Heh. Depending on how it's used, some decent planar reflections can have a huge impact on how visibility works in a game. Though, you're lucky if they show up in a game at all, and the popularity of screen-space reflections isn't exactly good news for interesting visibility.
-
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.
Food for thought for those who don't care about 60fps.
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
/thread
As long as the game works as intented I don't care about any of the tech behind it. Issues like screen tearing are more likely to annoy me, since they are actual malfunctions, but even then they're never such a big deal for me to stop playing a particular game.
That's kind of hard to tell without trying it, especially since the game is hardcoded at 60 and cannot be locked at 30.
Screen tearing is as intended as 30 fps will ever be. It's a tradeoff. No game that CAN run at 60 on console hardware will deliberately be locked at 30 by developers. Disabling v-sync is a tradeoff, just like capping at 30 fps is.
I'm with this; I was born in '81, been playing games since '86, never had much money to spend on expensive PCs, played many games with the framerate in the teens, had a blast.
Even today I alternate (often in the same day) between modern games (30-60 fps, 1280x720 or 1920x1080) and old console games (3DO, Saturn, PSX... 15-20 fps, 320x240), and it's never a factor as to how much or little I enjoy a given game. Framerate (and resolution for that matter) are just two small pieces of a much larger puzzle with about a hundred other pieces that constitute the experience.
Ugh, last two ps3 games I've played were EDF and Saint's Row IV. My God going from PS4 Watch Dogs to those two were physically painful.
On topic, don't really care about 30/60 fps, as long as its steady. Can't stand fluctuating fps.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
I'll admit I'm more comfy playing at 30 than I am at even 900p to me under 1080p is hurt my eyes blur that you can get used to (ala BF4) give me 1080 over 60fps
Mexen
Member
I honestly never even knew about fps until maybe a couple of years ago.
I have been gaming since '95 and back then, the most important thing for me was the game's fun factor.
That hasn't changed for me today. As long as I can enjoy a game, it does not really matter if it's 60fps or 30fps.
That said, the game should, at least, be playable with smooth motion regardless of what number makes that possible.
I have been gaming since '95 and back then, the most important thing for me was the game's fun factor.
That hasn't changed for me today. As long as I can enjoy a game, it does not really matter if it's 60fps or 30fps.
That said, the game should, at least, be playable with smooth motion regardless of what number makes that possible.
I still think the "if the game is fun it doesn't matter what framerate it runs at" posts are misguided attempts at making "60 fps fans" look like they're only tech nerds who don't care about games.
Both N64 Zelda games are some of my favorite of all time, Diddy Kong Racing is another, those games probably ran at a combined average of 18 fps. Lower than ideal framerate does not keep me from loving games, it keeps me from enjoying them to their fullest potential. That's why I love HD remasters from this generation and the previous one. The clean, sharp IQ combined with high framerate makes those classics shine even brighter. I love it. I really don't get why people would say no to that.
Both N64 Zelda games are some of my favorite of all time, Diddy Kong Racing is another, those games probably ran at a combined average of 18 fps. Lower than ideal framerate does not keep me from loving games, it keeps me from enjoying them to their fullest potential. That's why I love HD remasters from this generation and the previous one. The clean, sharp IQ combined with high framerate makes those classics shine even brighter. I love it. I really don't get why people would say no to that.
I can understand people who don't care whether a game is 30 or 60 FPS, as long as it is consistent... but actively campaigning against 60 FPS, as if it was a buzzword solely used for the sake elitism? That's a new one for me.
(Also, those things you mention are easily achievable on PC. Don't try to act like 30 FPS is an "artistic choice", when it's clearly imposed by the hardware limitations of the consoles. Were they more powerful and 60 FPS easier to achieve, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so adamant against it. But, hey, what do I know? You are free to bemoan my choice in gaming tastes.)
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
None. None what so ever.
What gets me about so many CoD players are always the people that mention how "CoD just feels better than other shooters" and they can't articulate what it is. I know damn well what it is though; Framerate.
That's really the only obstacle with 60fps, trying to sell it to the masses as a great thing. It's not that most wouldn't care, they would, they just don't know what the fuck it is, and it's difficult to really show off unless you're physically playing the game.
But just like the resolution debate, who the fuck is choosing 720p over 1080p if given the option? Who the fuck wants 720p to be the standard after seeing the two side by side? Very few.
Rick Dangerous
Member
Actually, very glad that naughty dog went the 60 fps way. All movies are 24 fps, all games should be 60 fps.
Was disappointed by driveclud´ infamous ss and kilzone sf going 30 fps. Too too bad.
Was disappointed by driveclud´ infamous ss and kilzone sf going 30 fps. Too too bad.
grandwizard
Member
60FPS makes games play better and smoother. This is known. The problem is there is a sizable portion of gamers out there who don't care about how a game plays and simply want pretty production values to be guided through. These are the people threatened by 60fps gaining more popularity as more and more people wake up to how superior it is. They don't want to sacrifice gameplay irrelevant things for something that would undoubtedly make the game play better.
There is also the crowd who see 60FPS as some 'weird, exotic, pc thing' and will be contrary to it just for that purpose, ignoring that consoles have had 60fps games for ages and it was only the previous generation where standards dropped so low that people would accept garbage frame rates like the PS3 versions of Far Cry 3 or Skyrim.
The tide is turning slowly but surely and things like the Last of Us Remastered 30/60 toggle helps immensely. Previously console only folks would not have such an easy to access direct comparison within the same exact game to see just how superior 60fps is. The reactions to it on this very forum speak for itself, people who were diehard against 60fps pre-release are now singing its praises.
Another thing that will help is Youtube's 60fps support. Publishers can now actually get advertising use out of a great frame rate, where previously the only thing that mattered was the graphical quality.
There is also the crowd who see 60FPS as some 'weird, exotic, pc thing' and will be contrary to it just for that purpose, ignoring that consoles have had 60fps games for ages and it was only the previous generation where standards dropped so low that people would accept garbage frame rates like the PS3 versions of Far Cry 3 or Skyrim.
The tide is turning slowly but surely and things like the Last of Us Remastered 30/60 toggle helps immensely. Previously console only folks would not have such an easy to access direct comparison within the same exact game to see just how superior 60fps is. The reactions to it on this very forum speak for itself, people who were diehard against 60fps pre-release are now singing its praises.
Another thing that will help is Youtube's 60fps support. Publishers can now actually get advertising use out of a great frame rate, where previously the only thing that mattered was the graphical quality.
I much prefer the immersion fluid motion gives over "more flair". And all the way until the PS360 era you could easily choose only 60fps console games and don't miss much of importance (ok, with the exception of 3D ps1/sat/n64 games, but 2D games were the best games on those platforms anyway). I quite miss those times, and am delighted that we seem to be past the worst years of unfluid gameplay on consoles now.
Framerate matters a lot to me too, but unfortunately the average Joe doesn't really notice. They would rather be wowed by graphical bells and whistles. This and the continual drive for realism mean that 60fps is an expensive ideal for devs no matter what the console - power has nothing to do with it. Same for resolution, most can't tell a 900p image from 1080 so why push for it when you can free up resources for better assets instead?
guitarhero
Member
I don't think it's that malicious. It's just expresing an opinion about how a smooth, lower (<60) framerate can still be quite enjoyable, which is something not everyone agrees with (see the "I don't buy racing games that aren't 60FPS" thread)-
Some people are obsessed. I'll take 60fps if the game is designed well, but I'm not going to beast out a PC to play the latest game at 60Hz nor am I gonna cry if a console title isn't 60fps.
Framerate has almost zero effect on my purchase decisions (besides the fact that I'll usually buy whichever version I can play at the highest framerate)
Framerate has almost zero effect on my purchase decisions (besides the fact that I'll usually buy whichever version I can play at the highest framerate)
to people saying fps is not important to an enjoyable gaming experience. this is aimed at pc gamers pumping out graphics over fps in an online scene. doesn't apply to single player.
there's a reason counter strike players pump up the fps to ridiculous amounts. every single thing that can lower the response timer is important to getting the most of out it. it might not seem like a big thing but if you've playing something like cs, quake, unreal at 30 fps against people at 60 and beyond you are at a disadvantage. your desire for graphics is effecting you're ability to play in the same way as latency on mouse/keyboard/monitor. every single thing counts and nothing can be more frustrating at being at a disadvantage against other players.
there's a reason counter strike players pump up the fps to ridiculous amounts. every single thing that can lower the response timer is important to getting the most of out it. it might not seem like a big thing but if you've playing something like cs, quake, unreal at 30 fps against people at 60 and beyond you are at a disadvantage. your desire for graphics is effecting you're ability to play in the same way as latency on mouse/keyboard/monitor. every single thing counts and nothing can be more frustrating at being at a disadvantage against other players.
Pimpbaa
Member
I was born in 76. I was gaming regularly by 83 onward (on both consoles and computers). I was playing very early 3D games that was done in software on cpus that would nearly cook themselves in the process with framerates below N64 levels. 60fps games were nice, as were the ps2 games that were also that framerate. But I also played a lot of 30fps on the ps2 and especially the original xbox. It didn't really bother me. I want 60fps in my fighters, racing games, and perhaps fast paced FPSs, but other than that I don't mind when games are 30fps. In fact I think it's a waste of resources when a game that is slow paced is running at 60fps.
Of course it depends on how it's phrased and what it's in response to, but that often-added second part about how gameplay is more important has nothing to do with the conversation and adds nothing to it, it's comparing a technical aspect to the design of the game, it only implies that those who do care don't really like games. I've never heard anyone say "I care abouy 60 fps way more than I care about a game's design."
So you're saying it DOES impact your purchase decisions.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Born in 1968
Been playing games since 1975
OG GAF member since 1998
I have seen it all and I have played it all
IMO, outside of fighting games like street fighter and strict driving SIMULATIONS like gran turismo and forza motorsport, I have ZERO problems with 30 FPS action games, first person shooters and most driving games because nine times out of ten, 30 FPS is sufficient and does not impede my ENJOYMENT of said games.
Consoles have had tons of enjoyable 30fps and sub 30fps games since the dawn of gaming.
Ever since the new consoles arrived, all this "faux" outrage over sub 60 FPS console games is an outrage in an of itself in my opinion.
If you are JUST NOW upset a majority of 3D console games are sub 60fps, you are about 20 years too late
Been playing games since 1975
OG GAF member since 1998
I have seen it all and I have played it all
IMO, outside of fighting games like street fighter and strict driving SIMULATIONS like gran turismo and forza motorsport, I have ZERO problems with 30 FPS action games, first person shooters and most driving games because nine times out of ten, 30 FPS is sufficient and does not impede my ENJOYMENT of said games.
Consoles have had tons of enjoyable 30fps and sub 30fps games since the dawn of gaming.
Ever since the new consoles arrived, all this "faux" outrage over sub 60 FPS console games is an outrage in an of itself in my opinion.
If you are JUST NOW upset a majority of 3D console games are sub 60fps, you are about 20 years too late
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
Of all the "console warz" bs the framerate thing is probably the most stupid. I don't think any rational person would disagree that all things being identical 60fps is better 30fps. The problem is in a fixed spec, there is absolutely no way you can double the frame rate without sacrificing other areas of performance. What the last generation showed is that 30fps is perfectly acceptable in many games. Some of the best games in the generation were all 30fps and most people decided the extra eye candy and effects was worth the tradeoff. Framerate is just one graphics slider that developers can set to achieve the overall look and feel that they want. There's no one size fits all setting for everything. That shouldn't change this generation. My personal view is that consistency is more important anyway. A locked 30 fps with good motion blur will kick the sh*t out of a variable 30-60 fps.
Sure, it's a 'which' not an 'if' though. I'm in the 'more frames are better' but I don't want to have to compromise graphics for framerate.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
The truth is hardware is in a bad spot, we have not seen major leap forwards in years. Mores law is a total bust! Developers just have little to work with so they rather cut 30 fps and give as much eye candy as the hardware allows them.
The thing is... if a game is made with 60 fps in mind and looks great, there's no compromise being made. Whichever version of the game you're getting for extra frames could technically have looked better and run at a lower framerate. That's why a lot of people are saying 60 fps should be standard. There would not be a compromise in terms of input lag made for visuals, nor would there be a visual compromise made for lower latency because it would be just that: a standard.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
I was born in '81 and I had a ton of fun with console games back then, including arcade ports, inferior or otherwise. Better is better, though.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
why are we misguided? a game is enjoyable full stop. but to me its IQ & res that's important im not gonna bang on about it every day though..
JonathanPower
Member
Naughty Dog seems to care.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Platinum games and kojiPro as well.
Duallusion
Member
Nah, I'll keep enjoying and supporting console versions of good games running at 30fps and keep considering my own gaming preferences as superior then everyone elses. And if some of those console versions will run at 60fps, that's cool too.
Well you're always going to be compromising one for the sake of the other. It's just that the graphical sacrifices needed to achieve 60 fps usually are barely noticeable in practice, while the 30 fps compromise will always result in a noticeable negative impact in the way your game looks and feels, 100% of the time.
EventHorizon
Member
Nobody is against 60 FPS. What we're saying is that either it doesn't matter or if a choice has to be made, graphics and more expansive maps win out over FPS for most gamers. The 60 FS crowd would have those priorities the other way around.
As for the elitism, I am talking about comments like these:
If a game is fun it will look smoother and play better at 60. If you don't care about graphics, then you should want 60 for playability reasons alone. 60 fps is not just a spec. It directly affects the entire screens animation smoothness and gameplay response. It's a massive global change to the game for the better.
If the fun first people are so adamant about that being all that's important, why are they so bothered by having effects toned down for a more smooth, playable experience?
I've probably played more hours of CoD than any other game series...but it doesn't stop me from enjoying 30fps games...at all
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
I played TLOU R at 60fps and it was nice (the shadows were an acceptable tradeoff). At the same time I'm not going to insist on Uncharted 4 being at 60fps because I recognize that TLOU:R was a straight port of a PS3 game. I want and expect Uncharted 4 to be a massive step up. I don't want the next Uncharted to sacrifice IQ and Resolution to satisfy the 100 or so people that would be stupid enough to boycott Uncharted 4 if it wasn't 60fps.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
my thoughts exactly
When were console gamers given that choice?
They either played a good game at 30 or not at all. No one is going to pass on a good game they want to play if that's the only alternative. It was take it or leave it.
The Strokes
Banned
I'll take that compromise because I'm not planning to buy a high end pc. That said, if it's possible to have the option for both of course I'll take it.
ss_lemonade
Member
I remember the manual for our saturn stating specs like the number of polygons it could do at a given time. I used to show this off to friends lol
1981
To me, 30fs always feels like the hardware struggling to do what the devs want it to. I don't want more graphics if the hardware can't keep up.
60fps feels like the hardware is coping.
It's that simple. 30fps always feels sluggish to me. I can deal with it when I have to (I'll be playing Destiny regardless), but 60fps feels like a completely different experience to me.
I just don't understand people who say it doesn't make a difference to them. The responsiveness of 60 makes any game better.
To me, 30fs always feels like the hardware struggling to do what the devs want it to. I don't want more graphics if the hardware can't keep up.
60fps feels like the hardware is coping.
It's that simple. 30fps always feels sluggish to me. I can deal with it when I have to (I'll be playing Destiny regardless), but 60fps feels like a completely different experience to me.
I just don't understand people who say it doesn't make a difference to them. The responsiveness of 60 makes any game better.
A lot of my favorite games from the 360 were perfectly playable but were marred by maddening page tearing. But no page tearing would have been a huge improvement.
Because the people who say 60 fps is important aren't saying it's more important than gameplay.
Framerate is directly related to IQ.
Low Framerate = blurry IQ while in motion.
Any visual gains made from choosing 30fps over 60 will be lost when you move at speed. Especially if the devs have chosen to slather motion blur a over the game to smooth out the lack of frames.
60fps improves responsiveness of play AND the ability to see details while in motion or lots of action is taking place on screen.
I see no benefit to 30 at all, unless the game has a wildly fluctuating frame rate and needs a lock, or has some kind of photo mode that static screen shots at higher visual fidelity would benefit from.
infiniteheteroskdasticity
Member
That's the whole point of console development. The devs make all the choices regarding graphics. The game then either sells or doesn't sell. If the 60fps issue was as big as people make it out to be they wouldn't have sold or got all the critical praise that they did. Games like Skyrim, the Mass Effects and everything from Rockstar often failed to even get to 30fps. Can you imagine how much they'd have to cut back IQ and resolution to get to 60fps?
Framerate affects gameplay for me. I don't see how this is just a "specs" thing. Is that another buzzword now? Anyway, I've played games since the 80's and "slowdown" always pissed me off. I see a game locked at 30fps as having slowdown at all times. It's godawful. That's just me though. Only time it affects me is when a port is brought over locked in at 30fps. Developers who do this must be getting paid off to have parity. I really don't see the point to it.
MemoryHumanity
Member
Framerate affects gameplay though.
Nostremitus
Member
I was born in 84.
As long as the framerate is steady, I'm fine.
Steady 24fps is infinitely better than 60fps with dips.
As long as the framerate is steady, I'm fine.
Steady 24fps is infinitely better than 60fps with dips.
Similar threads
- Poll