Animation Frame Rate For Computer Games

The cable show G4 is now playing on a channel us lowly basic cable users can veiw. I just a show that was taking about a current game and they said that they were running the animation at 60 frames per second. Is this normal and why?

As a hardcore gamer, I can safely say that G4 is a terrible show. :P
(or at least, from what I know about it)...

Anyway, 60 frames per second is quite normal in 3D videogames. Some games run in 30 frames per second....but, the fact is, videogames need these high frame rates. I'm not entirely sure why, since I'm not a computer animator yet...but, I know interactivity can have a profound impact on how videogames look at play. (if you every play a videogame with a laggy frame-rate, you'll end up being very frustrated)

Anyway, on the off topic....am I the only human being in the world that has rabbit ears for television viewing, and a high definition TV for videogames and movies? And use both?

Oh well...imo, cable isn't really worth it for me. But HD on the other hand...it really improves the looks of videogames significantly....:)

Anyway, on the off topic....am I the only human being in the world that has rabbit ears for television viewing, and a high definition TV for videogames and movies? And use both?

Oh well...imo, cable isn't really worth it for me. But HD on the other hand...it really improves the looks of videogames significantly....:)

No I've had to revert back to them. Hasn't been all that much of a sacrifice, as I originally thought it would be.

As to the high frame rates for computer games, many developers in flash, that didn't understand timing or cpu usage requirements, resorted to high frame rates to compensate for poorly timed animations. With the advent of higher level processors and more ram accessability, it's not the problem it was in the beginning. And it provides some pretty amazing effects without really trying to understand timing and proper animation techniques.

Isn't the frame rate in computer games generated on-the-fly based on processor speed and graphics capabilities?

In PC games, probably. Might be the discussion on G4 was about a console game.

I think someone else above me already suggested this, but I believe it's true too-- it's not necessarily that all games' character animations run at 60fps, so much as it is the game engine itself (and in turn, the backgrounds and camera). I think it's a question of how precise the controls are-- a game running at 60fps allows for more accurate, precise controls than one running at, say, 20fps (although it's probably not that noticeable). The character animations could still run at something like 30fps, which isn't too uncommon.

Don't quote me on this though... Everything I just said is just speculation, and a bit from my experience making games.

It feels like Phacker might be right, the high frame rate is to cover the sins of poor animation.

I have a hard time with this thought. A faster frame rate won't make bad animation better, it just gets it over with more quickly. And in some cases it might make bad animation worse; if the arcs are bad, for example, a faster frame rate makes it all the more obvious.

The amount of ignorant speculation here is astounding...

First off, as far any speculation about if gaming will eventually over take film, its already happening, you're witnessing the very early stages. As stated earlier, gaming surpasses the film industry in revenue and more importantly in growth. Game titles over their life span easily make more money than a feature film. The main reason feature films can make obscene amounts of cash in just one opening weekend is the change in recent years on how they are released. In the past, films were released in under a thousand theaters, and played a lot longer. However now its not uncommon to see films released in 6,000 theaters opening weekend, and run much shorter.

As far as content goes, the film industry is stagnant and the gaming industry is still in its infancy. You are going to see a major push in the upcoming years for more emphasis interactive STORY driven games, that appeal to a much wider mass audience beyond the 12-25 year old demographic. If the current stage in the interactive entertainment industry were to be compared to films time line, right now we've been making black and white movie and we've just invented Technicolor. The improvements and innovations are going to be exponential from here on out.

Now to address the ignorant statements that "gaming will never be as good as ________". As the only person in this conversation currently working on a next generation title, I can safely say that this current generation of consoles has the same if not greater impact on animation ability as the leap made from the 2d 16-bit, to the 3d 32-bit systems. The current developments in blending and overlay systems allow the animator to create in-game interactive characters with personality and fluidity that has not been seen before. The new tools at our disposal allow the animator to take the old walk cycle and make it fresh and new. Facial animation is also very quickly approaching the quality of the best feature film work. Many video game studios are working closely with feature houses on this tech, Heavenly Sword for example, or Lucas Arts with ILM. While I will admit that on this current generation we aren't at feature film quality, I promise that within another generation or two, the line between the interactive entertainment industry and feature film will be greatly blurred.

Now to address the first issue that started this whole thing, WHY games sometimes animate in 60 fps. The real reason is that even though the human eye stops seeing individual images at around 24 fps, it CAN still feel a difference at 60 fps. When dealing with an interactive experience, frame rates below 30 fps start to have big responsiveness issues. Controls feel sluggish and reaction times are slower. This is especially critical on first person shooters, which strive for 60 fps or higher! On other genres of games, 30 fps is perfectly acceptable, such as the title I am currently working on.

The reason the folks animating on titles aiming for 60fps sometimes physically animate at 60 fps and not 30, is because of computer interpolation. If something was animated at 30 fps and played at 60, the computer would be creating linear inbetweens, which we all know would look crappy. This is also a major issue if you ever want to do in game slow motion, "bullet time" type effects. So the solution is animate at 60, but it doesn't really take us any longer to do so, because we are treating it as if we are animating on 2's, and that way we get nice pretty curves on our inbetweens for free, and we export that data to the game engine.

There also seems to be some misunderstanding on exactly what happens when the frame rate speeds up or slows down. A higher frame rate won't hide bad animation at all! It's not actually speeding the animation up any, it's just adding more inbetweens. When the frame rate falls, its actually cutting frames off, not slowing down.

And in some cases it might make bad animation worse; if the arcs are bad, for example, a faster frame rate makes it all the more obvious.

Having animated for games what I can share is that it's a balancing challenge. Sometimes you have to break the principles of animation to give the player a faster feedback. Especially for combat/action games, even when mocap was used, sometimes the movement of a character looks odd or wrong. But if you're playing it, button mashing to save your game character's life, this is usually transparent.

In short, bad animation in the context of video games could be a good thing.

Cool. Thanks for the info Matt. I knew there was someone here that worked in gaming.

That clears up a lot on the fps issue. At least for me. It's still not totally clear, but I understand it a lot more now.

Mahalo,
the Ape

Having animated for games what I can share is that it's a balancing challenge. Sometimes you have to break the principles of animation to give the player a faster feedback. Especially for combat/action games, even when mocap was used, sometimes the movement of a character looks odd or wrong. But if you're playing it, button mashing to save your game character's life, this is usually transparent.

In short, bad animation in the context of video games could be a good thing.

And probably the reason gaming animation will never compare with video animation for features or shorts.

Now to address the first issue that started this whole thing, WHY games sometimes animate in 60 fps. The real reason is that even though the human eye stops seeing individual images at around 24 fps, it CAN still feel a difference at 60 fps. When dealing with an interactive experience, frame rates below 30 fps start to have big responsiveness issues. Controls feel sluggish and reaction times are slower. This is especially critical on first person shooters, which strive for 60 fps or higher! On other genres of games, 30 fps is perfectly acceptable, such as the title I am currently working on..

You admit that the human eye stops seeing anything above 24 fps. What science do you have that that people are feeling 60 fps? Are we just talking about shooter games? Some of my friends that play these.... I have doubts about their caffeine levels and mental stability.

I have a hard time with this thought. A faster frame rate won't make bad animation better, it just gets it over with more quickly. And in some cases it might make bad animation worse; if the arcs are bad, for example, a faster frame rate makes it all the more obvious.

And sometimes they are if you don't forget and blink during the animation sequence.

Interesting take on the whole question.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

There also seems to be some misunderstanding on exactly what happens when the frame rate speeds up or slows down. A higher frame rate won't hide bad animation at all! It's not actually speeding the animation up any, it's just adding more inbetweens. When the frame rate falls, its actually cutting frames off, not slowing down.

Think about it, your argument doesn't really hold water.

It holds water for anyone who's had a new high-tech game on an older computer. If I only see 4 frames of movement a second, that's certainly cutting frames out. Generally too, it can't be considered as slowed-down because it shows me the section of the move I was supposed to see at that time but only shows me a fraction of them in the whole time it takes to perform the movement.

| <--- a frame
... <-- time the frame before is held

|||||||||| <--- My computer can handle it
|....|..|..| <--- My computer can't

Same time for the move.

So Scattered you saying all games should be rendered on 60 fps? Even though the human eye can only see 24 fps?

What happens to those extra 36 frames?

Scatter you are talking to someone with an old computer running games. Why overtax my system by running more frames than necessary for the movement. That's the sort of thing that uses up cpu usage.

I'd rather play a game based on 24 fps, and download each individual frame for those 24 frames, than try and overtax my machine with 60 fps games that don't offer me anything more than the other. They just wish to speed the action up. Tell me how 60 fps can be less processor intensive than 24? It can't.

I was providing an technical explanation based on experience and secondhand information. There aren't shoulds in explanations. I think the point being made earlier is that games aren't "based" on anything. If they're trying to set up the timing, they might aim for 24 or 30, but how that gets displayed is completely up to the capabilities of the machine. In a lot of modern games there can be animation where the body part is keyed to be in a certain place at a certain time, but to appear to move more fluidly, smoother and without jerks or staggers, as was said previously the computer can split the difference between the points that were keyed in to make a half-way point that carries your eye better.

It's clarity, not speed. If your computer is old, you don't see it slower, you see less of it (or more accurately, the same speed less defined). That's why quality settings exist in games. You choose how complicated the visuals will be, and therefore how processor-intensive the game will be. You effectively choose to make it a "60 fps" game or a "24 fps" game. But the point from earlier is that what you get shown is derived from that, and not a direct result. If you aim for 60 and you can't handle it, that isn't the game but the full-quality version -of- the game, which is mostly independent of movement since the math involved goes towards lighting and rendering. It's just that the display of movement gets affected because it along with all the confection gets processed and displayed at once.

If you're looking for information regarding the eye and refresh rates, read up on beta movement. A lot of people think it's horsecrap but it's interesting to be exposed to different theories, in my opinion.

The human eye can view images much faster than 60 fps. 24 fps is the slowest rate that persistance of vision happens. This is when an image is replaced by another image fast enough that it appears as if there is no change. But the human eye can and does register images at faster frame rates.

From what I understood from Matt's explination is that the games are rendered at 60 fps. If your computer can't handle 60 and can only play back 30 frames per second, every other frame will be dropped out so the game can play back at the right speed. Kind of like what happens when you play a big .swf on a slow computer.

Now if thats right or not, I'm not sure, but that's how I interpreted Matt's post. Maybe he'll come back and clear it up some more for us poor uninformed souls. :D

Aloha,
the Ape

And probably the reason gaming animation will never compare with video animation for features or shorts.

I don't know about that....

Sure, since a videogame can do only so much, you might have to allow some level of monotony; (such as a walk cycle that stays the same throughout the entire game)...but even then, I think there are ways to break things up. If the game is a story of character growth, you could animate a different walk cycle for the character throughout the game, revealing the character's changing attitudes.

I believe videogame animation can have just as much nuance and beauty as any animated film. It's just a bit more difficult to do. Because a game animator has to think like a game designer, in order to think about how the player will see the commands as they enter them in.

Not to mention it's very difficult to produce something meaningful when there are many people out there who don't consider the medium art. :mad:

You admit that the human eye stops seeing anything above 24 fps. What science do you have that that people are feeling 60 fps? Are we just talking about shooter games? Some of my friends that play these.... I have doubts about their caffeine levels and mental stability.

No I didn't admit the human eye stops seeing anything above 24.... its what ape referred to as Persistence of vision. When the individual images start to blend together. Also keep in mind in traditional animation, we use a lot of tricks to cheat the fact 24fps isn't as fast as we can see, like motion blur, smear frames, gimmicks, and squash and stretch. I don't think we can explain this any further, if anyone else wants waller in their ignorant bliss still, let them. It's not hard to freaking research this yourself.

Think about it, your argument doesn't really hold water.

Jeebus, I can't believe you are actually arguing with me on how our game engine (or any game engine) is set up... with your vast gaming or even 3d knowledge. I promise you if the game starts to "slow down" its dropping frames, not playing the same amount of frames slower.

Now to clarify, in theory if performance drops so low that the CPU can't keep up with anything, the ENTIRE game will slow down. However the engine will kill frames FIRST in attempt to keep up with whats going on. This is considered unacceptable in consoles, and because everyone has the same hardware, we can avoid that 99.9% time. You are more inclined to see this on a PC because everyone has a different hardware configuration, and you might be trying to play the game on a system that can't handle it, or with settings too high. Thats why they put "minimal system requirements" on the box.

It's the reverse if it speeds up. Many PC gamers who play games that were animated at 60fps, actually boost their hardware so the games will play at insane frame rates well above 100fps. The computer is adding inbetweens, NOT speeding up the timing.

I can not stress enough, frame rate is not used to hide bad animation, nor could it ever. In fact we have to be extra careful to make sure our keys are VERY strong, because we can never predict which frames will get dropped.

Just to clarify too, not all games are 60 fps. On my title we aren't even attempting to run at 60 fps, we have far too much simulation tech under the hood to get those kind of frame rates, we're shooting for a steady 30 fps. As I said earlier, its not so important in my game genre, because don't require quite the micro second response time or accuracy that you want in a FPS or Fighter. But as a general rule, if you have spare horse power, ALL games play better with a high frame rate! Think of it this way... frame rate, button presses and response times are all linked together. If you are running at 60 fps rather than 30, thats 30 more opportunities to hit a button, or for some other sort of input to occur.

I might also point out that the PC gaming segment is VERY small portion of the overall market, which is dominated by consoles.

No I didn't admit the human eye stops seeing anything above 24.... its what ape referred to as Persistence of vision. When the individual images start to blend together.

At the risk of further inciting the inmates... :D

Film runs at 24 fps, but it's actually projected at 48 fps, as the projector's shutter opens twice for every frame.

What does this have to do with game engine speeds? Not a d@mn thing... ;)

Film runs at 24 fps, but it's actually projected at 48 fps, as the projector's shutter opens twice for every frame.

Huh, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day. Way off topic, but do you know what the purpose of shutter opening twice is?

Aloha,
the Ape

It's a very complex question.

Huh, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day. Way off topic, but do you know what the purpose of shutter opening twice is?

Reduces the perception of image flicker on the screen. 24 fps is enough for the illusion of continuous motion, but we can still perceive the lights going on and off.

There's also a cost factor to remember. They are dealing with an interactive medium. To try and finesse every contingency and still keep the game in budget is a factor, that many features films don't encounter. You have to consider the lifespan of the interest of the players and the price they are willing to pay for the finished product. A game will probably never reach the heights of a feature film that reaps millions in it's first weekend relase. They take shortcuts, they have to. I certainly think many games are works of art. But have to tell you if you play them very often or repeatly they become repetitious, nature of the beast.

Games are already there, and beyond. For a heavily anticipated title, the first week sales can dwarf the box office receipts of a major blockbuster. The grosses for the game industry have been higher than those of the movie industry for a few years now.

Naturally, there are differences in scale - a game has to sell far fewer units than a movie has to sell tickets because of the higher sale price of a game, for example, but it's not unusual for a hot game title to sell millions of units. Why do you think it's so hard to find a Wii console? ;)

There are some contradictions in your premises. DSB.

There are some discrepancies in your viewpoint DSB. How are the Harry Potter games stacking up against the films. Have a financial breakdown on the profits there?

I'm not going to have another Harry Potter conversation of any type with you, Phacker.

It's been widely reported in the mainstream press that the game industry's grosses have outstripped Hollywood's for the last few years. The data's out there; if you don't believe me, have a look.

Let's see a link as to what is actually being measured. Post one. And I am not just targeting Harry Potter. Let's see a comparision to games verses movies. I am interested. I mentioned HP because I own one of the games and four of the movies.

Jeezus, next thing you'll be pulling out the old Phacker standard "show me a link to your work - let's see what you can do". :rolleyes:

If you're that interested, do your own research. I'm not going to spend my time digging up links to fit your parameters, but here's one that makes my point. Oh, and here's another that talks about how it took one of the best directors in movie history over 10 years to reach this level of revenue per year - for his whole studio's output, not just one title.

Sorry but don't think most of us are familiar with World of Warcraft, except for Bush's. I'd have to see more accurate numbers than those listed on one blogger, before I'd believe that feature films don't reap more rewards than games. If it's actually that profitable, I think we'd see lot's of money being thrown at it.

Perhaps this one game has won a market, does it hold for all markets, if so how many people have ever heard of it?

If your premise is true, then everyone jump on the video game market, because it's going sky high.

Actually I've never played it or have any of my acquaintances.

So World of Warcraft isn't a good enough example to use simply because you haven't heard of it? You'd discount the opinion of a venture capitalist, who's job it is to study trends and recognize the "next big thing", because you and your circle of friends are unaware of a property that generates nearly a billion dollars a year?

I'd dig up some stats on Second Life, but if you've never heard of WoW, there's no point.

This conversation's over.

So World of Warcraft isn't a good enough example to use simply because you haven't heard of it? You'd discount the opinion of a venture capitalist, who's job it is to study trends and recognize the "next big thing", because you and your circle of friends are unaware of a property that generates nearly a billion dollars a year?

I'd dig up some stats on Second Life, but if you've never heard of WoW, there's no point.

This conversation's over.

Never said that, and not familiar with Second Life either, if they are making that kind of money, shoot wish I had stock in them. Just saying neither I nor my social group are familiar with them, but we do know which films are coming out each weekend, and plan our recreation in that manner.

I am wondering what the marketing dynamic is...who's paying young adults or moms and dads without realizing? Is it trading on the market?

Certainly games are an important componet of any media release, I just question that they overtake the films that influence their creation. Sometimes like Tomb Raider they lead to a film...but that's a rare occurence. And it wasn't particularly successful.

Let's see a link as to what is actually being measured. Post one. And I am not just targeting Harry Potter. Let's see a comparision to games verses movies. I am interested. I mentioned HP because I own one of the games and four of the movies.

"The $10 billion video game industry, which generates more revenue than Hollywood..."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/18/MNGUOAE36I1.DTL

Certainly games are an important componet of any media release, I just question that they overtake the films that influence their creation. Sometimes like Tomb Raider they lead to a film...but that's a rare occurence. And it wasn't particularly successful.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tombraider.htm

*chuckle* - I wonder what "East Bay animation studio" that one guy works at... :D

I bow to your research, but I also question why entertainment firms pay the big bucks to studios and actors that don't reap the returns of digital games...seems skewed to me. I think its a question of definition and market. If the gaming market was that big, then why pay actors for films, why not go to games orginally, without the fluff?