I hope they are successful. What I appreciate about DF is their ability to explain what techniques the developers chose to use in the rendering process. Game engines are so buzzwordy these days and they're often good about showing in the videos which rendering techniques are turned on or off based on settings.
DF cares much more about frame timings, not necessarily framerate. In many of their videos they praise games which achieve a locked, stable, hitch-free, 30fps. In some cases, frame time stability can be almost as important, or even more, than absolute average framerate.
Especially when Unreal has been infamous for shader compilation stutter, where even a on-the-surface 60fps average can feel terrible due to inconsistent frame timing and hitches.
I mean that is what normal people care about, too. If the game is a stuttery mess, it is more negatively perceived than if the game is graphically meh imo. _As someone who does care about framerate_, I do what you are getting at, though.
I'm curious what you think of games at low frame rate for artistic intention. I'm making a game and locking it at 30fps not for technical limitations, but because I actually like feel of it compared to the overly smooth high FPS. The game I'm making isn't fast paced so it feels appropriate. I sometimes lock my games to even 14fps.
I don't think I've ever played a game where I found it to feel better at a lower framerate. The lower the FPS, the highter the latency of input response and the lower temporal resolution makes it harder to track movement, particularly rotational control of a camera.
Artistic intention I do understand. I played your game and you're specifically evoking a low-fi aesthetic. The noise in particular might look noiser at higher framerates, damaging the era it's trying to evoke.
Though I have to wonder if there might be a way to split the difference, to render out the scene at low FPS and reproject the camera at a higher framerate, similar to how most VR implementations work. That way the aesthetic would be largely unchanged, if the camera isn't moving it would be identical, but you'd get that much nicer input response.
I recently played South of Midnight, which is one of the best games I've played in years. I'm really surprised it didn't get more attention. I think it has the best sound design of any game I've ever played and beautiful art and story throughout.
It uses a stop motion style for character animations, which is pretty close to low frame rate, I'd estimate around 15fps (at least the way it was implemented there). I have to say it was the one part of the game that I disliked. I could see the purpose, I could see that it fit well with the general art direction. I just found it very uncomfortable and tiring to look at after a while. Fortunately they were smart enough to acknowledge this with a menu setting to disable it.
If you do decide to artistically lock your game to a low frame rate, please do your players a favor and allow them to unlock it.
Judging from your video, it depends on how long I am supposed to play this. If it is a few hours thing I see no issue but it could be tiring to stare at this for too long. I dig the aesthetic you are trying to create, though.
In the 14fps one, 14fps white noise is probably better than 60 fps white noise.
I may likely be limiting my audience since many people are used to 60fps and higher now. I'm slightly strange in that I think on a visual level, it just does not match my intent as I actually prefer the lack of visual clarity in art.
I do have a fear that most people won't see the intent and instead just see a badly performing game (I have not got this critique yet in every other game I have with intentional low frames yet, but then again my audience cares less about performance and more about the experience). Here is the game for reference that I am locking to 30fps.
It’s not about badly performing for me, but reality.
Low frame rates on modern display technology make me physically ill if there is a viewport component.
The “smearing” of the image induces nausea for whatever reason. I do not suffer this from CRT displays, just modern ones and have done since LCD effectively arrived. Though I can tolerate it on teeny tiny screens like handhelds interestingly enough.
This is a point I never considered, thanks for sharing. Accessibility is important. Makes me want exhibit my games using CRTs for the ideal experience. This discussion has me thinking about the divide between VR players that experience motion sickness and the ways games try and don't try to fix this.
It might be unrealistic to exhibit games on CRTs if they aren't going to be played on CRTs - if you've got a lot of headroom with the 30fps target, is it worth trying a subtle CRT emulation shader? Especially with people frequently having 120fps+ monitors, it seems like a subtle fadeoff could be made to work.
P.S. I thought your original question was madness, but now that you've posted your projects I can totally see why you're targeting lower framerates. I really like the mood, have wishlisted TO:RI
That was indeed snarky. Also depending on the game and style lower frame rates can be perfectly fine and possibly preferable. Not every game is a 240fps fps. Movies are still 24fps, games have done 24fps for a more cinematic look and some animation is even done at 12fps (Spiderverse was animated on the twos)
Spiderverse was animated on twos for specific characters in specific scenes. Movies have to be very careful when moving the camera not to turn into a blurry mess. With higher frame rates you can move the camera much more freely and the audience will still be able to see what is happening.
Many people seem to really enjoy the experience. I believe I can get away with this specifically because I don't care to make my games fun. They are art pieces made with game engines in a sense.
>I mean that is what normal people care about, too.
Depends on how you define normal. I think it's much more likely that the number of people who care about it deeply is extremely small - a small sub-group within the group of people who see gaming as their main hobby.
My sense is that frame rate is a buzzy topic for nerds to nerd out over. The same way that nerds use to nerd out over RAM. Talking about it seems like a high effort status signal. But those can be swapped out for other things easily.
Yes, they're surely not getting rich, but it's commendable that except from selling their own merch, they do not go the raycon/nordvpn/brilliant/younameit route. With Adsense alone I'm pretty sure this would not be sustainable, but they have a pretty successful Patreon.
DF already has a vibrant Patreon community so they’re not starting from scratch on funding themselves. I’m excited to see what they can do going forward.
As a videogamer I hope Digital Foundry survives this, because they give lots of data-based insights about the industry, especially from a tech perspective. And as a follower and fan of their videos, I must add that these guys seem smart enough to figure it out.
I hope they are successful. What I appreciate about DF is their ability to explain what techniques the developers chose to use in the rendering process. Game engines are so buzzwordy these days and they're often good about showing in the videos which rendering techniques are turned on or off based on settings.
They produce nice material. Sometimes they're so focused on frame-rates it's annoying though.
DF cares much more about frame timings, not necessarily framerate. In many of their videos they praise games which achieve a locked, stable, hitch-free, 30fps. In some cases, frame time stability can be almost as important, or even more, than absolute average framerate.
Especially when Unreal has been infamous for shader compilation stutter, where even a on-the-surface 60fps average can feel terrible due to inconsistent frame timing and hitches.
I mean that is what normal people care about, too. If the game is a stuttery mess, it is more negatively perceived than if the game is graphically meh imo. _As someone who does care about framerate_, I do what you are getting at, though.
I'm curious what you think of games at low frame rate for artistic intention. I'm making a game and locking it at 30fps not for technical limitations, but because I actually like feel of it compared to the overly smooth high FPS. The game I'm making isn't fast paced so it feels appropriate. I sometimes lock my games to even 14fps.
I don't think I've ever played a game where I found it to feel better at a lower framerate. The lower the FPS, the highter the latency of input response and the lower temporal resolution makes it harder to track movement, particularly rotational control of a camera.
Artistic intention I do understand. I played your game and you're specifically evoking a low-fi aesthetic. The noise in particular might look noiser at higher framerates, damaging the era it's trying to evoke.
Though I have to wonder if there might be a way to split the difference, to render out the scene at low FPS and reproject the camera at a higher framerate, similar to how most VR implementations work. That way the aesthetic would be largely unchanged, if the camera isn't moving it would be identical, but you'd get that much nicer input response.
I recently played South of Midnight, which is one of the best games I've played in years. I'm really surprised it didn't get more attention. I think it has the best sound design of any game I've ever played and beautiful art and story throughout.
It uses a stop motion style for character animations, which is pretty close to low frame rate, I'd estimate around 15fps (at least the way it was implemented there). I have to say it was the one part of the game that I disliked. I could see the purpose, I could see that it fit well with the general art direction. I just found it very uncomfortable and tiring to look at after a while. Fortunately they were smart enough to acknowledge this with a menu setting to disable it.
If you do decide to artistically lock your game to a low frame rate, please do your players a favor and allow them to unlock it.
Judging from your video, it depends on how long I am supposed to play this. If it is a few hours thing I see no issue but it could be tiring to stare at this for too long. I dig the aesthetic you are trying to create, though.
In the 14fps one, 14fps white noise is probably better than 60 fps white noise.
Go into display settings, and set your monitor's refresh rate to 30Hz and try using your computer - you'll soon think what I think about the issue.
> I'm making a game and locking it at 30fps not for technical limitations
I would not purchase it if the game has a panning view of any kind. I wish you the best of luck all the same.
I may likely be limiting my audience since many people are used to 60fps and higher now. I'm slightly strange in that I think on a visual level, it just does not match my intent as I actually prefer the lack of visual clarity in art.
I do have a fear that most people won't see the intent and instead just see a badly performing game (I have not got this critique yet in every other game I have with intentional low frames yet, but then again my audience cares less about performance and more about the experience). Here is the game for reference that I am locking to 30fps.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3215280/TORI/
And one that I locked to 14fps
https://infinitetears.itch.io/cityephemera
It’s not about badly performing for me, but reality.
Low frame rates on modern display technology make me physically ill if there is a viewport component.
The “smearing” of the image induces nausea for whatever reason. I do not suffer this from CRT displays, just modern ones and have done since LCD effectively arrived. Though I can tolerate it on teeny tiny screens like handhelds interestingly enough.
This is a point I never considered, thanks for sharing. Accessibility is important. Makes me want exhibit my games using CRTs for the ideal experience. This discussion has me thinking about the divide between VR players that experience motion sickness and the ways games try and don't try to fix this.
It might be unrealistic to exhibit games on CRTs if they aren't going to be played on CRTs - if you've got a lot of headroom with the 30fps target, is it worth trying a subtle CRT emulation shader? Especially with people frequently having 120fps+ monitors, it seems like a subtle fadeoff could be made to work.
P.S. I thought your original question was madness, but now that you've posted your projects I can totally see why you're targeting lower framerates. I really like the mood, have wishlisted TO:RI
Have you been tested for lead poisoning?
If I suddenly found 14fps enjoyable I would immediately suspect a neurological issue.
I'm not being snarky something might be wrong.
That was indeed snarky. Also depending on the game and style lower frame rates can be perfectly fine and possibly preferable. Not every game is a 240fps fps. Movies are still 24fps, games have done 24fps for a more cinematic look and some animation is even done at 12fps (Spiderverse was animated on the twos)
Spiderverse was animated on twos for specific characters in specific scenes. Movies have to be very careful when moving the camera not to turn into a blurry mess. With higher frame rates you can move the camera much more freely and the audience will still be able to see what is happening.
If the audience plays it on a 30fps device then not much should change really
Nearly every screen is 60Hz or higher nowadays.
I can confirm that I have no lead poisoning. Just an artist. Here is my game with the 14fps lock.
https://infinitetears.itch.io/cityephemera
Many people seem to really enjoy the experience. I believe I can get away with this specifically because I don't care to make my games fun. They are art pieces made with game engines in a sense.
>I mean that is what normal people care about, too.
Depends on how you define normal. I think it's much more likely that the number of people who care about it deeply is extremely small - a small sub-group within the group of people who see gaming as their main hobby.
> I think it's much more likely that the number of people who care about it deeply is extremely small
And yet large enough to support the existence of DF whom has a heavy focus on exactly this. So obviously a market exists.
My sense is that frame rate is a buzzy topic for nerds to nerd out over. The same way that nerds use to nerd out over RAM. Talking about it seems like a high effort status signal. But those can be swapped out for other things easily.
You can't feel RAM, you can feel bad framerate.
You’re projecting.
If above stuttering mess I care more about how the graphics look rather than frame rate (competitive online fps games excluded).
£500k in revenue in 2023 - not great for youtube money.
Yes, they're surely not getting rich, but it's commendable that except from selling their own merch, they do not go the raycon/nordvpn/brilliant/younameit route. With Adsense alone I'm pretty sure this would not be sustainable, but they have a pretty successful Patreon.
It feels like I’ve seen most places that went independent die out but I don’t have any data to back it up.
DF already has a vibrant Patreon community so they’re not starting from scratch on funding themselves. I’m excited to see what they can do going forward.
As a videogamer I hope Digital Foundry survives this, because they give lots of data-based insights about the industry, especially from a tech perspective. And as a follower and fan of their videos, I must add that these guys seem smart enough to figure it out.
I get the sentiment but I have to give it to DF, they have been taking the slow and steady route. That is a path to success in their field.
so Independent that I need to sign up to read that post.
Read what post? It's a link to a video...