Right now the age old debate of 60fps vs. 30fps on consoles debate is spreading like wildfire. It is, of course, an age old debate, but at the moment every single time a game comes out that is locked to 30fps an argument completely derails the thread into the fundamental argument of 60fps vs 30fps, and although I am not trying to create a melting pot megathread, I think the debate could be improved a large amount by simply having a list of pros and cons that are either factual or agreed upon by most.
60fps
Pros:
Cons:
30fps
Pros:
Cons:
Unacceptable arguments:
60fps
Pros:
- Highest framerate that industry standard HDTVs are capable of displaying, making it the smoothest possible framerate of console games.
- Has twice the rate of information, and half the input lag of 30fps.
- Animations are twice as smooth as 30fps, which not only looks great but can be very immersive.
- Having half the input lag, and twice the smoothness of 30fps makes gameplay twice as fluid, a huge improvement.
- Ages well.
Cons:
- Harder to market due to Youtube only supporting a maximum of 30fps, and screenshots only showing off one frame of detail.
- Requires twice the amount of power that 30fps does, which means some sacrifices have to be made relative to 30fps.
30fps
Pros:
- Twice the amount of time to deliver a frame means you can do about twice as much computation per frame. This can mean higher polygon counts, higher AA, more complex physics, and perhaps some other implications.
- Incompetent programmers only have to animate half as much, whereas most video game programmers animate in a way that can adapt to almost any possible framerate. (I'm not taking a shot at developers who chose 30fps by saying that, it is a fact.)
- Far easier to market than games at 60fps because screenshots and 30fps videos have an obvious emphasis on graphical fidelity.
- Bare minimum framerate, meaning that it also has the highest amount of leeway to heighten graphics. (Ocarina of time comparison is invalid.)
Cons:
- Half the response time causes gameplay to suffer greatly compared to 60fps. Fluidity of graphics also suffers greatly, which effects overall graphical presentation.
- For some that are used to 60fps it can also break immersion due to being able to see each individual frame.
- Causes games to age very poorly compared to 60fps games, due to both gameplay and graphics becoming outdated rather than just graphics.
- Dips below 30fps can create experiences that are nigh unplayable, dips below 60fps tend to just create violent screen tearing.
- Can cause eye strain.
Unacceptable arguments:
- "60fps feels like a soap opera."
- "The average consumer doesn't care." Not only is the concept of the average consumer not a real thing, it is just a strawman people use to argue with, but fundamentally the average consumer is not informed about the difference, and thus does not have a relevant opinion, so they are not to be considered when you are debating with other tech enthusiasts about tech related things.
- "Only fighting, racing, and shooting games make a difference with different framerates." This one is simply false because it assumes only games with fast paced action can actually show the difference, but the difference is apparent in all games. It is absolutely true that some games benefit more than others, and that aspect is largely subjective, but many people actually try and argue that it doesn't make any difference in most games, which is completely false.
- Consoles aren't powerful enough for 60fps." A lot of console warriors seem to hold this belief, and apparently so do a fair number of PC gamers, but it is simply not true, the Wii U which is very underpowered compared to XBone and PS4 runs most of its games at 60fps.
- "30fps is an artistic choice." Again this one is an extension of the idea that it is more cinematic, which is false, but 30fps is a compromise made to increase the room for graphical processing, there is no inherent benefit to 30fps compared to 60fps besides this.
