Minimum FPS

Depends I guess. If the game is a console title, it will make use of a fixed set of hardware. In that case the devs can't blame the end-user of having out-dated hardware, and thus they should garrantee a proper framerate (>25). If it's a PC title, things get more difficult as the performance depends on the end-user system (== how many he/she is willing to pay to have his hardware up-to-date).

If a developer wants success, he could target the average gamer-pc. But if the game uses cutting-edge graphics or something, then... well, yet again the end-user has to decide if either a system-upgrade or low-performance is worth the price. If I want to make a superb game that can only run on 2% of the gamers hardware, well, then that's my deccision. Probably not a smart one, but that's another story.

Don't forget that lots of technologies are not used at their full potentional. For example, I have a PS3 that delivers support for HD televisions and it can play Blue Ray. Too bad that my TV is an old piece of crap. Now, should PS3 have skipped Blue-Ray and HD support IF many of the users didn't have HD television, or should I just buy a new TV? I guess the answer is clear, Sony should support both high-end and lower-end users of their system. Same for games. At leats make options to run the game faster on older systems.

Greetings,
Rick

How, exactly, is this an issue that belongs in the Business and Law of Game Development, as opposed to a critical opinion of quality?

Moved to the Lounge.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but what game are you talking about?

Quote:

Original post by Codeka Maybe I'm ignorant, but what game are you talking about?

+1

It sounds like you are saying there are multiple AAA games on a console that run between 5 and 25 fps?

Hmm...I'm skeptical. A console dev knows the hardware the game will run on, so there should be no reason it won't run @30/40/60fps. Unless something is wrong with your console.

Personally, I'm annoyed by the lag in almost all games. Few newer titles can be played smoothly on a decent PC system, even with all visual settings at minimum. And by smoothly, I don't mean 25 FPS, I mean at least 60 FPS, preferably 80 FPS. A few good quality titles run on my machine at 120+ FPS, and fast-paced gameplay at that rate is incredible. It's like running on clouds instead of nails.

I blame this issue entirely on rigid programmers and/or bloated programming code/practices/languages. There's clean, organized code, and then there's code that's so clean and organized that it can't do anything without taking a bath and getting dressed first.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Personally, I'm annoyed by the lag in almost all games. Few newer titles can be played smoothly on a decent PC system, even with all visual settings at minimum.

I rarely play games but here are some results from www.tomshardware.com,

Assassins Creed   (1280x1024, 0xAA, Trilinear, max. Quality)      : 57  fpsCall of Duty 4    (1280x1024, 0xAA, Trilinear, max. Quality)      : 139 fpsMass Effect       (1280x1024, 0xAA, Trilinear, Ultra Quality)     : 93  fpsWorld in Conflict (1280x1024, 0xAA, Trilinear, Very High Quality) : 47  fps

All results are for ATI Radeon HD 4850 with cost about 160$ making it a midrange card.
So, what games are we here talking about?

[Edited by - Kambiz on December 12, 2008 7:47:05 AM]

If a console game runs at 5-25 FPS without having any possibility of toning down the eye candy in order to increase the FPS - then I agree. That is and should be unacceptable.
However, if you have the ability to tone down the eye candy, which increases the FPS but also makes the game look more plain than advertised, then I'd say that is a gray area.

PC games are obviously different as there are a million things the user can do in order to affect the FPS.
For a single player game 40 FPS is adequate for me. 40 isn't particularly smooth, but it's a good balance between eye candy and performance.
However for multiplayer gaming I need to be as close to the LCD's refresh rate as possible.

GTA IV?

Quote:

Original post by skytiger A video game that regularly runs at less than 25 fps should not be on sale.

[totally] Assassins Creed running at 1920x1200 wide screen with trilinear filtering is not appropriate for your six-year-old PC.

Most games have adjustable quality settings so you can still enjoy the game without buying this month's high end gaming hardware.

I don't know. Many console games on the 360 and PS3 run around 30 FPS, and dip into single digits quite often (such as Halo 3).

Frame rate is a tricky issue, because certain tricks can be used that can make a 20 fps game appear smoother to the eye than a 50 fps game without the tricks.

As for should you expect it? Well, getting to the latter half of this generations consoles life span, they need to increase graphic quality, which will come at the expense of framerate, so probably this will occur more and more.

Then again, there's always the possibility that they're just poorly programmed.

re: Business and Law of Game Development

because I think that regularly dropping < 25 fps is a health risk.
I would rather R* fix their frame rates than see them sued or legislated.

Yes, I am talking about GTA4.

If you play that game you will get bad eyestrain.
It is a health risk and not be on sale.

At minimum there should be an option for guaranteed 25/30 fps.
I would be happy to drop the sophisticated shader techniques for a decent frame rate.

oddly enuf the 2 games mentioned as running poorly (GTA4 + halo3) are prolly the 2 most expensive games of this current console generation, coincidence?

whilst I can see why GTA4 will have problems, halo3 OTOH should not being a bog standard FPS, if it does then thats just plain embarrassing esp since its sub HD resolution, Im betting the chief problem lies is the terrible choice of HDR implementation that they decided to run with.

Quote:

Original post by KestI blame this issue entirely on rigid programmers and/or bloated programming code/practices/languages. There's clean, organized code, and then there's code that's so clean and organized that it can't do anything without taking a bath and getting dressed first.

I think that's a load of crap. It sounds like something a self-taught game programmer would say about software engineering, 'wasting' all that time on unit testing, refactoring etc.
I'm not saying that's you... but you phrase it that way [wink]

Quote:

Original post by Kest I blame this issue entirely on rigid programmers and/or bloated programming code/practices/languages. There's clean, organized code, and then there's code that's so clean and organized that it can't do anything without taking a bath and getting dressed first.

I'm not in the industry, but from what I've heard, 'clean and organized' code is not something that characterizes most games, unfortunately. If I would have to blame it on the programmers, I'd say it would have to be poor choice of algorithms than everything else. But, let's face it, some games are beasts that need the equivalent hardware to run. Nothing is for free.