• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The lack of current-gen console games @ 60 FPS...

60 FPS is usually a LOT more fun to play games in I find. I heavily agree with the MGS2 and MGS3 comparisons. Even though they use practically the same controls and movements, MGS2 is simply a load of pure fun (I also attribute this to MGS2 having superior level design to 3).
 
The benefit of 60 fps only matters in some games in some situations. Let developers work on a steady 30 fps framerate first before making 60 fps mandatory for every game.
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
I can certainly tell the difference, but I'm happy to play with in either frame rate, as long any =>30 it is solid. If anyone says otherwise then I feel sorry for them.
 

lowrider007

Licorice-flavoured booze?
Well I notice the difference but I can tolerate 30fps just fine as long as it doesn't dip to far below that.
 
Thing is that 60fps are nice for most games and necessary for some genres, but with the introduction of motion blur we got rid of the brutally nasty 30fps effect.

Currently a game at 30fps looks nice, but you haven't got all the control and so on, but on PSX days, 30fps on low polygon counts looked like shit.

The problem, obviosly, is when the framerate get slower than 30fps. That DO is nasty. Steady 30fps nowadays are quite tolerable.
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
I actually some think games just look odd when they go at 60FPS (Bioshock, for instance).

For certain genres and games 30FPS actually looks better to me, it's more cinematic.
 

Yagharek

Member
I would be happier with 60fps and less detail than 30fps and the ridiculous detail such as normal-mapped shoelaces we have now. So many games just run poorly and there is no excuse.
 
Rez>You said:
I actually some think games just look odd when they go at 60FPS (Bioshock, for instance).

For certain genres and games 30FPS actually looks better to me, it's more cinematic.

This, as I feel it depends on the game. Going way back to when Tony Hawk proskater came out, it ran at like 25 frames per second on the PS1. It felt slightly rough, but it was a roughness that made the skateing feel real. When they ported it to the Dreamcast, they locked the framereate at 30, and though it was smooth, it did not feel the same when you had to grind a rail or do tricks.

Now, 30 is excellent for games that don't require super smoothness, like raceing or rpg's but 60 is a must for sports and fighting. IMO:D
 
Vaandaviii said:
Thing is that 60fps are nice for most games and necessary for some genres, but with the introduction of motion blur we got rid of the brutally nasty 30fps effect.

Currently a game at 30fps looks nice, but you haven't got all the control and so on, but on PSX days, 30fps on low polygon counts looked like shit.

The problem, obviosly, is when the framerate get slower than 30fps. That DO is nasty. Steady 30fps nowadays are quite tolerable.
Back in the PSX and N64 days, framerates were far worse but most people didn't notice. FFIX, Zelda OoT and diddy kong ran at 20-25 FPS. Framerate problems are less of an issue in modern games but easier to spot because we're used to higher framerates.
 

Kritz

Banned
I like 60FPS when I get it, but I have no problems with half that.

Dropping into 20s, though, is really annoying. But luckily on the PC side I don't suffer from that (And if I did, I'd lower the quality of something to get it back up).

What really annoys me is no AA. I'd take 30FPS with 2xAA (or more) over 60FPS with no AA.

The only game that's bothered me with framerate lately is Saint's Row 2. Driving in that game was impossible on the 360 because it'd drop down to 5-20fps. And the boat sequence at the very start was the worst I've witnessed since I had a GeForce 4 trying to play Half Life 2.
 

Squeak

Member
ANYONE can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps when held side by side. It's just a matter of "education". Ask your average soccer mom to tell the difference between HD and SD and you'll probably get very different and unclear answers. They just don't know what the difference is although they can sense it.
Same way with 60 fps. It creates a whole different atmosphere. A more intense and real one. 30 fps can (or 25 in the case of films) be used as a stylistic tool. But 60 fps is better in the real sense of the word.
It's like comparing 320x240 with SD res. The jump is big and very noticeable, although you'll surely find people, at least in the transition stage, that will say that the old was better.
 

Grayman

Member
Sega1991 said:
I probably don't have to tell you that there's tons of people out there who want the exact opposite, right?

Besides, I'd argue that it's not so much graphics that bog down framerates nowadays - it's things like physics, complex artificial intelligence, etc. When I see a framerate in a game grind to a halt nowadays it's rarely because there's too much on screen - it's more because of the internals of what is happening on that screen.

You see it all the time. A game will show you a thousand static objects and the framerate is fine, but once it starts treating them as physics objects or gives them AI, the framerate goes to shit because calculating all of that data is too much for the system to handle - but the game is still well within the abilities of the GPU.

Hence my initial comment of "cutting gameplay features".

And while that takes us back to the samurai screenshot again with its 65,000 soldiers or whatever, I'm willing to bet that their AI is ridiculously simple. It certainly doesn't look very fun.
I think racing games are a counter point to physics and ai bogging down games. Those components should always be running and racing games still have variable framerates in graphically intensive situations if the hardware is not good enough. If the player car ends up alone the framerate will improve, if ai and physics were cutting the framerate in half then it would always run at that speed.

It has been a long time since I read the blurb about ai but it was to the effect of the difficulty being in writing the ai well and resources not being a big deal.

In some programs a multitude of colissions will slow though. I have not played boom blox but I would accept that choppiness in a game like that or an sdk demo was based on physics.
 

Minsc

Gold Member
Haunted said:
Should be linked to in the OP so people who claim "I can't see the difference" can check it out.

If it is the same program I think it is, I remember quite a long time ago running something like that. I'll check it out tonight and comment again.

The one I remember started out with a cube or triangle rotating around, and the screen split with two sides, each side you could set the frame rate for.

Since there was no fancy motion blur, and no hardware motion blur (aka a LCD screen), I remember the difference being quite apparent, especially with it being side by side and all.

Back then we were sporting 100+ hz CRT screens, and the argument was not 30 vs 60, but 60 vs 90+, which the program I'm thinking of was able to illustrate a difference between.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
M3d10n said:
One thing I'd like to have on a videocard's control panel is a framerate limiter. It would be nice for making the experience more consistent when the rig isn't all up to date. But I guess GPU makers depend on the mixed emotions when players enter empty rooms or look down and their framerates shoot up for a moment.
This is what I dislike the most about working on PC.
First, doing an accurate fps limiter (well, doing accurate ANYTHING timing wise) is virtually impossible. But if you do manage it, it better be optional(which kinda defeats the purpose) because with high end hw will feel castrated or something if they can't get a title to run over 100hz when VSync is off.
 

rezuth

Member
M°°nblade said:
Back in the PSX and N64 days, framerates were far worse but most people didn't notice. FFIX, Zelda OoT and diddy kong ran at 20-25 FPS. Framerate problems are less of an issue in modern games but easier to spot because we're used to higher framerates.
Are you sure of this? I don't remember any slowdowns in Zelda.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
MWS Natural said:
Hell yeah. Infinity Ward got it right. Sub HD, 60fps with good amount of AA. Looks and plays fantastic!

Too bad it feels like watching a soap opera rather than a movie. Well, I just wish there was an option to run it in 30fps with more effects/details.
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
I hate the threads. They're nothing more than treadmills.

Anyway, +1 Pro-60fps
 

M3d10n

Member
Fafalada said:
This is what I dislike the most about working on PC.
First, doing an accurate fps limiter (well, doing accurate ANYTHING timing wise) is virtually impossible. But if you do manage it, it better be optional(which kinda defeats the purpose) because with high end hw will feel castrated or something if they can't get a title to run over 100hz when VSync is off.
It would actually be very simple. Just add an extra forced vsync mode which wait 2 complete screen refreshes instead of one. At 60Hz that'd lock a game to 30fps. And of course that'd optional (GPU control panel option). A bunch of old console-to-PC ports already do this, locking themselves at 30fps (because the code would break at higher fps): RE4, PSO, SH2, etc.

My point is: I absolutely love vsync, but when you don't have the highest end hardware not all games will run at 60fps+ all the time and even those who never hit 60fps ( thus runnning at 30fps when vsync'ed) will hit 60 in situations like small/empty rooms, or facing a wall or something like that, making the experience less consistent. I'd prefer locking the game at 30fps all the time than get 60fps sometimes, until I upgrade my rig.

A console example of this is MGS3: the framerate isn't locked and in some rare moments the game runs at 60fps. When the framerate goes back to normal I felt "spoiled" and the entire game feels like it's crawling for a several minutes.
 
Im definitely pro 60fps, but what about for certain games such as okami? In my opinion, it works really well visually with 30fps, so much so that im not exactly sure how it would look with 60.
 
The exact same complaint was voiced during the last generation of consoles, I expect it will for the next as well.

That said this generation has been hugely disappointing thus far. There have been a load of good games, but only a couple truly great games. The game design mentality of copy/paste from the last game + make it bigger + improve visual fidelity, and then make the story more dramatic = great game really needs to end. I'm just sick and tired of the constant retreads we've been getting the last few years.
 
M°°nblade said:
Back in the PSX and N64 days, framerates were far worse but most people didn't notice.
They did if they were playing the right games. F-Zero X is what turned me into a frame rate whore. That it still has any graphical advantage over many games designed for hardware dozens or hundreds of times as capable is a disappointment.
Vaandaviii said:
Thing is that 60fps are nice for most games and necessary for some genres, but with the introduction of motion blur we got rid of the brutally nasty 30fps effect.
Ehhh. Motion blur is an attempt to simulate the look of a much higher frame rate, but the real thing will always be better. Like anti-aliasing may get rid of jaggies, but rendering in a higher resolution is still desirable.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
M°°nblade said:
The benefit of 60 fps only matters in some games in some situations. Let developers work on a steady 30 fps framerate first before making 60 fps mandatory for every game.

"Some" games now being like, all the most popular ones. Nowadays most popular games are action, sports, etc., and every FPS that has ever been made can benefit from 60fps. Of course, a turned based strategy game or whatever does not need 60fps (an RTS can benefit mightily, though of course), but its not like TBS is today's darling genre.
 
abstract alien said:
Im definitely pro 60fps, but what about for certain games such as okami? In my opinion, it works really well visually with 30fps, so much so that im not exactly sure how it would look with 60.
Problem with Okami is that the game had a ton of slowdown even with the low framerate, at least on PS2. I see your point though, I didn't mind the 30 fps in Wind Waker in part due to the stylized graphics. But for racing games or games with fast-paced action 60 fps is a must.
 

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
MWS Natural said:
Hell yeah. Infinity Ward got it right. Sub HD, 60fps with good amount of AA. Looks and plays fantastic!
Sub HD is a crime against humanity.
 
nincompoop said:
How about 65535 enemies at 60 fps?
ikusa07.jpg

I'm pretty sure the 360 and PS3 are more powerful than PS2, so they should be able to handle it.

...And why is Capcom having such a hard time with Dead Rising Wii?
 
I'll take solid 30fps over flaky 60fps any day. And flaky 60fps is what I've found many are nowadays, that or speed just for the sake of it.

Half the time games in 60fps seem hyperrealistic rather than most realistic. Uncanny valley type stuff, even though it's not people.
 

camineet

Banned
If anyone still thinks and believes that games don't need to be 60 FPS, that 60FPS does not matter and that a locked 30FPS is good enough, you've once again been proven dead wrong, as you've been wrong many, many times. H2Overdrive, the successor to Hydro Thunder, runs at a constant 60 FPS, and is just the latest example of why 60 FPS still matters, as it has always mattered.


H2Overdrive vids
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23452
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23454
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23453
 

Slavik81

Member
Dizzle24 said:
Why is this such a difficult task for current generation game developers?
It's not all that hard. Most consumers just would prefer 30fps + cooler visual effects to 60fps /w less cool visual effects and that's what developers give to them.
 

Minsc

Gold Member
camineet said:
If anyone still thinks and believes that games don't need to be 60 FPS, that 60FPS does not matter and that a locked 30FPS is good enough, you've once again been proven dead wrong, as you've been wrong many, many times. H2Overdrive, the successor to Hydro Thunder, runs at a constant 60 FPS, and is just the latest example of why 60 FPS still matters, as it has always mattered.


H2Overdrive vids
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23452
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23454
http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23453

Videos are at 30 fps though :(
 

senahorse

Member
MWS Natural said:
Resolution is one of the last things that matter then it comes to PQ, in games as well as movies.

This. It's amazing how many people think that res is the most important factor, it goes to show how good that Full HD marketing is.
 

Bizzyb

Banned
civilstrife said:
Like it or not, games going for a cinematic effect are far better suited to 30fps than 60, which makes them feel more "gamey".

Case in point: Bioshock


I don't know if "gamey" is the right word. I always thought 60fps made the games feel more "alive" or real. Like I could just jump in and be apart of the world...so smooth and silky moving. COD4 and Smash Bros Brawl REALLY benefit, imo, from having a locked 60 fps

Sometimes, when there's not much happening on screen, you can catch GTAIV running above 30fps and it looks ****ing amazing.
 

Minsc

Gold Member
Ok, anyone who doesn't find worth in 60 fps needs to download the program from my earlier post, press f2 to switch to the view that flies around mountains, and then shut the hell up or admit they're wrong.

Such an amazing program for .1 megs. Makes me wish I could run at over 60 fps, stupid LCD screen.
 

65536

Banned
MWS Natural said:
Resolution is one of the last things that matter then it comes to PQ, in games as well as movies.
It is significantly more important for real-time rendered graphics than it is for video/cg.

And that's really only when talking about displays rather than the source material. 1080p content looks much better than 480p content does even on a 480p native screen.

Anything less than 1080p looks bad on a 1080p display. (to varying degrees)
 

bee

Member
so far from different posts on this board i've gathered that 8xaa is too clean, resolution doesn't matter in image quality and 30 fps is more cinematic than 60fps, thats right yeah??
 

Squeak

Member
bj00rn_ said:
Too bad it feels like watching a soap opera rather than a movie. Well, I just wish there was an option to run it in 30fps with more effects/details.
Do you guys really not get that it's just a matter of disassociating those two?!
And that can only be done through prolonged exposure?
Just a week with a 100Hz tv is enough that you don't want to go back.
The notion that 60fps = cheap is something that can be unlearned.
 

Squeak

Member
65536 said:
It is significantly more important for real-time rendered graphics than it is for video/cg.

And that's really only when talking about displays rather than the source material. 1080p content looks much better than 480p content does even on a 480p native screen.

Anything less than 1080p looks bad on a 1080p display. (to varying degrees)
The jump from 320x240 to SD is much greater psycho-optically, than the jump from SD to HD, and that goes for any screensize. But the cost of per frame grows exponentially. So is it really worth it to up the res when so many other aspects of graphics are lagging?
 

65536

Banned
Squeak said:
The jump from 320x240 to SD is much greater psycho-optically, than the jump from SD to HD, and that goes for any screensize. But the cost of per frame grows exponentially. So is it really worth it to up the res when so many other aspects of graphics are lagging?
480p looks terrible on modern displays. 720p is bad enough.

At the very least, 720p at 60fps should be possible on the current systems, and probably 1080p60 if developers actually cared about these things.
 
65536 said:
480p looks terrible on modern displays. 720p is bad enough.

At the very least, 720p at 60fps should be possible on the current systems, and probably 1080p60 if developers actually cared about these things.
Maybe when people stop praising screen shots we could have that...as if this would ever happen.
 
65536 said:
At the very least, 720p at 60fps should be possible on the current systems...
It is possible; Burnout Paradise, for example. The problem is, in a 720p@30fps game like Gears of War 2 each frame can look much better. (Same goes for a 600p@60fps game like Call of Duty 4.) In both cases, people tend to prefer those looks. For that reason, we'll continue to see games de-emphasize framerate in preference to resolution, textures, effects, etc. into next generation and beyond.
 

FightyF

Banned
BobsRevenge said:
Oh my God yes. I fucking hate it. Looks terrible. MGS4 would've looked absolutely fantastic if not for it. Instead it just looks pretty muddy. Halo 3 is terribly ugly to look at in general because of it coupled with a lack of AA.

Actually if you view Halo 3 at 60 fps (occurs when you slightly fast forward recorded clips in non-crowded areas of the game), you can totally forgive the sub-HD resolution, it looks beautiful. I agree that game needed AA (CoD4 is bearable to look at because of its AA despite running at sub-HD resolutions), but if it had 60 fps instead, people wouldn't care about the AA issue.
 
Ikusagami? That got a PAL release by the name of Demon Chaos.
Shame from what I hear it's pretty much shit(yeah I didn't play it myself because it's 50 hz ONLY.)
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
RPGCrazied said:
framerate doesn't bother me, its the screen tearing that is in almost every game.

why can't they put a vsync option?

Because when most games can barely manage 30, turning on v-sync would be a terrible idea?
 
If the game can handle a steady 60, sure, but IIRC GTA IV was kept at a steady 30 in lieu of going up and down at 60. Must more preferable to have a steady framerate than a bumpy one.
 
Top Bottom