Gamespot: Ken Kutaragi Quoted at PS3 Event

[fitbabits]

Originally posted by RedCloak

Coming soon to an Internet message board near you: waves of more-hardcore-than-thou posters referring to any game running at 60 frames per second (fps) as "a slideshow."

Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120 fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP.

Never mind that even newer TVs aren't capable of refreshing the screen 120 times in a single second. Kutaragi said that when new technology comes to market, he hopes to have the PS3 ready to take advantage of it.
If the terrorists get a hold of this technology we are all doom3d.....

Source: Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html)

[Dabombpizza]

Can the human eye even see the difference that 120fps will make?

[fitbabits]

Can the human eye even see the difference that 120fps will make?
That's a good question. Anyone?

[midrael]

Again, I'll just file this into my "believe it when I see it" stack.

[Heretic Machine]

Can the human eye even see the difference that 120fps will make?

I doubt it very much, considering that most people can't tell the difference that 60fps makes. Just another Kutagarism, which is to say it's a form of waste expelled from Ken's mouth-ass.

[Red Cloak]

Kutty is a madman

[CapnBob]

With proper motion blurring, it's difficult to tell much of a difference above 30. Without it, you can probably tell a difference up until the 80-90 fps range.

[phantomhitman]

No, you cannot. But a game running at 120 isnt exactly a bad thing, that way if the frames take a hit you are not falling under 30 fps. But some people say there is no difference between 30 and 60 which is complete crap. Remember, refresh rate and frame rate on a game system are different.

[Dabombpizza]

I doubt it very much, considering that most people can't tell the difference that 60fps makes. Just another Kutagarism, which is to say it's a form of waste expelled from Ken's mouth-ass.
If you put your dick in a mouth-ass, is that sodomy?

[Murmillo]

When dealing with still frames, you CAN see a difference between 30fps and 60fps when you are sitting within 10 feet. After that it gets harder.

[bKangy]

So, basically, what he's implying is that the PS3 is actually a machine sent from the future to solve all of the problems of today?

[Liquidize105]

Fitb, why did you delete the original thread? You could've just edited the title.

[Dabombpizza]

So, basically, what he's implying is that the PS3 is actually a machine sent from the future to solve all of the problems of today?
No, it's sent to destroy John Connor.

EDIT: Or maybe J. Allard...

[fitbabits]

Fitb, why did you delete the original thread? You could've just edited the title.
The heading was, I thought, deflammatory and the link was broken.

[MStiles]

who cares what the "PS3 is capable of" doing. The Xbox 360 is "capable of" running games a hojillion frames per second, if that game is the original Virtua Fighter.

I mean really, no game developer is going to make a game run at 120fps. If they're getting that kind of performance, they will push their graphics further, delivering better visuals and "only" 60fps.

I'd be much more impressed if Sony had games you could PLAY, instead of talking about how their movies, when we get around to playing them, will run faster than our TVs can refresh.

[Red Cloak]

Kutty, you so nutty

[TheKeck]

The heading was, I thought, deflammatory and the link was broken.

The link worked fine for me???

Anyway, I'm sure that 120 fps is well beyond what humans can discern.

[Venkman]

According to my animation classes in college, anything beyond 60 can be percieved on some level but not discerned as individual frames. Things that are 60 fps will fool animals (for example, a dog filmed at 24 fps then showed to another dog had no effect, filmed at 60 it drove them nuts because they thought it was real).

Think of it this way in ideal circumstances, the human ear can hear 20hz to 20 hkz. While muscial instruments, especially live ones, can reproduce frequencies out of that range, we cannot discern pick them out in a hearing test but it can be percieved as a "presence" in a sound field because of the effect it has on the human body- bones, organs etc.

My teacher related that to the fps issue. He said it may seem smoother, but people generally will not be able to pick out individual frames beyond 60fps. But the overall effect is that it does on some level seem more lifelike to humans.

[Achilles]

Nothing crazy here (except the complete lack of quotes). Of course a game can be made that runs at 120 frames you just have to sacrifice some visual quality. Same as you can run in 1080p, the 360 can as well, it’s just a performance hit, as it will be on the PS3.

He seems to have a whole lot of plans for the Cell, and Kutaragi is a crusader for his technology. I just think that sometimes his expectations as to what can be done are unrealistic, like decoding 10 HDTV channels. Maybe the Cell can, but why? He’s got to get the software as well as the hardware so that people will actually support his stuff, and Sony’s not so great at making software support and interfaces. For example if his vision is that you can use the Eye Toy to get all Minority Report; moving 10 HDTV signals around on two 60” Sony TVs, well Sony has to make that happen, because chances are nobody else will. He can talk about it all he wants, and even make the techology that could make it happen, but if the software isn't there it doesn't exist.

[Tia]

How many FPS can human eye see? here you go...

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

[Madhatter45]

120 fps?<super troopers> I'll belive that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow shebert. </super troopers>

[Borys]

Man, this quote will haunt Ken to the end of his life...

fitbabits is a mod now? Interesting :)

[TheKeck]

How many FPS can human eye see? here you go...

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

Good read.

[LilBunnyFuFu]

Can we stifle Ken topics on here like we do Jack Thompson? Cause honestly, the man's half mad half retarded. And I like Sony.

[fitbabits]

Can we stifle Ken topics on here like we do Jack Thompson? Cause honestly, the man's half mad half retarded. And I like Sony.
That's not a bad idea, actually.

[Opty]

Pfft, FPS meaningless unless connected with some other statistic: polycount, world size, something. Plus, does "running" mean "rendering to the screen at" or "able to loop at." If the game's running at 120 fps and you render every other frame, visually it's 60fps but the physics and everything else get updated more, meaning more precice calculations.

[Achilles]

Can we stifle Ken topics on here like we do Jack Thompson? Cause honestly, the man's half mad half retarded. And I like Sony.Jack Thompson is nobody. Ken is in charge, or at least a major player in one of the three hardware manufactuers. To stifle his topics is a bad idea imo. Even if what he's saying doesn't make sense to people it's still relevant to the gaming industry given his position.

[superherotaco]

He's probably not crazy, he's just not speaking to us exactly. He's speaking to the press, to kids, to people echo aren’t very intelligent technology wise but still love games. People are impressed by big numbers, saying that many games run at 30 frames per second, and then claiming his new system can run them at 120 implies that it's four times better.

Or maybe the video output is more streamlined to deal with that much information coming through to be displayed at once, or there's a part of the cell specifically designed to add transitional movements between each frame. I mean he's probably just bullshitting to make it sound better, but there's always other possibilities.

I mean look at the "2XAA for free" on all Xbox 360 games. Some people might say that companies would just make more detailed models or more lighting effects rather than sacrifice performance for looks, but the way he explained it was that it was actually specially built into the card, so all games automatically get it. Maybe the 120 FPS statistic is related to a special part of design in the cell chip?

[Demo_Boy]

120 frames per second of aliased to hell rumorware

[TheBigL]

120 fps!? ---> Possible.
1 fps live running game ---> Immpossible.

What next? The PS3 will be upgradeble to a fully mobile suit robot?

Sony is playing in the dark here. Microsoft are playing in the sun and Nintendo are playing behind the shadows.

While Sony throwing impressive punches into the air from the dark, Microsoft have been in the light enough time so we will be able to see it's defected sides. Only Nintendo are hiding in the shadows waiting for their chance to strike.

[Conner Dain]

I'm not sure I can differentiate between 60 and 120 FPS, but I KNOW I can tell the difference between a relevant comment and hyperbole.

[KNOTE]

Does it have to "age" before I can play at 120fps?

[AversionFX]

That's a good question. Anyone?

Last I heard/read, the human eye can only see at about ~35FPS.

Also, I remember there being some concern about the PS2's power in relation to "it getting into the wrong hands," when it first came out.

[Taco]

"Last I heard/read, the human eye can only see at about ~35FPS."

Definetly not true. That's more accurate with a movie, which is different. With a computer game I stop being able to tell at about 90. I'm sure there are people who can tell differences past that.

[Kelegacy]

Originally posted by Red Cloak? Does that surprise anyone here? He's like the Fox News Network of news posts.

I take what Ken says with a grain of salt. Hell, I do the same with Allard and Iwata. It's all hearsay until I see it for myself.

I'm reminded of M. Night's Unbreakable at a time like this. If Red Cloak is so one-sided, an incarnation of pure Sony hatred, is there an opposite to him that can balance his insidious existence out? And no, I don't mean Pumped'Up. That's an insult to Sony as well.

[Babbster]

First off, Ken's batshit crazy and, as I've said before, I like him that way. As others have pointed out, any video card can pump out 120, 150 or even 300 fps depending on the complexity of the rendering.

On the topic, though, of whether 120 fps would mean anything to the human eye, that's both simple and complex. The complex part is whether humans could "discern" 120 fps and the evidence is that they can't, and that in terms of actually improving gameplay increasing frame rates beyond 60 isn't a big deal. Then again, on the simpler side, the higher frame rates go the closer to reality the moving pictures will appear (assuming the detail is very high). So, while we could probably play games at 60 fps forever and be perfectly content, a game running - and, of course, displayed - at 120 fps would give a more realistic experience in the sense that the game would be harder (and harder, as the frame rate continues to rise) to discern from the reality outside the box.

Of course, display is the major technological hurdle here, not the rendering. Most people hook their game consoles up to displays that can display a maximum of 60 fps (US HDTV standards can accommodate true 60 fps if the content and display are capable) and that's not likely to go up anytime in the next 10 years (probably even the next 20 if ATSC follows the pattern set by NTSC). Even PC users typically content themselves with CRT refresh rates under 100 Hz, and most LCDs (which are quickly becoming standard) max out at 60 Hz. So, a game being rendered at 120 fps is all put pointless.

All that being said, I love Kenny and I can only hope that he continues to have more wacky pronouncements as we keep getting closer to the launch of the seemingly miraculous PS3. :)

[51|RandoM]

oh for fuck's sake, why do people always ask what the human eye can see when talking about framerate in an FPS game?

You know, you're playing a game, not watching a movie? right? You know that framerate directly affects how smoothly/quickly you can move your point of view around, right?

Do a snap-180, the difference between 30fps, 60fps, and 90fps is quite obvious to anybody paying attention.

[notmetalenough]

fitbabits is a mod now? Interesting :)

He probably won it.

[Babbster]

oh for fuck's sake, why do people always ask what the human eye can see when talking about framerate in an FPS game?

For fuck's sake, why do people always assume that a discussion about frames per second always means a discussion about first-person shooters?

You know, you're playing a game, not watching a movie? right? You know that framerate directly affects how smoothly/quickly you can move your point of view around, right?

Smoothly, yes. Quickly, no. Unless a game is designed poorly, one can move with the same speed at 30 fps as one can at 60 fps; you will simply see more detail with higher frame rates as you move.

Do a snap-180, the difference between 30fps, 60fps, and 90fps is quite obvious to anybody paying attention.

Yes, you'll see a difference in a "snap-180" at different framerates - few would dispute that. Its effect on actual gameplay, however, will depend, again, on how well the game is designed (one should move/turn at the same speed in a game running at 30 fps as in the same game running at 90 fps) and exactly how much relevant visual detail an individual can actually pick out in the frames between point A (original viewpoint) and point B (viewpoint at 180 degrees from point A) in said "snap-180."

As with everything else in this industry, it should always come back to the fun factor. If, for example, Doom 3 is fun (and, of course, being fun means it's playable) at 30 fps then extra frames are not strictly necessary.

edit: It's worth noting, too, that I'm talking about constant frame rates and not frame rate "chugging," which might be what is influencing you, 51. If one does a "snap-180" and the video card can't handle the rapid change in viewpoint, causing a precipitous drop in frame rate, then absolutely it will have a bad effect on gameplay. If, however, the frame rate is constant at a frame rate of 30 or higher I would consider the gameplay impact minimal - FPS or not. These variations in frame rate are actually what has always bothered me most about FPSs, especially those on the PC, and one reason I play very few of them.

[Taco]

For fuck's sake, why do people always assume that a discussion about frames per second always means a discussion about first-person shooters?

For fuck's sake, if you are going to be so vague then YES people are going to focus on a gametype that actually tests what you can see.

Yes, you'll see a difference in a "snap-180" at different framerates - few would dispute that. Its effect on actual gameplay, however, will depend, again, on how well the game is designed

Wrong. In a fast paced game, which is the only place this would crop up, I'm not sure what "game design" has to do with how often in a short period of time you can feed different controls. Say you are tracking a target left to right, you think you are going to be just as accurate at 30-40 as you would be at 60+?

It's ok to be mistaken, but maybe you should drop the attitude when you don't know what you are talking about. The idea that 30 or higher in a FPS game is gravy is total nonsense to the highest degree.

[bobbler]

Just to clarify... Gamespot is retarded.

Check out a better translation by a trusted translator.

Here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=608940&postcount=56)

Kutaragi wasn't talking about PS3 games being 120fps. The gamespot article fails to mention a lot of things that were talked about. The post linked above is a translation of the Nikkei article with some pictures (gamespot seemed to be using a google translation of what was said in the Nikkei article).

[Achilles]

Just to clarify... Gamespot is retarded.

Check out a better translation by a trusted translator.

Here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=608940&postcount=56)

Kutaragi wasn't talking about PS3 games being 120fps. The gamespot article fails to mention a lot of things that were talked about. The post linked above is a translation of the Nikkei article with some pictures (gamespot seemed to be using a google translation of what was said in the Nikkei article).Geeze he was talking about cameras and movies running at 120 fps? It's sketchy when an article is just editorial about unquoted comments, but Gamespot seems to clearly be fabricating news here. I don't know what they're trying to acomplish, maybe they're just looking around for PS3 news and there isn't any, so they took something that was close.

[mister_slim]

Does the Blu-Ray spec even support 120 FPS? What would that be? double progressive?

[saran_js]

I would like to state for the record that limiting frames to 30 per second suck ass. I hate it, absolutely hate it. Gimme 90fps or 120fps and I'll gladly take it over 30fps. What do you have to say ? Which one are you going to pick ? 30 FPS or 120 FPS.

[Babbster]

For fuck's sake, if you are going to be so vague then YES people are going to focus on a gametype that actually tests what you can see.
Well, considering the main part of the discussion was about console games (a category encompassing many genres), it seems implicit that FPS games would constitute a small minority of that category.

Wrong. In a fast paced game, which is the only place this would crop up, I'm not sure what "game design" has to do with how often in a short period of time you can feed different controls. Say you are tracking a target left to right, you think you are going to be just as accurate at 30-40 as you would be at 60+?
Game design has a hell of a lot to do with it. If someone gets a significant play advantage in a PC FPS by having the newest video card then, yes, something is wrong with the game design. I don't know about other humans, but the ones I know can't perform 30 actions per second, let alone 60 or more. For example, I type 100+ words/minute and that's pretty darned good as far as I can tell - if I I could do 30 actions per second using all 10 fingers then I would be hitting rates of around 360 wpm. As for the accuracy question, I managed VERY good accuracy at 30 fps when I was playing FPS games and won more games than I lost over time.

It's ok to be mistaken, but maybe you should drop the attitude when you don't know what you are talking about. The idea that 30 or higher in a FPS game is gravy is total nonsense to the highest degree.
First off, I competed very well at 20-30 fps when I was playing Team Fortress Classic and Unreal Tournament, back when I still cared about FPS games. So, the idea that I'm talking completely out of my ass is incorrect. I'll cop to talking partially out of my ass, but certainly no more than the "best" Internet forum participants.

Finally, I should say that I never said 30 fps was a perfect target for gaming. As a matter of fact, I thought I made pretty clear in my first post in this thread that higher frame rates and refresh rates are a GOOD thing. I just don't think it's necessarily an error for a game developer to shoot for 30 fps as a target if it means that the overall experience is going to be better - like being able to put more traffic into a racing game, more people into a game taking place in a city, extending draw distances in a game with long-range effects, etc.

[Sion]

I dont knwo if anyoen already said this, but iv read more than once that 84 or 86 was the max a human can see.

[Dracula-X]

Just to clarify... Gamespot is retarded.

Check out a better translation by a trusted translator.

Here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=608940&postcount=56)

Kutaragi wasn't talking about PS3 games being 120fps. The gamespot article fails to mention a lot of things that were talked about. The post linked above is a translation of the Nikkei article with some pictures (gamespot seemed to be using a google translation of what was said in the Nikkei article).
Funny that Gamespot really messed that up. Thanks for the clarification/link, bobbler.

[H.Bogard]

For fuck's sake, if you are going to be so vague then YES people are going to focus on a gametype that actually tests what you can see.

For fuck's sake, go play Age of empires 3 at high details and you'll be kissing the first person shooter devs' rings.

[NACIONAL]

I would like to state for the record that limiting frames to 30 per second suck ass. I hate it, absolutely hate it. Gimme 90fps or 120fps and I'll gladly take it over 30fps. What do you have to say ? Which one are you going to pick ? 30 FPS or 120 FPS.

A crap game at 120 is still acrap game...

we should focus really in how the game plays, not otherwise.

[saran_js]

A crap game at 120 is still acrap game...

we should focus really in how the game plays, not otherwise.

Ah, but now let's see, how about we also focus on a beautiful gorgeous game with great play with all the bells and whistles where one is running at 30 fps and another running at 120. Which one are you going to pick ?
:p :eek:

[Busted_Astromech]

Uh...Saran, there's always a trade-off between detail and frames. And not many would take a huge reduction in detail to go to 120fps. It's essentially pointless.

That's why most console games run at 30fps: the smoother display does not balance out the increased detail you can pump in at that rate. It's not just an on-switch, you have trade-offs to make...

[Paltry]

The human mind can only percieve 69 frames per secong, as that is the only number in the universe that matters.

[H.Bogard]

The human mind can only percieve 69 frames per secong, as that is the only number in the universe that matters.


Hell yeah bitch.....69 fa life!