Some of you people are spewing absolute madness. This is one of the reasons people have flocked to powerful PCs over consoles, it's not a damn buzzword.People like buzzwords.
Some of you people are spewing absolute madness. This is one of the reasons people have flocked to powerful PCs over consoles, it's not a damn buzzword.People like buzzwords.
People like buzzwords.
Why are people so obsessed with 60FPS as of lately?
For console, it WAS progressive images. Not interlaced.When people talk about 60fps today they usually mean 60fps in progressive mode - 60 full frames per second in contrast to the odd/even line interlacing that was used in the past.
Despite how hard I'm being on some people I don't think being 30 FPS is inherently bad, but I do find it disappointing when it's deemed ok in genres where it really shouldn't be with the hardware power we have now like racing, and it's doubly bad if it's more "we'll be 30 FPS at least half the time!" rather than "we're going for a rock solid 30 FPS."Because 30fps looks like dogshit in most cases. Some have low/no standards so dogshit looks like filet mignon to them.
"Buzzword" kind of implies it's not actually important. 60fps is, however, always desirable and often important.
Because with the new console generation more people have seen games run at 60FPS and realized it's the only way you should play.Why are people so obsessed with 60FPS as of lately?
No it was far from 60fps.I don't think Star Fox was 60fps.
FPS is not only for polygons. It's also for sprites too. It's just the vast majority were so need to qualify.No it was far from 60fps.
I don't remember any games being 60fps back then because they were all hand drawn.
Although, later consoles did specifically output images for 60fps 480i, sending a new frame for each field with an even/odd line offset; it usually looks and feels nearly as good as a native 480p60 image would.For console, it WAS progressive images. Not interlaced.
At sub-SD resolution (SNES was mostly 256x224). But progressive and 60Hz.
Not true. TJ&E is 60 fps.I remember quite a few megadrive games being 30/24 fps when I used to rent stuff often but at a young age I never really cared for the frame rates as much as I would now with a 3D game.
Titles like toejam and earl 1 were even lower then that.
Everyone was expecting it when we made the jump to PS4/XO.
Why are people so obsessed with 60FPS as of lately?
The only kind of animation I remember being 60fps back then was maybe Mode 7 games? Most games had three frames per animation. Maybe Mortal Kombat was the most fluid non-Mode 7 game I can remember.Practically all sprite based games did of the NTSC displays.
Responsiveness was important in early gaming and still today, so yes. Then polygons came in and computing power wasn't as high to provide 60FPS in current hardware--see Starfox.
FPS is not only for polygons. It's also for sprites too. It's just the vast majority were so need to qualify.
People like buzzwords.
It never ran at 60 even. It's 30 fps max.One of the biggest threads when I joined GAF back in 99 was Sonic Adventure dropping below 60fps for most of the game.
One of the biggest threads when I joined GAF back in 99 was Sonic Adventure dropping below 60fps for most of the game.
The only kind of animation I remember being 60fps back then was maybe Mode 7 games? Most games had three frames per animation. Maybe Mortal Kombat was the most fluid non-Mode 7 game I can remember.
Maybe I'm missunderstanding how a sprite based game can be 60fps?
Why are people so obsessed with 60FPS as of lately?
There have definitely been more discussions about it here since the next gen craze hit.
All this thread does is make me want to play Sonic @ 120fps
Do emulators achieve this? I haven't used an old-school emulator since I got my 120Hz monitor.
Because with the new console generation more people have seen games run at 60FPS and realized it's the only way you should play.
All this thread does is make me want to play Sonic @ 120fps
Do emulators achieve this? I haven't used an old-school emulator since I got my 120Hz monitor.
The low number of frames in an animation has nothing to do with the framerate. It's mostly a memory issue (you could only fit so much sprites in a cart).The only kind of animation I remember being 60fps back then was maybe Mode 7 games? Most games had three frames per animation. Maybe Mortal Kombat was the most fluid non-Mode 7 game I can remember.
Maybe I'm missunderstanding how a sprite based game can be 60fps?
Even if the sprites churn through frames of animation at a low framerate, the sprites themselves can move at a high framerate.Maybe I'm missunderstanding how a sprite based game can be 60fps?
I played console games for 10+yrs and never once did I think about 'framerates' then in 2006 (aged 34) when I got internet joined a forum then I heard about frame rates didn't care then don't really care now
Because its silky smooth.
Indeed. But was there 16bits consoles capable of that? I'm interested...Although, later consoles did specifically output images for 60fps 480i, sending a new frame for each field with an even/odd line offset; it usually looks and feels nearly as good as a native 480p60 image would.
It's probably not doable. 16bits games actually wait for the blanking signal (screen refresh) to set the pace of the game. You would actually need to rewrite the source code.All this thread does is make me want to play Sonic @ 120fps
Do emulators achieve this? I haven't used an old-school emulator since I got my 120Hz monitor.
That's not a given.
In old consoles, you hadn't to *draw* the scene. The console was outputting the image using the sprites data: both graphical data and position/rotation/scaling registers.
You could still only update the position registers at 30fps, and thus get a 30fps game.
But the fact is that having twice the time didn't allow you to draw more things on screen, in most case. The sprite budget is fixed. So there is very little advantage to NOT supporting 60fps. As long as you can update the positions in time, you're good.
The only slowdowns were because the processor couldn't update the positions of the sprites in time, but for most games, it's because you have too many items moving on screen (shmups, in particular, when there's too many bullets/items). That's not a drawing issue, that a computation issue.
I'm pretty sure it was, because 60hz was the standard refresh rate for NTSC TVs. Unless you saw slowdown in the game, your game was running at 60fps.
PAL gamers had to settle for 50fps, because PAL refreshes at 50hz. This was why importing was so desirable, because you actually got a game that was running at its intended speed.
I'm certainly no authority on the subject, this is all from vague memory, so I'm hoping someone else will chime in.
Weren't animation frame independent from frame rate with 2D games?
Man, I'm not sure about THAT though I'd need to experience it for myself, I have to imagine once you're going past 60 FPS the drops will be much less jarring than between lower FPSes like 60 to 45, nevermind once G-Sync enters the equation. But I can agree somewhat at least with the general point: I'm not sure I'd strictly take 30 FPS over a fluctuating 30-60, probably depends on how bad the fluctuations even ARE, but I can be as happy with a rock solid 30 as with the fluctuating FPS. It's when we're going between 10-30 or whatever and being VERY noticeable about it (or the trade off just seems to be bad) that I get annoyed. Maybe holding 60 FPS as what consoles should be now is too idealistic, but I definitely think we have the power that we should leave the 20 FPS range in the 32-bit era where it belongs.I have a gaming PC that can play any game at 60fps; but the 60fps fapping is annoying.
I prefer a thousand times a constant framerate than a high framerate; if the framerate is low but constant, the game is absolutely playable, even in the low 20fps; if the game has a high but inconstant framerate, then you'll notice it and it disturbs the gameplay.
Obviously best is high constant framerate (thank for adaptative Vsync); but high frame rate means shit if it dips frequently, even if it's 120 fps and dips to 90; I'll take that constant 30fps any day.
Even if the sprites were only made of 4-6 sprites of animation, you'd have smooth scrolling on backgrounds. You also have effects that happen to sprites where the frame rate mattered ("glowing" and "transparency" effects were often handled by switching a sprite on and off every other frame).
The low number of frames in an animation has nothing to do with the framerate. It's mostly a memory issue (you could only fit so much sprites in a cart).
If you take a fighting game, for example, the sprites were moving 60 times per second, even if the same sprite was displayed 20 times in the same exact stance. You had smooth motion, even if the animation was not smooth.
Oh god I feel stupid. The backgrounds and effects, duh. The bit about the same frame still reporting in at 60fps is new to me though.Even if the sprites churn through frames of animation at a low framerate, the sprites themselves can move at a high framerate.
can someone explain to me why PAL territories went with err PAL in the first place? Should have just copied the US for 60hz. Not just for games but for TV as well.
It's not just a forum issue. I remember very well endless discussions in magazines between F-Zero X and most others racers on N64 like Extreme G.I played console games for 10+yrs and never once did I think about 'framerates' then in 2006 (aged 34) when I got internet joined a forum then I heard about frame rates didn't care then don't really care now
When I was a kid a didn't give a shit about framerate.
can someone explain to me why PAL territories went with err PAL in the first place? Should have just copied the US for 60hz. Not just for games but for TV as well.