True. And 200+ gsync is better than 120.
Big HDTVs can't come soon enough with VRR. Enthusiast monitors are already amazing.
-
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.
It's hard to believe that we're in 2017 and 60 frames isn't standard on consoles
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
Big HDTVs can't come soon enough with VRR. Enthusiast monitors are already amazing.
I say it all the time it's called temporal resolution.
Hey I have great image now let me run it through 30fps making the image even less clear than if it was displayed at 60fps.
There is a downside even if most people don't notice or care to know why 30fps for pretty games is an exceptionally dangerous argument.
BakedTanooki
Member
People say: 60fps vs eye candy (on console at least).
But people forget 60fps IS eye candy!
Like some people said before, give me options to choose from. Like Nioh.
But people forget 60fps IS eye candy!
Like some people said before, give me options to choose from. Like Nioh.
darkistheway
Member
Buy a PC. It's not that difficult a problem to solve, if it means that much to you.
Spring-Loaded
Member
I just wish it wasn't always framed as "visuals vs. performance" when better framerate looks better too
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Framerate doesn't affect review scores or sales unless it's crazy bad like fallout 4 at laucnh on consoles. They have no reason to care. Of the tens of millions of console owners what percentage do you think even know what the word framerate means?
For the enthusiasts there will always be PC.
For the enthusiasts there will always be PC.
MasterOfNone
Member
Meanwhile 24 FPS is still the golden standard for non-interactive fiction.
I believe 30 FPS is best for high fidelity cinematic experiences, 60 FPS should be mandatory for anything that requires very precise input (like fighting games) or very fast twitch shooters.
I believe 30 FPS is best for high fidelity cinematic experiences, 60 FPS should be mandatory for anything that requires very precise input (like fighting games) or very fast twitch shooters.
Gravy Boat
Member
It's not that surprising nor is it a big deal. I'll take 60fps every time but honestly it's not even something I think about when playing a game. I can't imagine being one of those people that just refuse to play anything lower than 60fps.
I don't agree with this either though. Some games, even single player just would suck in 30fps. Geometry Wars, Ninja Gaiden Black, 2D platformers, overhead-style games, etc.
Basically, most of the action genre benefits tremendously from 60fps, even in single player.
Just look at a comparison of I am Setsuna on Switch vs. PS4. It's a single player turn based RPG, but when moving around the environment in Switch in 30FPS, it's really bad looking. I'd go so far as to say that moving in that perspective doesn't work in 30fps because the landscape jitters by as the screen scrolls.
There is a reason why nearly every overhead-style game is 60fps: it's because seeing the ground panning by in 30 fps isn't pleasant.
Regarding "epic open world games" - it really depends on the game. To be fair, we haven't really seen enough of those on consoles to make a fair comparison.
At the highest level of play, sure. But if you think more than 1% of players actually notice the difference created by 0.017 seconds of faster input, you're the one who's kidding yourself.
Movies are different though because you don't feel the framerate because you aren't controlling the action. I'm perfectly fine with solid 30, but it blows my mind that some people argue that 30 is BETTER. I can't think of any situation where I wouldn't choose to run a game at 60 given the choice.
Especially if you're on a PC. Mouse control feels waaaaaay shittier at 30 fps then a controller does.
I'll never really get why the consoles are seen as the cause. It's the games. Last gen and before you had 60fps games. This gen there are 60fps games.
The reason it's not common this gen is that the developers and publishers (for the most part - not all) have decided that 30fps/more effects sells better than 60fps/less effects.
It's that simple. The consoles could be ten times more powerful and most games would be 30fps if the developers and publishers still prioritised visual effects over frame rate.
And the platform makers don't make it mandatory because they want highest possible games sales and aren't going to risk forcing game developers to not be able to follow market preference.
Look at 60fps Nintendo games on weaker hardware: that's only because the developers chose to prioritise frame rate very visual effects.
The hardware is essentially irrelevant it's a market/developer driven decision.
The reason it's not common this gen is that the developers and publishers (for the most part - not all) have decided that 30fps/more effects sells better than 60fps/less effects.
It's that simple. The consoles could be ten times more powerful and most games would be 30fps if the developers and publishers still prioritised visual effects over frame rate.
And the platform makers don't make it mandatory because they want highest possible games sales and aren't going to risk forcing game developers to not be able to follow market preference.
Look at 60fps Nintendo games on weaker hardware: that's only because the developers chose to prioritise frame rate very visual effects.
The hardware is essentially irrelevant it's a market/developer driven decision.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
What? Lots of people who aren't competitive gamers notice framerate. This thread alone is evidence of that....
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It's not hard to believe at all, it's exactly what is to be expected. Computing power can be used to make prettier graphics or more of them each second. Most developers choose the former. The same will happen on the PS5, no matter how much not powerful it is. We're still sooooo far away from any kind of diminishing returns with this.
Can we stop with this inaccurate belief system?
If games and movies were rendered the same you might have a point. This article goes over why your point is a incredibly bad belief that should be challenged when it comes out. Yet let me just put this quote out there to shutdown anything else you believe coming out with more foolishness that hasn't been thought out or researched.
"Even though his classic study only uses 11 "frames" it was recorded from a subject that had an infinite number of potential frames (the actual horse and rider). Because the camera and the subject are separate there are all kinds of tiny little cues that help "smooth out" the effect of motion. Because the camera records at a fixed shutter speed there is always some aspect of motion blur - which increases as the subject speeds up. This also sort of creates a natural "frame interpolation" (or Interlacing) effect."
I've said it since we had this debate on the order 1886 devs need to make better fps technology not just merely improve the rate at which the game or animation happens to be working from.
MegaSackman
Member
People say: 60fps vs eye candy (on console at least).
But people forget 60fps IS eye candy!
Like some people said before, give me options to choose from. Like Nioh.
Here's someone that mostly prefer better visuals than frame rate:
Nioh Pro: 1080P/60FPS > 4K 30FPS
Nioh Amateur: 1080P/30FPS > 720P/60FPS
Sorry but the game looks horrible in 720, how a game looks it's important too, people have a reaction on visuals, they value them.
I don't really notice the diference as easily as most here but I can feel it, the thing is I can totally play games on 30FPS and feel completely fine, it's a problem that 60FPS lovers have.
The same happens with gamepads, I can't understand when people say "Dualshock 4 is a disgrace, unplayable, my hands hurts" and stuff, it's beyond compehension to me.
This is something that I never understood that some hardcore PC gamers can't get and why they keep berating consoles gamers about.
If someone cared enough about framerate, they would already have a PC, it's as simple as that.
Asking "WHY DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT FRAMERATE?" is a stupid question. Some people just don't.
Now, people saying that they can't completely tell the difference are just being ignorant. You might not play enough 60fps games to tell the difference on the spot, but there is no medical condition that does not allow you differentiate if shown some tests.
NullPointer
Member
Aren't there more 60fps games this generation than last?
Feels that way to me anyway, in which case the trend has swung in a positive direction.
Feels that way to me anyway, in which case the trend has swung in a positive direction.
GavinUK86
Member
Reading the OP isn't that difficult either. He already plays on PC.
It's a valid argument. Consoles should aim for 60fps and not being so pretty but doing so means that can't use screenshots to sell a game.
Well, unless they're just bullshots but then they're kinda pointless anyway.
Everything is going in the wrong direction if you ask me. Fuck resolution. Fuck making games prettier. Games need to be more responsive. Games need to be 60fps as a standard.
I seriously think the term is confusing more than people not noticing the difference. I've yet to meet a single person on the issue when I use terms of smoothness not relate to videogames not suffering these problems. Their responses are no different than gamers who notice tons of ui and controller issues yet get little response on them from the industry at large.
nycgamer4ever
Member
I don't even think 60 fps is standard on PC yet unless you think every pc gamer has a decent rig. I am sure most can get 60fps if they dial down the graphics settings. It can be standard on consoles in the same way but why sacrifice graphics for something that is not necessary to sell games to the general gaming public, who isn't counting fps numbers. 30 fps is perfectly playable, whether on console or pc.
I meant more along the lines of not increasing ploycounts or world size by huge amounts.
60fps will never, ever be a standard on consoles. Not in 2017, not in 2027. Most developers will simply opt for eye candy because that's what your Average Joe notices.
See: http://kotaku.com/5393106/insomniac-dev-ratchet--clank-probably-our-last-60fps-game
See: http://kotaku.com/5393106/insomniac-dev-ratchet--clank-probably-our-last-60fps-game
SocksAndShoes
Banned
I think in games that are competitive in nature, we've seen a big push for 60FPS.
Rocket League
Rainbow 6:Siege
Titanfall 2
Overwatch
Off the top of my head
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
I feel like the majority of the people in this thread haven't experienced 60 FPS and find playing games on the PC too complicated. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
ethomaz
Banned
Sorry but it will never be a standard in consoles.
2027 you will say the same.
2027 you will say the same.
The thread can be closed after this comments
Try playing quake at 30fps, it's pretty terrible.
NullPointer
Member
Maybe not. If VR takes off and there's a desire to have all games VR capable, wouldn't that lead to pushing 60fps as the new floor on framerate?
60fps should be the minimum requirement and unlocked frame rate should be the standard.
darkistheway
Member
I wasn't really speaking specifically to the OP.
It's not a valid argument. Consoles have to produce games that attract customers over the course of 5-7 life cycle. They don't have the luxury of an ever-improving hardware configuration to constantly be pushing the envelope.
Most people don't care about 60 fps. The responsiveness they get from 30 fps is enough. Bottom line is that console makers and developers do not have any incentive to make sacrifice resolution for frame-rate. In fact, they are incentivized towards resolution.
The PC market exists for those gamers who want the power to have higher frame rates. Trying to push that mentality on the console market is non-starter.
Let's use Uncharted 4 as an example.
Main game is 1080p/30 and looks amazing.
MP is 900p/30 and looks good.
Do you think Uncharted 4 would be as memorable for people as it is now if the whole game looked like the MP?
Do you think this scene:
would've made the same impression it did on a lot of people if the game looked worse?
I don't think so.
I'm so looking forward to variable refresh rates becoming the norm so we can have much more nuanced conversations. A huge part of the problem right now is the frame rate cliff. I suspect many of the 60fps or bust crowd would be perfectly happy with titles that dip down from the 60s and 70s into the 40s and 50s so long as you still get nice smooth frame pacing.
GavinUK86
Member
30fps "is enough" is where I disagree. Each to their own though.
Let's use Uncharted 4 as an example.
Main game is 1080p/30 and looks amazing.
MP is 900p/30 and looks good.
Do you think Uncharted 4 would be as memorable for people as it is now if the whole game looked like the MP?
Do you think this scene:
would've made the same impression it did on a lot of people if the game looked worse?
I don't think so.
Proves my point. It's memorable because it looks pretty.
It still would be a better game, and for the record I love the Uncharted series, if it ran at 60fps. The Last of Us is a better game on PS4 because of the 60fps option.
Exactly.
So do you think the average person would sacrifice graphics over performance?
That's the thing though, not being able to tell on the spot is exactly what people mean when they say they don't notice the difference. It's obvious during a test, so I don't see why not being able to distinguish outside of a test would imply that they'd lie during a test, the only situation where the difference is absolutely 100% undeniable.
Besides strobing not being a thing for 30fps games that is precisely my issue. I will keep stating it the peak fps isn't the problem it's the pacing and how the frames are presented.
I can't make it more clear a strobed tv 60hz at 30fps will shit on the image it produces vs a typical sample and hold none strobed tv 60hz at 30fps.
MegaSackman
Member
Paintings are sold at incredible prices, visuals have tremendous value, it might be more important than tighter mechanics for a lot of people and that's not wrong, they just value a different thing more.
Skellig Gra
Member
I'll always take performance over looks but the studies have proven time and time again that most people are graphics whores above all else.
NullPointer
Member
It would be more responsive and fluid, not necessarily better.
How many people are playing Uncharted primarily for the mechanics and interactivity rather than the story and the immersive visuals? That there are plenty of players in both camps or mixed camps also goes to show why that game has a polarized response here.
Similar threads
- Locked