
  51. Panthro

    @reversj

    A year ago everyone was still playing hardware which was 6 years old and people didn’t expect them to hit anything higher than 25fps.

    Now the new consoles are here the discussion is open again since its fair to criticise something considered so “new”.

    #51 8 months ago
  52. Joe Musashi

    Oh dear. How tiresomely predictable to see members of the “It’s whether it’s fun that counts!!!!” brigade coming here to rag about a game’s frame-rate.

    JM

    #52 8 months ago
  53. dontbescaredhomie92

    People really care about this crap and as a result would avoid it entirely!?
    Grow the fuck up and please get a life.

    #53 8 months ago
  54. Panthro

    @dontbescaredhomie92

    I cannot see anyone saying they will avoid it?

    Growupandlearn2readpls

    #54 8 months ago
  55. dtyk

    This is just another take on the whole fps issue here.

    If you have purchased a new TV, you’ll know that they have a motion smoothing technology that upscales 30 fps videos to 60 fps. Now since we are so accustomed to watching movies and tv in 30 fps, people went “Omg this looks like shit.” The human brain has been trained to perceive “cinematic” material in 30 fps due to technology.

    You can google “Soap opera effect”. It’s quite interesting.

    That said, as long as the game looks amazing and plays amazing, I don’t have any issues with it. I’d prefer 60 fps, but hey the consoles always have weaker hardware than PCs.

    #55 8 months ago
  56. XanderZane

    Why is everyone saying it’s only 800P? Is it because of the black bars?

    #56 8 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.