Support NeoGAF

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

Disclaimer: this is NOT about playability at 30 vs 60, or 30vs 60 in general. I understand discussing frame rates can get heated, please try to stay on topic.
-

Often when discussing the cost of a game's visuals versus performance, or the quality of a game's visuals, frame rates are placed on the side of performance only.

This confuses me a little, surely the clarity of higher frame rates should be considered as part of the criteria for a great visual experience?

A game that chooses to lock at 30 to fit in more visual effects instead of aiming for 60 with less loses clarity in motion. It might be better for screenshots, but while moving you lose out on a lot of that extra detail.

Let's consider a game with a spell or physics effect, say a fire spell that causes individual sparks to flutter and glow and scatter embers over the ground.

At 60fps, you see the detail of every ember clearly, you can trace each individual sparks journy. At 30, it becomes much more difficult to see this detail.

I understand it's a balance, and sometimes 30fps is beneficial if the visual upgrades create a more alluring or atmosphereic world, but I think we need to consider clarity in motion as part of the visual package.

Photo realism at 30fps versus a game with less realism but the clarity of 60 shouldn't be an auto win for the photo realism when considering which is greater visually. Games are about playing, not just taking screenshots.

-

EDIT: For clarity

ToD_ said:
I think that's the point of the OP. He believes 60 FPS IS eye candy, and not just about playability. Of course, it is more difficult to sell this in screenshots.

Yes, I think 60fps should be considered as eye candy as much as performance.

Jigolo · Jun 2, 2015

Eh not really. Played through GTAV, DmC, TLoU just fine on PS3

EDIT: I'm sure there are more sub 30 fps games I've played on that console as well and it didn't make me think the graphics were any worse than when it was locked at 30. It's not really a big deal

phanphare · Jun 2, 2015

agreed. some of the best looking games for me personally don't look so hot in screenshots but are simply sublime in motion. a locked 60fps is the best eye candy for me.

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

Jigolo said:
Eh not really. Played through GTAV, DmC, TLoU just fine on PS3

That doesn't have anything to do with the post I made.

BigTnaples · Jun 2, 2015

You really made a thread about this?

Yes. Framerate is important in a medium about displaying frames rapidly to create a moving image.

Some games need 30, some need 60.

It has always been this way and will always be this way on set hardware.(Consoles)

entremet · Jun 2, 2015

I would say they're a large part of the actual gaming experience.

Try playing a fighting game at 30FPS.

Dredd97 · Jun 2, 2015

in before 30 FPS is a slide show....

Diprosalic · Jun 2, 2015

yes OP, that's what i feel.
30fps just distracts from the visuals.

SliceSabre · Jun 2, 2015

Dredd97 said:
in before 30 FPS is a slide show....

Or how it causes people to vomit blood and they were sick in bed for a week after playing GTAV at 30 fps.

60 fps is good for some games 30 is fine for other. There is no one all be all in regards to frame-rates.

MDSLKTR · Jun 2, 2015

Jigolo said:
Eh not really. Played through GTAV, DmC, TLoU just fine on PS3

Now play the sames games in 60fps and see what you've been missing out

LilJoka · Jun 2, 2015

If you care about framerate, go PC, because there are too may people on Console that will flock to graphics, even if the game runs at 20fps. And since even the devs agree (look at the latest AAA's fps), this is the way they make the most money, screenshots/PR, you cant market fps easily, half the userbase doesnt get it or care. On top of that, the whole userbase is divided due to large age & maturity gaps, and the devs can take advantage of it. Its unfortunate, but thats the audiences fault, not the devs, the devs are part of the business at the end of the day. Itll never be resolved.

Basically money.

Percy · Jun 2, 2015

entrement said:
I would say they're a large part of the actual gaming experience.

Try playing a fighting game at 30FPS.

Or a racing game.

Iceternal · Jun 2, 2015

Smooth ( as in judder and stutter free ) 30 fps is not bad at all..

I'd rather play a game at smooth 30 fps at 1620p with ultra settings than high settings at 1080p at 60fps.

BiGBoSSMk23 · Jun 2, 2015

Yep, sleeping dogs PS4 is bullshit.

How they couldn't manage a stable frame rate with that is baffling.

Such a waste.

Hip Hop · Jun 2, 2015

Yup.

I wish every game was 60fps at the very least and developers would prioritize on that.

Broadbandito · Jun 2, 2015

As much as I loved The Evil Within, the framerate almost killed it for me.

Dredd97 · Jun 2, 2015

SliceSabre said:
Or how it causes people to vomit blood and they were sick in bed for a week after playing GTAV at 30 fps.

60 fps is good for some games 30 is fine for other. There is no one all be all in regards to frame-rates.

don't get me wrong, in a perfect world all games like that would be 60 FPS but compromises are required when eye candy is an easier sell, and 30 FPS is still very playable as a frame rate

73V3N · Jun 2, 2015

Jigolo said:
Eh not really. Played through GTAV, DmC, TLoU just fine on PS3

EDIT: I'm sure there are more sub 30 fps games I've played on that console as well and it didn't make me think the graphics were any worse than when it was locked at 30. It's not really a big deal

It's not a big deal for you because you are used to it.

really bad first post

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

Guys and gals, let's not get side tracked about 30 vs 60. It is not about playability at 30 vs 60, for example.

This is specifically about the clarity of higher framerates offering a better visual experience, and that frame rates should be considered when discussing visual more often (imo) than they are.

eliochip · Jun 2, 2015

Good framerate definitely eases my eyestrain when playing games for a long period of time.

I find it hard to play the Witcher 3 for too long.

OCD Guy · Jun 2, 2015

Yes framerate is the most important thing, an unstable framerate makes a game unplayable.

Assasins creed unity anyone? The game looked great while static, but at launch it would turn into a slideshow.

I'd honestly be happy with graphics like last of us remastered at 60fps than something looking better and struggling to maintain 30fps.

It always shocks me when people say they can't notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

So they are honestly saying they could see no difference between say killzone 2 and call of duty 4? Lol

Or more recently anyone that's played Splatoon, are some people saying they can't notice the difference between being at the plaza and in the single player? The frame rate difference is in your face. Not sure why they dropped it to 30fps.

To be honest I could live with a locked 30fps but most games on consoles rarely are, and framerate drops under 30 are obvious, whereas a 60fps game dropping to 50fps now and again isn't anywhere as noticeable. Now go and play a 30fps game and let me know how it goes when it drops to 20fps lol

ToD_ · Jun 2, 2015

Dredd97 said:
don't get me wrong, in a perfect world all games like that would be 60 FPS but compromises are required when eye candy is an easier sell, and 30 FPS is still very playable as a frame rate

I think that's the point of the OP. He believes 60 FPS IS eye candy, and not just about playability. Of course, it is more difficult to sell this in screenshots.

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

ToD_ said:
I think that's the point of the OP. He believes 60 FPS IS eye candy, and not just about playability. Of course, it is more difficult to sell this in screenshots.

Precisely.

Going to add this into the OP for clarity, thanks. :3

bomblord1 · Jun 2, 2015

60 fps is objectively better than 30 fps in all scenarios (assuming all other things equal).

However the difference is not nearly as hyperbolic as you make it out to be. The responsiveness, visuals, and ability to see moving objects (like a spark) going from point A to point B are well within a humans tolerable range for perceiving it as complete and connected motion in fact early films ran at around 16fps and it was still apparent things were in motion and you were still able to trace something moving from one end of the screen to other.

Now when you are playing something like an intense action game it usually better to a higher frame rate due to responsiveness so it can be almost required to have a higher frame rate in some cases. However in slower paced games like say a turn based RPG it can typically be thought to be more preferable to turn down the frame rate and up the eye candy.

thewhitehawk · Jun 2, 2015

I agree, but I also think that there are games that benefit immensely more from 60fps than others, as such, I think 30fps are sufficient for the majority of games I play.

I believe that the games that benefit the most from 60fps are games that require a lot of precision, twitch reactions or both: racing games, bullet-hell, fighting games. Other games or game genres do benefit from higher framerate but the graphical compromises to reach that framerate are undesirable, in my opinion.

phanphare · Jun 2, 2015

bomblord1 said:
60 fps is objectively better than 30 fps in all scenarios (assuming all other things equal).

However the difference is not nearly as hyperbolic as you make it out to be. The responsiveness, visuals, and ability to see moving objects (like a spark) going from point A to point B are well within a humans tolerable range for perceiving it as complete and connected motion in fact early films ran at around 16fps and it was still apparent things were in motion and you were still able to trace something moving from one end of the screen to other.

Now when you are playing something like an intense action game it usually better to a higher frame rate due to responsiveness so it can be better to have a higher frame rate in some cases. However in slower paced games like say a turn based RPG it can usually be thought to be more preferable to turn down the frame rate and up the eye candy.

haven't there been studies proving that the illusion of motion only occurs at framerates higher than 47fps? so while you might think that you're seeing things in motion at 16fps your brain is not perceiving it that way, it is perceiving a bunch of still images put together.

Hendrick's · Jun 2, 2015

Agreed. It's hard to enjoy the Witcher 3 on PS4, when it only looks good when standing still.

bomblord1 · Jun 2, 2015

phanphare said:
haven't there been studies proving that the illusion of motion only occurs at framerates higher than 47fps? so while you might think that you're seeing things in motion at 16fps your brain is not perceiving it that way, it is perceiving a bunch of still images put together.

You're going to have to link me to said studies. As i couldn't find anything on it.

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

bomblord1 said:
60 fps is objectively better than 30 fps in all scenarios (assuming all other things equal).

However the difference is not nearly as hyperbolic as you make it out to be. The responsiveness, visuals, and ability to see moving objects (like a spark) going from point A to point B are well within a humans tolerable range for perceiving it as complete and connected motion in fact early films ran at around 16fps and it was still apparent things were in motion and you were still able to trace something moving from one end of the screen to other.

Now when you are playing something like an intense action game it usually better to a higher frame rate due to responsiveness so it can be almost required to have a higher frame rate in some cases. However in slower paced games like say a turn based RPG it can typically be thought to be more preferable to turn down the frame rate and up the eye candy.

Not sure I made it hyperbolic at all.

Fair enough if you don't notice it as much, but I certainly see the difference. The clarity of a game running 60fps is the first thing I notice before any kind of responsiveness test.

For example, playing Revengeance on PC the first battle I had where sparks flew from Raiden's blade during a parry made my eyes water. Looked incredible in comparison to the console I'd played it on before because I could see every individual detail clearly.

For me it's a huge improvement, maybe others aren't as sensitive to these things.

EDIT: apparently Revengeance was 60 on consoles too. You get the point though (I hope).

Xyber · Jun 2, 2015

BigTnaples said:
You really made a thread about this?

Yes. Framerate is important in a medium about displaying frames rapidly to create a moving image.

Some games need 30, some need 60.

It has always been this way and will always be this way on set hardware.(Consoles)

Not a single game needs 30FPS, that's just a trade-off for limited hardware power. If the world was a perfect place, no game would ever run below 60.

nailbombxx · Jun 2, 2015

60fps is all about smooth motion. Fast-paced action games really need it.

phanphare · Jun 2, 2015

bomblord1 said:
You're going to have to link me to said studies. As i couldn't find anything on it.

this is all I could find but I remember their being a thread on here about it, I just couldn't find it in a search

http://accidentalscientist.com/2014...e-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html

hatchx · Jun 2, 2015

Framerate is a big deal to me. It was the sole reason I could never play GTA3 and vice city on PS2, gave me headaches to watch.

It's a major reason why I'm avoiding Witcher 3, because when I played it a bunch at my friends I found it very distracting. An inconsistent framerate really takes me out of the experience.

ToD_ · Jun 2, 2015

bomblord1 said:
However the difference is not nearly as hyperbolic as you make it out to be. The responsiveness, visuals, and ability to see moving objects (like a spark) going from point A to point B are well within a humans tolerable range for perceiving it as complete and connected motion in fact early films ran at around 16fps and it was still apparent things were in motion and you were still able to trace something moving from one end of the screen to other.

Just because we are able to perceive motion at low frame rates doesn't make it a pleasing experience. A simple spell from a slow RPG could look much better at a high frame rate even if it could be more detailed at a lower rate.

At least, that is the opinion of the OP (and myself). You're right, however, typically people prefer the opposite. It's just usually not part of the discussion when frame rates are debated. It's often about latency and how it is needed for fast paced games, while the eye candy part is pretty much always in favor of 30 FPS. Is it so strange that people may prefer the look of 60 FPS despite being less detailed?

pastrami · Jun 2, 2015

Zakalwe said:
Not sure I made it hyperbolic at all.

Fair enough if you don't notice it as much, but I certainly see the difference. The clarity of a game running 60fps is the first thing I notice before any kind of responsiveness test.

For example, playing Revengeance on PC the first battle I had where sparks flew from Raiden's blade during a parry made my eyes water. Looked incredible in comparison to the console I'd played it on before because I could see every individual detail clearly.

For me it's a huge improvement, maybe others aren't as sensitive to these things.

But MGS: Rising is "60fps" on consoles. I'd wager you could see every individual detail clearly because you were running at a much higher resolution. Which has nothing to do with framerate.

DarthWalden · Jun 2, 2015

I agree, messing around with the 30fps lock in TLOU really made that noticeable... To me the added framerate provided an unexpected visual boost more so then anything else.

Rats Off To Ya · Jun 2, 2015

Splatoon has garbage IQ and looks awful in screenshots (and in Inkopolis), but in motion it's nothing less than gorgeous. 60FPS has a lot to do with that.

Nemmy · Jun 2, 2015

Completely disregarding the impact on gameplay - yes, I completely agree. Animations are always way smoother at a higher framerate (well DUH) and a smoother animation is just prettier. And a good looking animation is a part of visual fidelity for me.

pastrami said:
But MGS: Rising is "60fps" on consoles. I'd wager you could see every individual detail clearly because you were running at a much higher resolution. Which has nothing to do with framerate.

And still going from console to PC with it is a "oooh, nice" moment, regardless of settings. Playing it on the PC only makes you realize how bad the console version's fps really is.

Complex Shadow · Jun 2, 2015

BigTnaples said:
You really made a thread about this?

Yes. Framerate is important in a medium about displaying frames rapidly to create a moving image.

Some games need 30, some need 60.

It has always been this way and will always be this way on set hardware.(Consoles)

no games need 30. that's like saying some games need to look worse than others. there is no benefit to running games at a lower frame rate.

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

pastrami said:
But MGS: Rising is "60fps" on consoles. I'd wager you could see every individual detail clearly because you were running at a much higher resolution. Which has nothing to do with framerate.

It was? Poor memory and a poor example then.

You get my point though.

phanphare · Jun 2, 2015

RatsOffToYa said:
Splatoon has garbage IQ and looks awful in screenshots, but in motion it's nothing less than gorgeous. 60FPS has a lot to do with that.

yeah now this I know Microsoft did a study on and how a locked 60fps acts as a form of anti-aliasing because our eyes cannot focus on a jaggie for a single frame.

Splatoon screenshots are a strange thing because the game only looks like that in the plaza. when playing a match it is one of the better looking games I've seen.

Head.spawn · Jun 2, 2015

Frame rate and overall performance means a lot more to me than resolution. But opinions aren't universal, some people genuinely appreciate when a fast moving object replicates itself in front of you by smearing across the screen in a choppy fashion; as long as it looks better when they are standing still for photo ops. They are generally entitled to this opinion.

MightyHedgehog · Jun 2, 2015

Yeah, I think it's clear that 60fps is a massive visual improvement over half that even if it can come at the cost of losing a layer or quality level of generally excess detail over and above what is needed to communicate to the player. Games move and the quicker the game, the less latency in input you'll want as a player and the more frames you'll want to see to inform your input. With 3D worlds becoming more dense and open to exploration, the chance to miss important movements increases and offering only half of the standard display's refresh rate in the game's visual update doesn't help, unless you can afford to offer high-quality motion blur to help offset the loss in visual information. Unless I'm playing fairly static games with little to no real-time control, I'll gladly take a lower resolution over lower framerate every time.

shiftplusone · Jun 2, 2015

99% of games that run at 30 fps would look and play better at 60fps, without any other changes (the 1% is for those that do the weird double speed animation things or whatever)

0% of games that run at 60 would look or play better at 30 fps, without any other changes

Skii · Jun 2, 2015

But can you show 60 fps in screenshots? What about an advert on television? You just can't and developers will continue to go for what advertises best until there is a big enough backlash for them to reconsider.

Zakalwe · Jun 2, 2015

DarthWalden said:
I agree, messing around with the 30fps lock in TLOU really made that noticeable... To me the added framerate provided an unexpected visual boost more so then anything else.

The unexpected part is at the crux of this I feel. Many people haven't truly experienced 60fps gaming and have only screenshots or sub standard videos to compare, so they're not aware of the visual boost you can achieve with higher frames.

Of course, some people might simply disagree too.

Rats Off To Ya · Jun 2, 2015

Skii said:
But can you show 60 fps in screenshots? What about an advert on television? You just can't and developers will continue to go for what advertises best until there is a big enough backlash for them to reconsider.

This is the unfortunate truth. I remember years ago Insomniac came right out and said they would stop aiming for 60fps because it didn't affect game sales.

Sakujou · Jun 2, 2015

Iam not sure, but there are games which use locked fps for better gameplay.

Ikaruga, gradius for example use the lesser framerate for clearly showing that you have killed the boss. I freaking love this feeling of great explosions which obviously brings the game down to the knees.

Vincent Grayson · Jun 2, 2015

Complex Shadow said:
no games need 30. that's like saying some games need to look worse than others. there is no benefit to running games at a lower frame rate.

Only if you ignore the additional power that can be used to make the game look nicer, or emulate more physics, or any number of other things.

I'd *always* rather have a better-looking game with more things going on than I would 60 fps.

geordiemp · Jun 2, 2015

How a game runs is important.

Its 2015, so games on console should be either stable 1080p60 and for some genres 1080p30 with very few dips while playing (the odd load in when traversing areas is acceptable).

There are enough great games that run as they should to the point I just put on hold games that don't reach that. Jaggies, blurred images screen tears and stuttering should be gone.

Still waiting for that Witcher 3 patch before I buy, but my backlog of unplayed games means I am not impatient.

Support NeoGAF

Framerates are a large part of the visual experience

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Cudi Lame

Banned

Banned

Junior Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Similar threads

Cudi Lame