I will just wait until the next video comes out and see if it is any better.

Some videos just suck. I doubt the core game play is going drastically change because an early, yet fairly recent video was presented well versus this one that isn't done very well. Really, the game could just plain suck and be a nasty surprise when it's released. You put too emphasis on this kind of preview.

Does it play back differently than this for you?

Yes, it locked at 7.3fps on my pc just as other Quicktime clips lock at their movie FPS. Normally that would make sense because if the clip played faster it would be running too quickly. Here in your case it appears that the clip should be 30fps, but Quicktime is reading the wrong Movie FPS from the clip.

This comment was edited on Nov 15, 20:24.

The problem is his computer and its owner.

Yes, I am somewhat illitrate, sorry I don't make your high standard.

It plays pretty damn smooth for me. The movie FPS says 7.3, but it plays back at 30, also clearly listed on the movie info page. And no it doesn't mean it would play back faster, it means many of the frames are extrapolated, just like most compression algorithms work. The resulting playback doesn't look choppy to me in the least. Is it not playing back at 30 on yours? Is there some quicktime option you fucked with and forgot about to disable it?

edit:
Does it play back differently than this for you? http://i15.tinypic.com/4d6s281.jpg

This comment was edited on Nov 14, 11:35.

Even though Quicktime might say it is 7.3 fps it is clearly rendering the movie at a higher framerate.

Not on my PC using the official Quicktime Player it is not playing at a higher rate. That is the problem, and that is exactly what and why I posted in this thread.

I don't know why it is locked at 7.3fps if that is not the real rate it was encoded, and at this point I don't care. Hopefully the next preview video won't suffer from the same problem.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 22:43.

Even though Quicktime might say it is 7.3 fps it is clearly rendering the movie at a higher framerate. Whatever it uses to get the "movie info" is probably confused by files that aren't "native" Quicktme-files.

You're so damn stupid you can't even see through your own shit.

You are so damn stupid that you can't even read and understand what I wrote to see that I am right. I put the exact details in my posts so that you can check the results yourself. So, get your head out of your ass and see it for yourself instead of mindlessly shooting off your mouth as usual.

QuickTime is obviously mistaken, as it is displaying 30 frames a second.

The Quicktime player is NOT displaying the movie at 30 fps. It plays this Quicktime file at the "movie fps" rate of 7.3fps just as it plays every other Quicktime file at its "movie fps" rate. The Ridley Scott Quicktime file I linked below plays at its "movie rate" of 10fps. The theatrical trailers on Apple's Quicktime site play at their "movie fps" rate of 24fps (which happens to be the standard movie fps rate). Maybe the movie should be playing at 30fps, but for some reason it is locked at one-fourth that rate.

Clearly, Movie FPS refers to something else that sure ain't the amount of frames in the file.

No, moron, it is NOT the amount of frames in the file. "Movie FPS" is the rate at which the video is encoded, i.e. the rate at which the file is designed to played. Every Quicktime file I have ever played plays at that specified rate in Apple's player. Just leave the "Show Movie Info" open as you play back Quicktime files and see for yourself.

The "official" QuickTime player is MEANINGLESS

The official Quicktime player is NOT meaningless. This is a Quicktime video file, and Apple's player is the official way to play it. As such it is the player used by the majority of PC users to view Quicktime files.

the video is encoded with MPEG4, which Apple certainly didn't invent.

Apple didn't invent the H.264 codec used to encode the video stream, but the Quicktime file format is still Apple's design, and it may be using a proprietary implementation or restriction which limits the playback.

QuickTime is WRONG.

Quicktime is NOT wrong. The Quicktime player plays the file at the rate which it says that the file is encoded. The fact that you might be able to play the file at a different rate using a third-party player doesn't change that. The third-party player may simply be bypassing some restriction or limitation Apple is imposing on the file.

If this Quicktime video plays at a faster rate using another player, then whoever made it should figure out why that is the case so that the next time they create a Quicktime video it will play at the proper rate using the official Quicktime player.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 22:39.

It is YOU who is the ignorant ass. Open the damn video in Quicktime v7.1.3 (the latest version as I post this) and open its "Show Movie Info" panel and leave it open as you play the movie. It shows 7.3fps as the "Movie FPS," and that is how it plays at least for me. The Ridley Scott clip I posted below ( http://images.apple.com/movies/fox/a_good_year/agoodyear_featurette_ctp1.mov ) plays in a similar manner, i.e. at its "Movie FPS" of 10.

You're so damn stupid you can't even see through your own shit. QuickTime is obviously mistaken, as it is displaying 30 frames a second. Playing that video in VLC results in NO desync. The "official" QuickTime player is MEANINGLESS: the video is encoded with MPEG4, which Apple certainly didn't invent. Clearly, Movie FPS refers to something else that sure ain't the amount of frames in the file.

Please shut up, your argument is as shallow as a kiddie pool. Come back to me when you learn a thing or two about video editing, or at MINIMUM playing it through VLC or a variety of other MPEG4 players/codecs.

I've clearly proven where you are wrong, and you stand on your straw man, refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other side. There is no opinion here, QuickTime is WRONG.

Anyways, now that we know what you think of the technical merits of the video, what do you feel about it?
Does it suck ass? Is it 'meh', or do you like it.

Unfortunately the clip doesn't really show much about the gameplay, and what it does show doesn't appear unique. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Even a derivative game can be quite fun if it is done well. Execution is much more important than originality, but you just can't see that without actually playing the game.

Personally, I'm stoked about the game but suspect I join the majority of viewers here that thought it was somewhat lackluster.

Generally I really like this type of game, but based upon this one video there isn't a whole lot to get excited about. Earlier previews were a lot more compelling.

not sure how you don't know that this one wasn't down sampled from the other

As I wrote below, I don't know if it is or isn't. I just wrote that if it is, it won't be any better than this one. Given how lackluster the gameplay is in the video, I am not going to waste any more time on it. I will just wait until the next video comes out and see if it is any better.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 06:01.

Yeah, honestly it wasn't frame studder or jumpiness that turned me off in the video, it was the dullness of the gameplay, awkwardly artificial environment (look at those fabulous mountains), and less than impressive visuals (which is sad, considering nVidia was showing off their card).

It is YOU who is the ignorant ass.

Anyways, now that we know what you think of the technical merits of the video, what do you feel about it?

Does it suck ass? Is it 'meh', or do you like it.

Personally, I'm stoked about the game but suspect I join the majority of viewers here that thought it was somewhat lackluster.

I'd also check out the other video, not sure how you don't know that this one wasn't down sampled from the other as you refuse to check it out. Me, I don't care.

You ignorant ass, play the video one frame at a time, and count. It's more than 7, it's more than 8, it's more than 10.

It is YOU who is the ignorant ass. Open the damn video in Quicktime v7.1.3 (the latest version as I post this) and open its "Show Movie Info" panel and leave it open as you play the movie. It shows 7.3fps as the "Movie FPS," and that is how it plays at least for me. The Ridley Scott clip I posted below ( http://images.apple.com/movies/fox/a_good_year/agoodyear_featurette_ctp1.mov ) plays in a similar manner, i.e. at its "Movie FPS" of 10.

If you can get the clip to play faster on another player then it certainly isn't going to be the same length unless the "Movie FPS" value shown in the official Quicktime player for this clip is not the actual encoded fps as it is for every other Quicktime clip I have ever played.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 01:40.

If it looks like 7.3 fps to you, I suggest you have your eyes checked.

If Quicktime-player says it is 7.3 fps, it is wrong.

Maybe it is a restriction imposed by the Quicktime player with this clip or the fact that my Quicktime player is not registered, but it IS listed as 7.3fps NOT "something like that", and the damn thing does play at only 7.3fps on my PC, and it looks like crap because of it.

This comment was edited on Nov 13, 02:51.

You may not want to believe it, but it is 7.3 fps, and to me it looks like it.

If it looks like 7.3 fps to you, I suggest you have your eyes checked.

If Quicktime-player says it is 7.3 fps, it is wrong. I took your advice and checked with that player and it actually says something about 7.3 fps but it is obviously wrong. Now it's your turn to try it my way and get a player where you can step forward frame by frame and count yourself how many times the screen moves every second in that movie. It won't be 7.3 fps, that's for sure.

You ignorant ass, play the video one frame at a time, and count. It's more than 7, it's more than 8, it's more than 10.

Media Player Classic can do it, as can VLC. If you're still too damn stupid to try and argue a fact, just sit down and shut your mouth until you learn enough to talk. Once again, you prove yourself as fundamentally incompetent in technological issues.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7200/infoom2.png

This comment was edited on Nov 12, 19:27.

The clip is clearly too smooth to just be 7,5 frames per second...if you want to actually count the fps.

If you want to actually count the FPS, simply use the "Show Movie Info" command from the "Window" menu of the Quicktime v7.1.3 player during playback. You may not want to believe it, but it is 7.3 fps, and to me it looks like it.

Does it matter? Nope.

The clip is clearly too smooth to just be 7,5 frames per second.

Start it with a player with slow-motion or the possibility to advance frames step-by-step if you want to actually count the fps. The pan at the start of the clip is a good place to see that it moves at more than 7 frames per second.

What about the Gametrailers version of the clip that plays at ~29 fps and looks exactly the same as the Quicktime version If the Quicktime version is the original version, wouldn't the WMV Gametrailers' version play much faster because of the higher frame rate?

Even though I haven't actually checked out that Gametrailers clip since the 200MB Quicktime clip download was enough for me, no, the WMV clip would not play faster because it was upsampled to 30 fps when it was converted into WMV format. The length of the clip, i.e. the running time, stays the same so the number of frames is simply padded to meet the higher framerate. The quality of the clip is not improved in the upsample though because the source material is at a lower framerate. Think of it like converting an audio sample captured at 22KHz to 44KHz to convert it into an audio CD track. The length/playing time of the audio doesn't change nor does the quality improve because there simply isn't any additional capture information to use when the extra frames are added so that it retains the same running time.

The bottom line is that if that WMV file is made from the same Quicktime clip, it is just as choppy as the Quicktime one despite its higher framerate because it has the same 7.5fps capture rate, i.e. the source material is the same.

Now, that Ridley Scott Quicktime is really choppy and plays at an fps of 10. The Quake Wars clip is very obviously not that choppy and plays at a lower fps

I think that Quake Wars clip looks choppy true to its low 7.5 fps. It reminded me of playing FPS games on vastly underpowered PC's. The reason the Ridley Scott clip looks worse to you is probably because it features a real person speaking, and you are accustomed to seeing people captured at 30fps on television not 10fps. If the game clip had any speaking characters or live action sequences in it, it would be obvious to you just how choppy the framerate is.

This comment was edited on Nov 12, 06:56.

What about the Gametrailers version of the clip that plays at ~29 fps and looks exactly the same as the Quicktime version? If the Quicktime version is the original version, wouldn't the WMV Gametrailers' version play much faster because of the higher frame rate?

Now, that Ridley Scott Quicktime is really choppy and plays at an fps of 10. The Quake Wars clip is very obviously not that choppy and plays at a lower fps.

To me, the QW clip looks like the game was running at around 50-60 fps while being recorded at a a framerate of ~30 fps. The playback rate of the Gametrailers version correlates with the latter. So yes, you are losing some detail and subtlety but not enough to make a huge difference in the overall quality of the animation.


This comment was edited on Nov 12, 06:20.