-
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
brunomartynhak
Member
There should be options. Simple options. Even if only between 30 or 60 fps.
As I said several times in a couple of the Destiny 2 threads, it's just not that big of a deal to most people. They don't care, they just want their games to look good and be fun to play, two things that are not impossible without running at 60. I don't see why that's hard to believe.
Also, can we please stop with this "people who can't distinguish between 30 and 60 at a glance are liars" bullshit? I need a side by side to see the difference. I can't point at a game and say "that's running at X frame rate" without already being told what it runs at. None of my friends can tell whether a game is running at 30 or 60 just by looking at it. This is not something that people normally seek out, stop accusing them of being liars. It's incredibly shitty and doesn't help anyone.
And as far as making 60 mandatory for release goes, hell no. Holding back good games just because some people can't get over them not running at a locked 60 would suck massively, especially when it's not that large of a concern for most people buying game.
Also, can we please stop with this "people who can't distinguish between 30 and 60 at a glance are liars" bullshit? I need a side by side to see the difference. I can't point at a game and say "that's running at X frame rate" without already being told what it runs at. None of my friends can tell whether a game is running at 30 or 60 just by looking at it. This is not something that people normally seek out, stop accusing them of being liars. It's incredibly shitty and doesn't help anyone.
And as far as making 60 mandatory for release goes, hell no. Holding back good games just because some people can't get over them not running at a locked 60 would suck massively, especially when it's not that large of a concern for most people buying game.
Hard to believe that it is 2017 and people still don't realize that if you want no compromises gaming with all the frames and all the resolution, you build yourself a PC. Closed box, mainstream consoles have to make compromises. Even their Pro models.
Even then, PC still misses on some exclusives. The trade off is worth it for more control over your gaming if that is what you want.
Just have to take the good with the bad no matter your choice.
If you take Horizon, keep its beauty and add 60fps? You have a better game. 😀
Even then, PC still misses on some exclusives. The trade off is worth it for more control over your gaming if that is what you want.
Just have to take the good with the bad no matter your choice.
If you take Horizon, keep its beauty and add 60fps? You have a better game. 😀
Horizon is all the evidence anyone needs to know that 60fps isn't the right choice.
No one gave a shit that it ran at 30fps, but the astonishing visuals (that would not have been possible at 60fps) were what sold it to so many people and were a huge part of what made it such a spectacular and good game.
Take away the visuals and add 60fps and you've made a significantly worse game with worse sales. That's the reality of most single player console games these days. And as long as that holds true, it doesn't matter how much power devs have access to - they'll keep choosing to max visuals at the expense of framerate, and rightly so.
No one gave a shit that it ran at 30fps, but the astonishing visuals (that would not have been possible at 60fps) were what sold it to so many people and were a huge part of what made it such a spectacular and good game.
Take away the visuals and add 60fps and you've made a significantly worse game with worse sales. That's the reality of most single player console games these days. And as long as that holds true, it doesn't matter how much power devs have access to - they'll keep choosing to max visuals at the expense of framerate, and rightly so.
Metal Slug 3 has both vertical scrolling and horizontal scrolling shoot-em-up sections and both feel great at 30fps. But I generally agree with you that 60fps is ideal.
Yea, try play Rocket League at 30fps and see how that works for you.
Rocket League is a hit at 60fps.... Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars was barely known/played by anyone at 30fps.
There isn't a one-size-fits all answer to this. Some games really do need the smoother framerates. Others really need the visual spectacle and don't rely on smoothness as much. I mean... that's really the truth.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I prefer frames over IQ but current gen consoles (at least Sony and MS) are designed to deliver the opposite.
Processor is the big weakness. Emphasis is on eye candy and resolution--GPU performance.
Promotional stills and fan hype reward those design choices. IQ downgrade discussions/controversies seem more common than framerate downgrade blowback
In 2017, those jaguar cores are even less impressive than their unimpressive debuts. Not sure why sub-60 frame rates are a bigger deal now that they are older
Processor is the big weakness. Emphasis is on eye candy and resolution--GPU performance.
Promotional stills and fan hype reward those design choices. IQ downgrade discussions/controversies seem more common than framerate downgrade blowback
In 2017, those jaguar cores are even less impressive than their unimpressive debuts. Not sure why sub-60 frame rates are a bigger deal now that they are older
SocksAndShoes
Banned
...I think their point is that games FEEL different (better) at 60FPS. The player can absolutely tell a difference in animations and anyone that can't....well, good for them I guess?
MetalGearZed
Member
At least it seems to be the standard for competitive multiplayer
mullet2000
Member
Definitely. If it's a big deal to you, you'll get a LOT out of investing in a PC. I know I did.
It's like when people complain about the lack to downsampling in PS4 Pro games and get upset about it. Hey, I agree in principal that downsampling should always be there as an option, but if resolution is a really big deal to you, you're probably going to get a lot of millage out of a 4k TV. You should probably invest in that if it's a big thing for you.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
CambriaRising
Member
It still won't make any sense because framerates are a moving target on set hardware.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
It's slowly getting there for AAA titles. Seemed to be more of a push for that this gen in competitive gaming.
Pankratous
Member
And thank god for that. I prefer my power being used in areas (effects, polygons, resolution, textures) that I can actually see.
TheMissingLink
Member
Man alive, I hate this argument so much.
Improved graphics and 60fps do not go hand-in-hand. Meaning: you can't have 'better' graphics AND 60fps. You can have WORSE graphics and 60fps.
It makes sense for some games and not others.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Improved graphics and 60fps do not go hand-in-hand. Meaning: you can't have 'better' graphics AND 60fps. You can have WORSE graphics and 60fps.
It makes sense for some games and not others.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
It still won't make sense though. Games have been 60fps on 8 bit systems. This isn't a hardware thing.
Miniature Kaiju
Member
I've done it before, actually, playing on a laptop. It's fine. It isn't as good of an experience as 60fps, but it's perfectly playable.
biggersmaller
Banned
The vast majority of those who buy games want to see what their console can do up on the screen in the way of splashy effects and resolution. People who genuinely care about their games being over 30 FPS is low. Also, people perceive a massive dip in resolution more than the difference between constant 30 and 60.
I'm one of the former.
I'm one of the former.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's not hard to believe like at all.
That's the point, it's not as good of an experience.
NullPointer
Member
It may not be standard, but when I look at my currently installed PS4 games I see:
Warframe
MGS V
Sniper Elite 3
Infinite Warfare
Titanfall 2
DOOM
Dirt Rally
Nioh
The Witness
Wolfenstein: The New Order/Old Blood
Inside
All of which run at 60fps. And that's besides all the remasters I haver installed that also run at 60fps.
And for 30fps games I see Uncharted 4, DriveClub and Horizon: Zero Dawn. Gobsmackingly gorgeous games that use every one of those frames to the fullest.
We're seeing a lot of solid 60fps games this gen, and some absolutely amazing 30fps games too. So for right now I have zero complaints on this front.
Warframe
MGS V
Sniper Elite 3
Infinite Warfare
Titanfall 2
DOOM
Dirt Rally
Nioh
The Witness
Wolfenstein: The New Order/Old Blood
Inside
All of which run at 60fps. And that's besides all the remasters I haver installed that also run at 60fps.
And for 30fps games I see Uncharted 4, DriveClub and Horizon: Zero Dawn. Gobsmackingly gorgeous games that use every one of those frames to the fullest.
We're seeing a lot of solid 60fps games this gen, and some absolutely amazing 30fps games too. So for right now I have zero complaints on this front.
Wowfunhappy
Member
It's true that most consumers don't "care" about 60 fps itself. Most probably don't even know what the term means.
However, pretty much anyone can tell when a game feels tight and responsive. Games get criticized for "bad controls" or even just "poor gameplay" all the time. It's just that not everyone is able to break down what individual factors actually causes "poor gameplay".
60 fps leads to games that feel better. Everyone cares about that.
However, pretty much anyone can tell when a game feels tight and responsive. Games get criticized for "bad controls" or even just "poor gameplay" all the time. It's just that not everyone is able to break down what individual factors actually causes "poor gameplay".
60 fps leads to games that feel better. Everyone cares about that.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
Publishers find it easier to sell their game based on better graphics than better framerate, so that's why 30fps is still king.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
Sacrificing resolution for frame rates?
Ya'll haven't played star wars battlefront on Xbox one, 60fps means jack shit if you can't see 4ft in front of you thanks to 720p.
Ya'll haven't played star wars battlefront on Xbox one, 60fps means jack shit if you can't see 4ft in front of you thanks to 720p.
Cramoss
Member
This
Most people don't give a shit or even know fps is a thing
Eye candy graphics is what sells and will always be
I wouldn't say I've ever "felt" the difference, but that may just me preferring the shooter that runs at 30 to literally any shooter I've played running at 60 :/. Still, I don't see why we immediately jump to "they're lying" when people genuinely say they don't see or feel the difference.
Kssio_Aug
Member
You can actually see the difference 60 fps makes for a game though. HOWEVER, I have to agree that for consoles targeting 60fps for all games isn't ideal.
There are some games that are pretty fine to play at 30fps. A decent motion blur always help in these situations.
Consoles this generation are not so strong... so the devs need to use what they can to sell their games. If most people are fine playing at 30fps (which they are) I see no problem about this being targeted as the standard console performance.
Tergeting 60 would make games looking much worse, at lower resolutions and in many cases extremely unstable performance. Not good.
Gai Murakumo
Member
There is nothing wrong with 30 FPS, some games benefit from being that instead of 60 FPS.
Miniature Kaiju
Member
It's not a bad one either. Could be better, sure, but then, why stop at 60? Why not 120? Or 240? Maybe we should aim for 480.
It likely wont ever be, because as consoles get more powerful, publishers will just push for better visuals. You can't sell as many copies by putting "60fps" on the back of a box as you can by just having really good looking screenshots. And TBH at the end of the day, I don't think 80% of the people playing games would even care. OP forgets we are a small percentage of die-hard aficionados
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Ay yo some people don't know where there next meal is coming from....
Yet peeps stay on this site arguing bout nothing.
It's a crazy world.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
Developers making games that would warrant framerates like that absolutely should be.
There's a reason that we're seeing a lot of competitive games push for 60FPS now. There's a market there. It's simply not a large enough market for that 60FPS push to bleed into the larger AAA gaming space.
Also a lot of people are forgetting that for a while in the console space 60FPS was the defacto standard.
Well because we know from ULMB (Ultra light boost mode.) that driving to 100fps and beyond takes a lot more considerable power to maintain than 60.
60fps and 60hz are compromises to the pc or display technology past where both fps and refreshrates could be much higher but still required a lot to do.
The other reason you should stop north of 120hz especially is because now you're arguing over microseconds which no human eye ever known has really been able to discern like they can with other frame rate standards. 120hz ulmb is at about 1.2ms so 240hz would be 600us. VR however requires high frames due to what happens to people at low fps in VR.
The same thing can be said for input lag or pixel persistence aka sample and hold. Flat panel displays are a mixed bag once you start caring about various factors.
Chezzymann
Member
it wont be in 2027 either
veloxStrix
Banned
I only play my PC games on 30fps/8k so I really don't have a clue about what anyone is complaining about.
RedAssedApe
Banned
its not that hard to believe considering consoles have always pushed visuals over frame rate. consoles would be even further behind if they had to target 60. i expect it to continue albeit to a lesser extent due to diminishing returns on visuals.
But you can't. The whole point is that consoles demand that you choose one or the other.
Rocket League is a multiplayer online game. I specified single player games. Obviously once actual human competition is involved response time becomes critical and framerate plays its part. This is why you typically see 60fps in multiplayer games like fighters, racers, online shooters etc. So this is certainly a case of genre by genre.
But in your big open world games or single player epics I stand by my point that it makes no sense to do anything but 30fps.
I refute the notion that people don't care, won't ever care, and that 30 will always be a priority.
The situation is always in flux. The average frame-rates for games this generation has been better than the last one. 30 FPS targets are more competently hit and 60 FPS titles have become more frequent.
More console players are aware of and care about frame rates than ever before. There is a general consensus of disappointment permeating Destiny 2 content over youtube, social media, and the web in general over only being 30 FPS. You can make the argument that the internet does not reflect the sentiment of the actual average console consumer but ideas and knowledge often start from these avenues, especially at this point in history. Five years ago, you wouldn't have had nearly this much of a reaction to the same situation.
Also, the idea that developers will always use hardware to shoot for visuals over performance even if hardware were to improve is disingenuous and completely skirts over the fact that current-gen console components are highly imbalanced towards GPU (in comparison to the balance in a standard PC build designed for playing games). Pro and Scorpio only exacerbates this scale further. The hardware dictates the games being made and is a not-arbitrary factor just like developer decisions are.
It's highly likely that the hardware composition for next generation devices are going to reflect an increased interest in better performance on both the parts of developers and players.
Videos of gameplay in motion via Youtube and Twitch are increasingly doing the marketing for games while magazines, internet articles, and the screenshots are decreasing in this respect.
The situation is always in flux. The average frame-rates for games this generation has been better than the last one. 30 FPS targets are more competently hit and 60 FPS titles have become more frequent.
More console players are aware of and care about frame rates than ever before. There is a general consensus of disappointment permeating Destiny 2 content over youtube, social media, and the web in general over only being 30 FPS. You can make the argument that the internet does not reflect the sentiment of the actual average console consumer but ideas and knowledge often start from these avenues, especially at this point in history. Five years ago, you wouldn't have had nearly this much of a reaction to the same situation.
Also, the idea that developers will always use hardware to shoot for visuals over performance even if hardware were to improve is disingenuous and completely skirts over the fact that current-gen console components are highly imbalanced towards GPU (in comparison to the balance in a standard PC build designed for playing games). Pro and Scorpio only exacerbates this scale further. The hardware dictates the games being made and is a not-arbitrary factor just like developer decisions are.
It's highly likely that the hardware composition for next generation devices are going to reflect an increased interest in better performance on both the parts of developers and players.
Videos of gameplay in motion via Youtube and Twitch are increasingly doing the marketing for games while magazines, internet articles, and the screenshots are decreasing in this respect.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Ultimately people that play mostly 30fps games do not give a single fuck about losing shiny for what they perceive as a minor difference in speed. People that play mostly 60fps care about playing something they perceive as slower than they are used to, and are wiling to sacrifice any amount of shiny to regain that position.
There is no winner here, no standard or default. Both will always exist.
There is no winner here, no standard or default. Both will always exist.
MegaSackman
Member
I don't find it hard to believe at all.
What I posted in the Destiny 2 thread
What's going to be really weird, is if we're like decades in the future, and PC gamers are used to 240hz being the standard while consoles still remain at 30.
60fps is already a big difference, 144hz is NIGHT AND DAY. Imagine 240hz? Diminishing returns and all that but it's still going to look sweet.
That's why I think that while 30 is the standard now for consoles, in those upcoming decades the hardware (Or the speed of the internet streaming is consoles do end up going that way) is going to be good enough that they won't bother with the diminishing returns of graphics and just add the extra framerates from the leftover power.
Just a guess out of my ass.
What I posted in the Destiny 2 thread
What's going to be really weird, is if we're like decades in the future, and PC gamers are used to 240hz being the standard while consoles still remain at 30.
60fps is already a big difference, 144hz is NIGHT AND DAY. Imagine 240hz? Diminishing returns and all that but it's still going to look sweet.
That's why I think that while 30 is the standard now for consoles, in those upcoming decades the hardware (Or the speed of the internet streaming is consoles do end up going that way) is going to be good enough that they won't bother with the diminishing returns of graphics and just add the extra framerates from the leftover power.
Just a guess out of my ass.
Similar threads
- Locked