Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
0 
Report this post
However, if you were to edit the methods for the game functions to use FixedUpdate (using dnSpy made this easy, but a bit time consuming), then use something like UnityExplorer to change the FixedDeltaTime variable in UnityEngine.Time to "0.033" (By default it's set to 50Hz, which would result in the game running faster regardless of the game's internal rendering), and then set TargetFramerate in the UnityEngine.Application class to -1 (platform default) or your screen's refresh rate, the game effectively runs at the same speed. I have noticed that pausing the game seemingly softlocks the game after patching most of the methods, so I'll have to figure out what the offending function for that is.
You'd be surprised at how many games are actually running things at a fixed tickrate (separate from rendering), and then use interpolation to make it appear smooth on the player side. There are collision and consistency related reasons for doing this, and from what I see (on both the forums and the game itself), this game is relying on per-frame timings for certain things, so it's probably the way forward for retaining the original behavior consistently while appearing smooth. Comes at a cost of 1 frame of latency however. All modern Doom ports use this since they run internally at 35FPS (half of the refresh rate of most CRT monitors back in the day).
The reason films were done at 24FPS was because of synchronization issues with film projectors with anything higher, and for economic reasons (being more film, although later you could add CG rendering costs to this, and requiring more light due to the faster shutter speeds for cameras). The shutter speed also is what creates the motion blur effect people associate with cinematic movies. You can see where a lot of things go wrong with a higher framerate movie paired with questionable oversight with the Gemini Man movie. The Soap Opera effect is mostly caused by poorly configured shutter speed settings.
However, since plenty of 24FPS films don't evenly divide by plenty of display refresh rates (unless it's an even multiple of 24), there's very visible judder. Although plenty of modern TVs work around this by having custom refresh rates that account for it.
The bigger issue at play here is framepacing on displays that don't support VRR/FreeSync/GSync, or that could potentially not be fast enough to run a game consistently. I'd normally consider a software limiter (especially with rounding errors) paired with fixed timings to be questionable design, as there's plenty of reasons one would limit it on the player side. If you have a 144Hz screen without FreeSync for example, and have issues hitting something consistently, you either have the option of capping at 36 or 72FPS, or dealing with micro-stuttering. While a 30FPS cap (or double buffered vsync which can go to 20FPS) works on a console where you can reasonably expect people to be using a 60Hz display, this line of reasoning goes completely out the window when it comes to PC hardware. I rarely see this being discussed, and there's more logical reasoning than just "higher number = better".
@KingKrouch Regarding 60fps and movies vs. games, I wasn't suggesting going as thorough / strict as the superfine points you describe. I doubt most of us notice fine non-24fps-multiple micro-judder, or have extreme FPS expectations.
All I'm saying is: 24fps for movies is okay for most movie watchers, but 24/30fps for games is not okay, for many gamers including me. Then, I'm plenty happy with 60Hz (or more if you have a display supporting more, and a GPU able to keep up), with vsync except for competitive shooters.
But there's absolutely a game-changing difference between 30 and 60fps, and I'm baffled by both:
- Indie games artificially limiting themselves to 30fps, because nostalgia.
- AAA games failing to support 60fps on consoles at launch, because "must show absolute prettiest thing to screen", because marketing, at the non-user-negotiable cost of fluidity.
Also, it depends on games. Playing a point&click or a 2d tactical battler at 24fps? Sure! Playing a shooter, a soulslike, or a 3d platformer (like here)? No way.
The framerate was a deliberate design choice by the game dev along with the rest of the game esthetics to best capture the limitations of the N64.
Call it whatever you want, take it or leave it.
Complaining about 30fps on a retro style game is like complaining about a Taco Truck only selling tacos.
How is this a valuable thing to "capture"?! I can understand devs sticking with low-res textures / models / sounds, as it means less a lot less work on modeling, texturing, set-dressing, audio design! It makes sense! Games are complicated!
But "capturing" low framerate in a modern game is plain absurd artificial nostalgic fetishism of limitations that only hinder gameplay enjoyment! As another commenter wrote above, I love many things about old school video games, but some aspects really should be left in the past!
To keep going in your food metaphor: you grew up malnourished in a country at war ... and now that you're an adult and the war ended, you intentionally continue eating only white bread to capture your young years of famine. Doesn't this make you raise an eyebrow?
In particular, note that the PSX/N64 low framerates you seem to enjoy were at the time a regression compared to games of the previous generation of consoles (NES/SNES), due to the fact that they introduced full realtime 3D on early low-powered chips (the PSX ran at a whopping 33 MHz). And gamers of the time rightfully heavily criticized the low framerates, as they were used to NES/SNES games running at 60FPS (or 50FPS for PAL). Fast-forward to now, here you are, fetishizing the regression and asking we "capture" it 🤦.
Good remasters (hello, Nightdive Studios) fully understand this, and do the right thing, by shipping ports/remasters that:
1. make the game runnable on these days OSes
2. fix gameplay bugs
3. default to reasonable non-fetishistic framerate & graphical options, to respect the original game but fix the "better left in the past" aspects of the game.
That said, I am one of those sick freaks who prefers 30fps in some 3D games. But it turns out this game looks nicer than I thought it would at 60fps (headbutt animation looks a little iffy but overall nice). Many of the non-player-based physics will still run at 30fps here but hopefully that shouldn't matter much. Will start a new topic for this when I upload the beta build.
*update* Beta now live. Topic stickied at top of board.
Dope, thank you. Trying now, will report issues in the stickied topic :)
This game isn't Super Corn Kidz, though - it's Corn Kidz 64. The goal is specifically to be authentic to the N64 experience. Those of us who were little kids in the late 90's/early 00's weren't aware of or concerned with why N64 games couldn't run at 60fps - we just liked to play the games, and games like this are meant to evoke the specific limitations of the N64, warts and all. I'm confused as to why you wouldn't expect games like this to fetishize that particular aspect of the N64, when almost every aspect of games like this are fundamentally born from a desire for fetishization of such limitations.
One could conceivably apply your "fetishization of limitations" criticism to any aspect of retro-inspired games like Corn Kidz 64.
I see it as akin to asking why a Game Boy nostalgia game wouldn't include a full color mode - surely, nobody prefers the ugly monochrome of the Game Boy to full color pixel graphics, but when the goal is to recreate the Game Boy experience, monochrome graphics become a part of the desired aesthetic.
I also don't think your food metaphor is entirely applicable here. I may desire to play games like this at 30fps to more closely evoke the N64 experience, but that doesn't mean that I don't also enjoy playing A Hat in Time at 1440p 165hz.
So, to your metaphor - perhaps some people enjoy the occasional slice of plain white bread as a way to evoke childhood memories of what was (at the time) a rare and indulgent treat - but we would not expect them to limit themselves to only ever eating white bread, as you seem to suggest. I play most of my games at 165fps, and I think most of us play games somewhere in the range of 60 to 144fps, but some of us also occasionally enjoy playing specific games that run at 30fps.
In your opening paragraph, you also seem to imply that games like this use "retro" graphics and sound not to evoke a specific aesthetic, but to save time and effort. To a certain extent I understand where you're coming from here, but many "throwback" games like this take great pains to recreate the specific audiovisual quirks of the gaming systems that inspired them. For that reason, I don't think it's appropriate to generalize the pursuit of retro aesthetics in "era-authentic" games as being a time-saving measure.
You also compared this game (a niche retro game made by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts) to modern, studio produced remasters of older games. Remasters are expected to modernize old games - to add modern features and bring older games up to the standards expected by modern audiences. Corn Kidz 64 isn't a remaster. It is specifically meant to resemble an outdated game. The design goals of retro-inspired throwback games and modern remasters of old games are fundamentally opposed. I don't think it's a useful or relevant comparison to make.
That said, I'm glad that in this case the dev is willing and able to accommodate your desires.
corn kidz runs better than most n64 games ever did
In olde N64 yesteryears, playing on the batman controller granted you a single analog stick. This physical characteristic cascaded into control schemes for 3D games unable to fluidly control both *player* and *camera*. These control schemes are annoying, inflexible, and cause camera issues, and have almost disappeared since twin-analog-stick controller became standard, including for Nintendo consoles. I adored Golden Eye 64 when it released ... but also I tried playing it recently, and oh god do the controls suck compared to any twin-analog-stick shooter!
And some recently-released "retro" 3d platformers indeed sadly push the nostalgia too far, and choose to shoot themselves in the foot with single-stick controls.
But Corn Kidz 64 didn't, even though it has "64" in its name! It defaults to a nice "modern" scheme (left stick = movement, right stick = camera). Looking at its startup options screen, it has some "N64 compatibility" options, which is fair, but defaults to a "we know better since the early days" scheme, which is the sane thing to do.
It wasn't my metaphor, and I agree with you that it only goes so far :D .
I was contradicting OP using their own metaphor, and I wrote myself in a previous post: it depends on games. Playing a point&click or a 2d tactical battler at 24fps? Sure! Playing a shooter, a soulslike, or a 3d platformer (like here)? No way.
True, saving dev time isn't the only reason, thanks for helping me precise my point, then.
Reformulation time: I feel that pursuit of retro aesthetics is fine and even enjoyable (hey, reminder that I do like Corn Kidz 64's style!), as long as it remains aesthetics. But for anything gameplay-adjacent, I want the "we know better since the old days" thing, and I regret that many retro games push the retro pursuit too far into gameplay-harmful territory (like 30fps or single-stick controls).
It certainly is a useful or relevant comparison to make: it demonstrates what a "pragmatic and history-respectful, *yet* aware of game design learnings along the way + technical progress" approach can be when it comes to working on retro games (new or remastered), versus an "excessively fetishistic / nostalgic about warts better left behind" one.
100%, this is all that matters: to each their own. And about the 60fps build: I tried it, it feels great, and I'm glad there's already a lot of fine feedback from players who finished the game at 30fps :)