Support NeoGAF

[EmpReb]

If you play genres that required very FAST responsive times(FPS,Fighting games, Action games ah la DMC,Bayo, etc and FUCKING RACING GAMES) or you like pushing games to there limits IE want to see how quickly you can maneuver, dodge, counter, driver or many such fine control/fast response gameplay. Then you will ALWAYS demand 60 FPS and if playing on PC will end up lowering settings to maintain that precise and least input lag(you do have it because you cannot outright see EXACTLY what is going on in 30 FPS.

IF you don't play those genres or play on the high end of needing the info of what you are doing EXACTLY when you are doing it. You will feel and probably are not really hindered when playing them at 30 or even if they dip now and then below that.

The best example of 30FPS ish racing game I played then got to replay it at 60 fps on my PC was the new MOST Wanted NFS. Yeah it had a lot of flaws but damn did it have the best blend of arcade handing with still real physics behind it that I have played since the OLD NFS. The 30 FPS 360 version was playable and I did enjoy it for what it was but when I replayed it on my gaming PC and got it locked in at 60 FPS I realized something very FAST. AT high speed I could react to things that were out right impossible on the 30 FPS 360 version and the car inputs felt lagless and smooth on the PC version.

It was out right impossible for me to over steer cause I could FEEL the game through the 60 FPS PC version in a way the 30fps 360 version (that dipped) was impossible too. That right there is why VR has to have as many FPS as possible because it feels WRONG if you do not react fast enough and do not see smoothness only higher FPS can provide.
It allows fine control of things in a game. That is all I am going to say cause people still don't get games are held back by not doing 60 fps.

PC gaming is already going for 120FPS(if not you can do it already) and if you play it enough at that framerate you will know why 60 fps should standard.

 

[Moon_frogger]

A few things for you to think about, op

1. When arcade ports begin coming to consoles, 30 fps was the least noticeable compromise. By far. Nobody noticed or cared that the framerate was lower, it was the inferior graphical effects and compromised sound that was immediately obvious .

2. When 3d graphics came to consoles , nobody and I mean NOBODY said 'awesome, 3d graphics AND 60 fps!!' Nobody! It was just the 3d graphics we noticed.

I think if you actually were old enough to remember these things, you wouldn't have made this post. Honestly, you sound confused. It's ok if you demand 60 fps, we should. It's great but you also need to understand why it IS a compromise and a design choice and why developers might choose to limit the framerate on fixed console hardware. It's not because they are lazy. It's because 30 fps has always been an acceptable standard, which you point out and prove several times in your own post.

Seriously, think about it for a bit. If it means no more threads like this, I've done my good deed for the day.

 

[Carlisle]

Holy shit mind blown OP. That was the difference! I'd often buy arcade ports on SNES in those days, and while I was impressed with the graphics translation, there was always some quality I couldn't put my finger on that wasn't as good on the console ports. It was the frame rate! It was always just so good to come back in to the arcade and play the game there again and feel that rush of smooth pure action. Shit, this whole time it was the 60/30 difference. I haven't really cared much in the last couple gens (though TLOUR opened my eyes more recently), but damn... Now I'm feeling like 60 fps is like bringing home an arcade cabinet. Gonna give my other 60fps games a new spin and see how it goes.

I feel so dumb to not have seen that before.

 

[rjc571]

Arcade Outrun was 30 FPS and it's like the best game ever.

3D Classic Outrun is 60 FPS and it's much better than Arcade Outrun

 

[redcrayon]

First, a question. Were you gaming in 1994-97 period? More specifically, did you care about arcade games back then?

See, i remember in that time period, modern arcade hardware was still the state of the art. Kinda like how an expensive PC is now, with dual titan cards or something. But more. No Pentium/3DFX combo, no PS1/Saturn/N64 could even come close to the likes of Model 2, System 22 and let alone Model 3. Heck, Model 3 was like a league of its own. I mean Sega struggled with inferior Model 2 ports on Saturn, so Model 3 was completely out of reach.

I remember the first time i saw Daytona. My eyes popped. The texture mapping. The 3D models. The smooth motion. Since then, arcades was like dream machines for me. With Sega Rally 2 being the ultimate game, one that was leagues ahead anything you could play at home, graphically.

I also remember the console ports. PS1/Saturn received plenty of arcade ports. But all of them were inferior. There were always sacrifices. But the most obvious one was always the frame rate. Arcades were 60, consoles were 30 or 25. I remember the buzz around Virtua Fighter 2 on Saturn actually being 60fps like the arcade. It received a huge hype from magazines of the time just for that reason alone. See, people back then cared about this thing. Because going from the smooth/realistic motion of 3D graphics to a stuttering/slower frame rate was jarring. It still is.

After the Dreamcast was released and Sega stopped making state of the art arcade machines, the huge gap between arcades and consoles almost closed. Suddenly, we could have awesome 3D graphics at 60fps in our homes, which was extremely rare on the previous consoles. Then the PS2/GC/XBOX came and 60fps games were almost as common as 30fps ones. Most importantly, the majority of racing games were 60fps (now its the minority).

And then the 360/PS3 generation came and made this huge step backwards by making 30fps the standard again. Just like those PS1 days. Why? Was it the higher resolution? PS1/GC/XBOX also had higher resolution than PS1/SAT/N64, it didn't stop them making 60fps a more common thing. And what about PS4/One. Just how powerful a system has to be so we can experience something we already experienced 10 years ago?

So, obviously its not a hardware/power thing. Its a "design choice". Supposedly. But why? Why people stopped caring about smooth motion? Heck, even on 8bit/16bit consoles 99% of games were 60fps (synced with the 60hz of TVs). Why isn't this a thing anymore? Is it that games became so mainstream and all the casual gamers don't care for anything except flashy effects and pretty pictures? Is it that gamers are too young to remember the days when 3D arcade games used to make or jaws drop? What the hell happened?

Thankfully Nintendo/Retro Studios gets it. Thankfully.

I was born in 1978, and spent much of the mid-90s playing Street Fighter and various racing games in the arcades and on consoles. I didn't care about frame rate then, and still don't care about it now. We were far more concerned with graphical upgrades moving in leaps and bounds then, worrying about frame rates seems to be a very modern thing to me.

Having grown up playing games on 8-bit computers that were one step above Pong, I even found the arguing over 'jaggies' and 'tearing' and 'draw distances' of the PS2 generation to be mystifying. Modern games even at a steady 30 fps still look and play amazingly well to me.

Part of me wonders how much of this is down to the internet echo chamber. 20 years ago, the odds of there being enough consensus amongst your mates or the regulars down at the arcade about something like frame rates to think it was a huge issue was pretty slim, but these days every opinion on an aspect of gaming will find thousands who agree and thousands who don't. Back then we just played games rather than talking about the minutae of them anonymously with strangers. I was more interested in watching what my opponent did and keeping an eye on the coin that marked my place as the next challenger!

 

[vg260]

Honestly after less than a minute the novelty of 60fps is not present anymore, and you're just playing a slow paced stealth game designed for 30fps, that is not taking advantage of "being more responsive" because it wasn't designed for it in the first place.

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense. No one designs a game to have more sluggish input response. It's the side effect of compromises. Even when something is moving, like the camera view, it's still moving, so everything will animate more fluidly at 60, and when it does come time for an input, there will be less delay.

It seems people are simply being willfully dismissive of a significant difference at this point.

 

[Navid]

First, a question. Were you gaming in 1994-97 period? More specifically, did you care about arcade games back then?

Yeah, I was gaming during that period... had probably just transitioned to PC gaming towards the end of that point though.

Also I don't think the majority of people would say they don't care about 60fps, but rather that they are also OK with with games not at 60fps as long as it doesn't impact their enjoyment.

You got a few outliers on both sides (those who say that they don't like 60fps because it reduces the cinematic feel and those who say they will not play anything unless it's running at 60fps) but overall I think most people understand the difference but are also ok with the alternative.

For example games like Dragon's Dogma and Demon's Souls are great examples of titles that don't even hit 30fps a lot of the time and both were very enjoyable titles with great, solid feeling combat systems.

 

[rjc571]

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense. No one designs a game to have more sluggish input response. It's the side effect of compromises. Even when something is moving, like the camera view, it's still moving, so everything will animate more fluidly at 60, and when it does come time for an input, there will be less delay.

It seems people are simply being willfully dismissive of a significant difference at this point.

It's Stockholm Syndrome, pure and simple.

 

[we.are.the.armada]

For some reason, console games at 30fps doesn't both me and as I play them, I eventually stop noticing. But for PC, when I'm playing something completely maxed and it dips to 55fps, I get nauseous. Then I have to scale things back in order to achieve 60fps and it sucks to compromise.

 

[arit]

Militant FPSists.

Expecting consoles that essentially have mobile CPUs and low to mid range GPUs to run 1080p60 and still look "next-gen".

Just look at Forza with its cardboard crowds, simplified track geometry, baked lighting and jaggies sharp enough to cut your fingers on what it had to sacrifice to reach 1080p60.

These are the kind of idiots who would be moaning if a game was 1080p60 and looked like complete crap.

Citation please. The problem with Forza was them showing bullshots. Same thing happened with Watchdogs, just that it was a 30fps game this time.

And if 1080p60 would look like crap, it is because of bad art direction that wouldn't be concealed by bad image filters and shiny.

EDIT: Many 30fps advocates hide behind ~"as long as it is fun", but if this were true, why is there so much backlash in these threads? In most cases 60fps wouldn't change anything on that (in a negative way) so no one should be as offended, unless one wouldn't be just a mere "as long as it is fun" advocate but a *uh-shiny*-lover.

 

[bobone]

I feel in love with videogames starting in 1996 with the N64. Pretty sure not a single game I played back then was 60 fps, I don't think any were even 30 fps. I know the Rare games weren't.

But I loved them, and I still do.

FPS doesn't matter if the game is fun, and is designed to work at the fps it can handle.

 

[Wonko_C]

I feel in love with videogames starting in 1996 with the N64. Pretty sure not a single game I played back then was 60 fps, I don't think any were even 30 fps. I know the Rare games weren't.

But I loved them, and I still do.

FPS doesn't matter if the game is fun, and is designed to work at the fps it can handle.

You missed out on F-Zero X? One of the best N64 games.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I am an old man (by internet standards), who spent plenty of time in arcades and playing on SNES/Megadrive/Amiga/Atari ST/etc.

I never heard anyone talk about "60 FPS" until the 2000's. Wipeout on PS1 might be the only game where the high framerate was actually discussed.
People cared about graphics, just like they do now.
Games were sold on things like 3D effects or model/animation quality, just like they are today.
There were some games that were juddery because they tried to do great graphics and the hardware couldn't keep up. Everyone hated this, which is the same as people hating games with <20 FPS spikes in modern games.

Plus ça change I guess.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Citation please. The problem with Forza was them showing bullshots. Same thing happened with Watchdogs, just that it was a 30fps game this time.

And if 1080p60 would look like crap, it is because of bad art direction that wouldn't be concealed by bad image filters and shiny.

EDIT: Many 30fps advocates hide behind ~"as long as it is fun", but if this were true, why is there so much backlash in these threads? In most cases 60fps wouldn't change anything on that (in a negative way) so no one should be as offended, unless one wouldn't be just a mere "as long as it is fun" advocate but a *uh-shiny*-lover.

Once again, as stated many times in this thread. The "as long as it's fun" defense" is a direct response to people, who claim that 30fps is unacceptable or makes people who are ok with it, cancer. Higher framerate is always welcome, but it shouldn't be some mandatory requirement.

 

[DryvBy]

30fps is playable. Having 60fps just makes the game look better. But either way, a game is playable.

 

[supernormal]

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense. No one designs a game to have more sluggish input response. It's the side effect of compromises. Even when something is moving, like the camera view, it's still moving, so everything will animate more fluidly at 60, and when it does come time for an input, there will be less delay.

It seems people are simply being willfully dismissive of a significant difference at this point.

In the case of TLoU the aiming is purposely sluggish on top of whatever input delay there is with 30fps. It's designed this way to make the shooting more tense. Killzone 2 also had added input lag to give the guns more "weight." These games play fine with this because the challenges are designed around that from the beggining. The encounters in those games don't warrant the same response and reflexes as a hard core 2D platformer. The benefits of 60fps are not as apparent in a game like Heavy Rain as they are in Super Meat Boy.

 

[Opiate]

I'd point out that unlike many other graphical improvements, FPS is one of the few graphical flourishes which actually affects ones' ability to play the game.

That is, higher FPS decreases your response time and allows you to respond to events in the game faster. This can be a pretty big deal in games with exquisite game play, such as Super Meat Boy or RTS like Starcraft.

 

[tzare]

I've been playing The Last of Us remastered this week end. The difference between 60fps and 30fps is massive in that game.

People who are fine with 30fps should not be allowed to play games. You guys are fucking cancer. I'm glad there are tons of moaning about 60fps this gen.

You shouldn't be allowed to post opinions unless show respect for others'

If i am having fun playing 30fps games it is your loss not mine. TLoU remake would have never existed if a 30fps ps3 version enjoyed by millions hadn't existed and sold well before. And the same for tons of great games out there. It is fair to expect 60fps, higher resolutions or extra effects or textures or lighting or IQ. But resources are limited on consoles, and the developer chooses what sees fit for his vision. And some of us choose eye candy over resolution or fps. Different people different opinions

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Citation please. The problem with Forza was them showing bullshots. Same thing happened with Watchdogs, just that it was a 30fps game this time.

And if 1080p60 would look like crap, it is because of bad art direction that wouldn't be concealed by bad image filters and shiny.

EDIT: Many 30fps advocates hide behind ~"as long as it is fun", but if this were true, why is there so much backlash in these threads? In most cases 60fps wouldn't change anything on that (in a negative way) so no one should be as offended, unless one wouldn't be just a mere "as long as it is fun" advocate but a *uh-shiny*-lover.

You don't need any citations, just look at the fact there are only a handful of 60fps games.

Xbox One can't even handle Titanfall at its weird 1408x792 at 60fps without frame dips into 40s, The Last of Us and Killzone runs 1080p but also dips noticeably from 60fps.

Just google Forza 5 cardboard crowd and Forza 5 reveal comparison showing it running on PC at 60fps at E3 and 60fps in the final retail version.

The current-gen consoles aren't powerful enough to run games at 1080p60 at anywhere near the kind of graphical fidelity jump that is expected of next gen.

The difference between 30fps and 60fps advocates is you don't see threads being made all the time saying 30fps is fine accept it, it's always the 60fps advocates trying to change peoples minds and calling people cancer.

 

[shandy706]

Played some games at 3200 x 1800 this weekend. Settings on Ultra and downsampling to 1080p. Talk about some insanely clean looking gameplay!

I've not tried pushing to 4k yet, but I'm almost there. I ran a lot of older PC games at 3200 x 1800 at 40-60fps (some really old games at 60-100fps), but games like Far Cry 3 dropped me down into the 15-30fps at times. Temps in FC3 were fine though..I think I could play it at/near 4k with a couple things toned down from Ultra to High/Very High at 30fps+.

I managed to get Batman Arkham Origins to run at 3200 x 1800 with Physx on normal. That only lasted like 3 minutes though and my system shut off...doh!. With Physx off I made it 7 minutes..LOL. That game is just too taxing it seems...at least it is with air cooling on my 780. CPU was fine (it is liquid cooled).

Anyway, it sounds like I'm getting off on a tangent, but if you've got the capability...I'd say try out some PC games at 30fps with massive down-sampling. It's beautiful...I'd take locked 30fps any day at that IQ.

 

[ozprime]

Born in '72 and same here. Basically, as long as the FPS doesn't mess with my ability to control the game, I'm okay. I remember playing something like Morrowind with a computer I had at the time where I wanted the game to look nice, but it cost me frames. I ended up playing and beating that entire thing at 20 fps.

Also a child of '72 here.

When a dragon looked more like a duck and "you" were a single pixel the size of a dime. Ah, memories. ;-)

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm certainly from that old school era when 60fps was the expected norm. It's a shame it's been left behind in hopes of producing better visuals.

Some of my favorites games are still the ones that make 60fps a priority. Trials games, Call of Duty, Titanfall, Burnout, Resogun, etc.

I could not be happier to hear that the upcoming Uncharted and Halo games will be 60fps.

 

[Unmoses]

Also a child of '72 here.

When a dragon looked more like a duck and "you" were a single pixel the size of a dime. Ah, memories. ;-)

Born in '70 myself.. The craziness of multiplayer star trek on a vt100 with text ui, probably 1 fps.. People are spoiled

 

[Percy]

Anyone that thinks running at 60fps doesn't make a game better is kidding themselves every bit as much as those who suggest that 30fps is 'unplayable'.

 

[vg260]

In the case of TLoU the aiming is purposely sluggish on top of whatever input delay there is with 30fps. It's designed this way to make the shooting more tense. Killzone 2 also had added input lag to give the guns more "weight." These games play fine with this because the challenges are designed around that from the beggining. The encounters in those games don't warrant the same response and reflexes as a hard core 2D platformer. The benefits of 60fps are not as apparent in a game like Heavy Rain as they are in Super Meat Boy.

Heavy Rain is obviously less timing-based, sure. Same for turn-based RPGs. But donwplaying the effect of 60 fps on TLoU I don't feel is valid. The programmed in sway/bob is different than inherent input lag. If anything, that validates the benefit of 60 fps, since you're already fighting against intentionally programmed mechanics. Your timing really needs to be more on-point. Even if you ignore the tangible input delay from 30 fps, 60 fps is a wholesale improvement to the animation smoothness of everything resulting in a massive visual presentation improvement. In the case of TLoU, the fantastic animations are another case for wanting 60 fps.

 

[Alx]

First, a question. Were you gaming in 1994-97 period? More specifically, did you care about arcade games back then?

Yeah I always was a big fan of arcade, which is why my favorite studios were from Sega, Capcom or Namco (or used to be anyway). I think my very first experience of videogames may have been on Arkanoid, when I could play a game in an amusement park on a machine that had one credit left.
But there's more to arcade than game performance. It's actually more about gameplay, that is making games that are appealing enough to make people want to put their first quarter, entertaining enough to make them want to play more 30 seconds after they lost their first game, and engaging enough to get them hooked for hours (yeah arcade is basically a scam, but a good one ).
So yeah, framerate and graphics are great and all, but I'll never get anything come into consideration before pure enjoyment, because for me that's what videogames are about. The way we say it here, "the bottle does not matter as much as the drunkenness".

 

[boneso]

Because I play games.

Play games.

Gameplay.

How a game plays is what matters.

I do not play textures, resolution, or fps.

Fps are one vowel short of faps re: masturbatory concerns.

Higher FPS = Reduced latency = more responsive controls = Improved gameplay!

If gameplay is what matters to you then FPS should matter too!

Also, if you do not play textures, resolution or fps, then what do you play? Elite? Jet Set Willy?

 

[nkarafo]

A few things for you to think about, op

2. When 3d graphics came to consoles , nobody and I mean NOBODY said 'awesome, 3d graphics AND 60 fps!!' Nobody! It was just the 3d graphics we noticed.

Dude, did you read my post? I said with the first 3D capable consoles we didn't demand 60fps because having 3D textured graphics alone was big enough. 3D textured graphics were new and consoles were barely powerful enough. We were ok because the standards for 3D graphics weren't as high, being new and all. But in arcades you had it all. The "awesome 3D graphics AND 60fps" started with DC/PS2/GC/XBOX. It looked like an evolution that made sense as the hardware was powerful enough, finally.

Its the fact that with the 360/PS3 gen they stopped all this progress and took a step back in the PS1 days again, despite the superior hardware, that gets me. Its the fact that i got used to play 60fps racing games (Rally games mostly) and now i don't even have a single game to play like that. No, seriously, anyone know of a single RALLY game on XBOX360 that runs at 60fps?

 

[Uno Venova]

Born in '92 and don't give a shit, thankfully. I don't try to force others to see it my way as much of people who need only 60FPS+ need others to see it theirs.

 

[nkarafo]

I never heard anyone talk about "60 FPS" until the 2000's. Wipeout on PS1 might be the only game where the high framerate was actually discussed.

I think you are confused. Wipeout on PS1 was 30fps.

And there was a lot of talk about 60fps on game magazines, at least the ones from UK (i didn't have access to American ones).

 

[nkarafo]

I feel in love with videogames starting in 1996 with the N64. Pretty sure not a single game I played back then was 60 fps, I don't think any were even 30 fps. I know the Rare games weren't.

But I loved them, and I still do.

FPS doesn't matter if the game is fun, and is designed to work at the fps it can handle.

When people will stop missing the point here?

I never said these games were not enjoyable. In N64 days 30fps was perfectly acceptable by everyone because that was the standard for console 3D graphics. 60fps games were rare and welcome but it was just that. Rare. PS2/GC/XBOX came along and raised the bar. Finally we could have both great 3D graphics AND 60fps. And one of my favorite genres (rally games) were finally as good as the best arcade games of the past.

See how the the standards changed? The issue here is that the next generation (360/PS3) dropped the standards instead of increasing the bar even further (making 30fps games an exception as i was expecting), having much more powerful consoles and all. Thats the issue in this whole thread.

The current-gen consoles aren't powerful enough to run games at 1080p60 at anywhere near the kind of graphical fidelity jump that is expected of next gen

Its funny because the jump from PS1/N64 to Gamecube XBOX/PS2 brought much better graphics/resolution AND better frame rate at the same time. No compromises at all then. I guess its ok to have compromises now? Its ok to have lower standards now?

 

[Wyndstryker]

Its not the framerate that matters, its how its utilized. 60 fps on a turn based game means nothing but in a game where pros can dissect things by the frame like a shooter it can make a difference.

Compare fps to network lag as both have identical effects. If your internet affects your play then you lose. If the framerate affects your play, you lose.

60 is a nice bonus and in some cases necessary. 30 should be the locked to ensure consistant gameplay.

 

[Griddlelol]

I think OP is missing the point in every reply. People who don't care, just don't care. You're not going to convince any one that this tiny "issue" matters, when its effect on the quality of the game is so small.

 

[nkarafo]

I think OP is missing the point in every reply. People who don't care, just don't care. You're not going to convince any one that this tiny "issue" matters,

Well, apparently you are wrong, a few pages back one guy seems pretty convinced (he seems honest and not sarcastic). And if i managed to convince just one person, i think it was worth it making this whole thread.

when its effect on the quality of the game is so small.

In your opinion.

 

[Thrakier]

I think OP is missing the point in every reply. People who don't care, just don't care. You're not going to convince any one that this tiny "issue" matters, when its effect on the quality of the game is so small.

But it isn't small. People are just uneducated. They don't have an idea of what's going on here and they are victims to marketing, still they are trying to formulate valid arguments, which they can't. 30FPS to videogames is what McDonald's is to food. Still people run in droves to eat that shit. Does it make that any less shit, just because people don't care? I don't think so.

 

[The12thGripper]

I don't care about 60FPS, but I do care if the game's framerate is chugging below a stable 30FPS.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Its funny because the jump from PS1/N64 to Gamecube XBOX/PS2 brought much better graphics/resolution AND better frame rate at the same time. No compromises at all then. I guess its ok to have compromises now? Its ok to have lower standards now?

Where did I say that?

PS3 almost cost Sony everything with its ridiculously complicated hardware and astronomical price point, this time around they are going for cheap and simple which is why it costs $200 less than PS3 did and ultimately why it's not capable of as big a graphical leap as what has come before.

At the end of the day complaining about hardware that is out isn't going to suddenly make them capable of 1080p60 at the kind of graphical leap people are expecting which is why devs are targeting 30fps. It's easier to sell to consumers at 30fps with extra graphics or they will begin to question why the PS4/XBO is even necessary if games hardly look any better.

 

[Final Verdict]

I don't care much because I don't notice so long as it is a stable 30 fps.
For me, 60fps feels slightly smoother, but not so much that it is a huge difference.

But that is because I grew up mostly playing games running at 30fps, and so I am used to it more than most. It doesn't bother me so long as there aren't any significant dips and/or screen tearing.

 

[HTupolev]

Its funny because the jump from PS1/N64 to Gamecube XBOX/PS2 brought much better graphics/resolution AND better frame rate at the same time. No compromises at all then.

No compromises relative to fifth-gen, but absolutely compromises relative to 30fps sixth-gen games (which is really the important question in this sort of discussion). PGR1 looked nice... until PGR2 came out running at half the framerate, which plenty of people to this day will tell you was totally worth it.

 

[Griddlelol]

But it isn't small. People are just uneducated. They don't have an idea of what's going on here and they are victims to marketing, still they are trying to formulate valid arguments, which they can't. 30FPS to videogames is what McDonald's is to food. Still people run in droves to eat that shit. Does it make that any less shit, just because people don't care? I don't think so.

Poor analogy. 30 FPS is like getting your meal on a paper plate rather than a ceramic one. The steak on the plate is still delicious but it's a little less appetizing now that the paper one is starting to get a little soggy.

FPS has very little to do with the quality of the game, there are plenty of amazing games at 30, which is exactly why some people don't care.

Are you sure you're not the one who's fallen to marketing? Game X, now with 60fps, buy again!

 

[nkarafo]

No compromises relative to fifth-gen, but absolutely compromises relative to 30fps sixth-gen games (which is really the important question in this sort of discussion). PGR1 looked nice... until PGR2 came out running at half the framerate, which plenty of people to this day will tell you was totally worth it.

And then Rallisport Challenge 2 came out at 60fps and it had even better graphics than PGR2.

Also, Metroid Prime 1/2 and F-Zero GX are among the best looking GC games. Both at 60fps. Same with Ninja Gaiden on XBOX. These are games that look like they suffered no graphical compromises for their 60fps update.

 

[Weltall Zero]

People don't give a shit about the specs of a game, so long as it's fun.

So I'm guessing those millions of PS4 got sold because people ran out of fun games on their NES's, Master Systems, original GBs, etc.?

 

[Lord_Balkan]

Because I play games.

Play games.

Gameplay.

How a game plays is what matters.

I do not play textures, resolution, or fps.

Fps are one vowel short of faps re: masturbatory concerns.

Sorry to inform you, but the framerate of a game is directly related to how a game plays. You take the same gameplay, and running it at 60fps is a much more pleasant and responsive experience than running it at 30. I play games for the game play. I also primarily play on PC. Thats why no matter what I reduce the games settings so my gameplay isn't jerky or interrupted by low or dramatically fluctuating framerate.

 

[FonkyByNature]

I would take almost any game at 60fps. Don't care about resolution or AA or anything like that because they don't affect gameplay. Frame rate does affect gameplay though which is why i want it to become a standard forever.

There are genres that i don't mind being under 60fps, rpg, puzzle, slow action games... for all the rest, 60fps is a must, especially for racing, fighting and competitive shooters.

 

[MaxiLive]

I find there is nothing wrong with a smooth 30fps. Obviously I would prefer 60, I would also prefer 120fps as well. It is no way essential and without it doesn't make a game unplayable and to be honest for me doesn't really remove much from the experience of THAT game as the game is designed around that feature set.

You can only get uptight about games when you start comparing them at which point you don't care about THAT game any way.

I would love for 60fps to be the standard but I would much rather have new graphics techniques and effects being used rather than that investment going into framerate. Then for anyone who truly cares and is actually bothered by framerate then cough up the extra money and go the PC elitist route then you can have everything While you're at it get a 120hz display to make that visual experience even smoother.

 

[boltz]

So I'm guessing those millions of PS4 got sold because people ran out of fun games on their NES's, Master Systems, original GBs, etc.?

Yes, they did stop releasing games for those systems right? And those people playing emulators and indies, they must be masochists!

 

[Damian.]

Devs need to get over their arrogance and let users decide if they want to play the game with improved playability, or add a couple of mostly unnoticeable effects to cut the framerate in half. One would think that games were meant to be looked at in still images, that isn't the case, so 60 should be an option for those that want to actually play the games the best way possible.

 

[Romez]

Can't tell the difference between 30 and 60, don't give a fuck either.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I think one day we will look back and laugh that 30 fps was acceptable.

 

[RobFox64tm]

I agree with you that 60fps is imperative for arcade style games, but not every game released on consoles is that kind of game. 30fps is perfectly playable, and suitable for slower paced games. Racing games should never be anything less than 60fps though.