Yeah, that's why people were screaming for the locked 30 fps option for the game that's "targeting 60 fps".
You didn't even bother to try to understand the OP's point.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
30fps is not really 30fps
- Thread starter Jedi2016
- Start date
Yeah, that's why people were screaming for the locked 30 fps option for the game that's "targeting 60 fps".
You didn't even bother to try to understand the OP's point.
Stared at the first gif for three loops and then stared at the second... 30 PFS looks fine. I understand people think 60 is better but I don't understand why people are losing their shit over it. Not that big of a deal...
No offence, but you are probably one of "those" people and should probably stay out of these sorts of discussions. You see things differently to people who really care about this subject.
30fps is NEVER "smooth as butter".
TheMoon
Member
From
...sigh
@OP: Yes, I agree. 30fps is a perfectly fine way to play a game, given it stays mostly consistent or doesn't drop much. I've played the majority of the AssCreed games on PS3 and those had notoriously poorer framerates than their 360 counterparts but ultimately it didn't matter at all. Even for racing games, playing NFS Hot Pursuit on PS3 and NFS Most Wanted U on Wii U, the 30FPS were no real issue (while 60 are obviously preferable). They certainly didn't impact my enjoyment of either game.
edit: just to be clear; I am aware that comparing the same game or similar games at both framerates will obviously always show that it's just "better" at 60, esp. for racing games. What I meant to say is that if you do not have access to direct comparisons, or don't care, the games don't suddenly become unplayable, as in my NFS example. I have played Burnout Paradise on PC at 60 and obviously other games, too.
to
...sigh
@OP: Yes, I agree. 30fps is a perfectly fine way to play a game, given it stays mostly consistent or doesn't drop much. I've played the majority of the AssCreed games on PS3 and those had notoriously poorer framerates than their 360 counterparts but ultimately it didn't matter at all. Even for racing games, playing NFS Hot Pursuit on PS3 and NFS Most Wanted U on Wii U, the 30FPS were no real issue (while 60 are obviously preferable). They certainly didn't impact my enjoyment of either game.
edit: just to be clear; I am aware that comparing the same game or similar games at both framerates will obviously always show that it's just "better" at 60, esp. for racing games. What I meant to say is that if you do not have access to direct comparisons, or don't care, the games don't suddenly become unplayable, as in my NFS example. I have played Burnout Paradise on PC at 60 and obviously other games, too.
Why? I've understood the point of the post and haven't jumped to any ridiculous conclusions...
While true, most games that target 30 tend to hit it pretty consistently or close to it (28ish fps as opposed to 30), which is far different than a game that fluctuates between 22-26 fps. Only for graphically intensive games that target 30 fps are there abnormally low average framerates, such as Ryse.
Prophet Steve
Member
This is a big reason that keeps me from focusing more on PC gaming. I can deal with 30 FPS. I may even choose to do that on my PC if I don't like the settings I have to change for 60 FPS. However, there are so many games that don't hit that target consistently enough and it keeps me from enjoying the games more.
And it gets worse and worse as the generation goes on.
EDIT: And people turning this into 30 vs 60 anyway, why?
And it gets worse and worse as the generation goes on.
EDIT: And people turning this into 30 vs 60 anyway, why?
Better stop watching any movie then. 24fps is clearly too slow for you to ever watch.
Teletraan1
Banned
Higher is always better but I agree with what some of the OP is saying. Near the end of last gen a lot of PS360 games were in the 20-30 range rather than locked. I personally notice 20-30 way more than I would 50-60. In the 20s I get slight motion sickness and headaches after prolonged play. 50-60s I notice a slight judder but no ill effects.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Literal hyperbole
People who've paid close attention have actually noticed there's some issues with films running at 24fps. Of course, that isn't interactive so it doesn't matter that much.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Film framerate and game framerate are two different things. I enjoyed WD and AC4 on ps4. Both of which very rarely dropped below 30fps. Expecting the same for Unity.
BBQMan
Member
That is quite possibly the stupidest arguement ever. Are you from the Ubisoft marketing department? If not you should sign up you'd fit in very well.
Neither did anyone else. All people said is devs shouldnt be aiming at 30 and its not acceptable.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Heh, this.
But yeah, I agree that a locked 30 fps is perfectly fine in most cases. With some good motion blur it can feel really smooth (although never quite as smooth as 60 fps, of course). It's certainly very playable, claiming otherwise is a bit ridiculous (the exception being stuff like PC FPSs played with a mouse, where you need a higher framerate for the game to feel responsive).
Moon_frogger
Member
This is why we keep getting these threads. It's gonna be funny when midway through this generation 90 percent of games will be 30 fps on console and people will be blue in the face shouting 'lazy dev, lazy dev, lazy dev, lazy dev' because they can't understand that 30 frames per second is the standard and an acceptable tradeoff for almost 100 percent of the people Who design and program games.
nrvalleytime
Member
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Moon_frogger
Member
because the original post basically says 'you think you don't like 30 fps but you really do, it's SUB 30 fps that you don't like so people are justifiably replying to say 'nope, i still dont' like 30 fps.
Haunted
Member
I don't think that people complaining about developers not managing 60fps give them a free pass for not managing 30fps.
And if developers are encouraged to hit 60fps, they're also hitting 30 along the way and you get to play the game at locked 30 (if you choose to do so for whatever reason).
I see no downside to encouraging developers to reach a higher standard.
BBQMan
Member
Well isn't that nice its an acceptable trade off for the devs, what about their customers? It really shouldn't be acceptable at all they should do what TLoU HD does and offer two options and satisfy both needs.
publicpwnerer
Member
I love this thread. It's like in the movies when the extended family gets together and shit from 15-20 years ago gets brought up...and arguments aplenty. Except here, everyone is the crazy uncle.
I wuv you guys.
I wuv you guys.
robotzombie
Member
The question, really, is who are you talking to? The entire point of your topic seems to be "hey guys, 30 fps is perfectly fine because there are things worse than 30 fps and you can't say anything about anything else because i already told you in the OP that you couldn't say anything."
EmptySpace
Banned
is this ninja theory's company motto?
Clockwork5
Member
So your post boiled down to 22-26 fps isnt 30 fps?
You are correct, consistent frame latency is just as , if not more important than the frame rate itself.
The time it takes a frame to render is measured in milliseconds. What's most important here is that each frame be rendered within the same window, if one or 2 frames pops out a bit late you get tearing, if there's a consistent missed targeted refresh you get choppy graphics which lead to the complaints most people have about 30 fps being shitty.
So whats the ideal latency then ? well turn a second into it's millisecond representation - 1000 and divide it by what the target framerate is. So if your game engine is aiming for 60 fps , it needs to take no longer then 16.67 milliseconds to render a frame. Switch to 30 FPS and you get twice as long - 33.33 milliseconds. Obviously I've dropped the decimal there because it's actually 16 and 2/3rds for 60fsp and 33 and 1/3rd for 30 fps.
Other factors to consider here are controller input latency as well as the latency present in all HDTVs. For a 60 FPS game to feel good , a developer needs to take all of this into account - when you press a button it needs to be processed and the resultant action rendered on screen within that same frame latency window , if it happens faster, even better, if it happens slower though ? well then you get sluggish and unresponsive feeling controls. This is typically what most bitch about even where a locked 30 FPS is concerned. A racing game that adheres to controls that react as fast as the game preforms feels incredibly responsive and more realistic. In that regard , if a game is running at 60 fps it will feel better then 30fps. BUT , if a developer does want to target 30 fps to give double the rendering time (which can , just by pure mathematical output mean the visuals can be twice as difficult to render and thus look twice as good) but they keep the controls well bellow that 33 and a 1/3rd frame latency threshold , you still end up with very tight and responsive controls. In titles where the physics simulation isn't as in depth and they just want a pretty looking fun title - this trade off can be worth it.
So , we are left with typically 2 scenarios where people most frequently bitch - when the visual fidelity exceeds the rendering time limit per frame more then 10% of the time , you end up with choppy graphics and frame drops that can result by extension in sloppy controls. The second scenario being an engine that's poorly coded , manages to maintain it's framerate but the controls are too delayed.
In a perfect world of gaming , people would be okay with spending 2000$ on a new games console every 2 years and every game would run at 60 FPS /1080p with no drops and perfect controls while always looking amazing. Instead , most of us (myself included) balk at spending more then 400$ every 5-6 years for a new console so we have to deal with a compromise.
I was always kind of in the camp that figured xb1/ps4 graphics would look as good as top end 2008 PC graphics did - 1080p / 30 fps for most games with DX11 level special effects and much better textures. 1080p/ 60 fps with extra Antialiasing for DX9 level stuff - ie games that ran 720p / unlocked 30 fps on 360/ps3.
The time it takes a frame to render is measured in milliseconds. What's most important here is that each frame be rendered within the same window, if one or 2 frames pops out a bit late you get tearing, if there's a consistent missed targeted refresh you get choppy graphics which lead to the complaints most people have about 30 fps being shitty.
So whats the ideal latency then ? well turn a second into it's millisecond representation - 1000 and divide it by what the target framerate is. So if your game engine is aiming for 60 fps , it needs to take no longer then 16.67 milliseconds to render a frame. Switch to 30 FPS and you get twice as long - 33.33 milliseconds. Obviously I've dropped the decimal there because it's actually 16 and 2/3rds for 60fsp and 33 and 1/3rd for 30 fps.
Other factors to consider here are controller input latency as well as the latency present in all HDTVs. For a 60 FPS game to feel good , a developer needs to take all of this into account - when you press a button it needs to be processed and the resultant action rendered on screen within that same frame latency window , if it happens faster, even better, if it happens slower though ? well then you get sluggish and unresponsive feeling controls. This is typically what most bitch about even where a locked 30 FPS is concerned. A racing game that adheres to controls that react as fast as the game preforms feels incredibly responsive and more realistic. In that regard , if a game is running at 60 fps it will feel better then 30fps. BUT , if a developer does want to target 30 fps to give double the rendering time (which can , just by pure mathematical output mean the visuals can be twice as difficult to render and thus look twice as good) but they keep the controls well bellow that 33 and a 1/3rd frame latency threshold , you still end up with very tight and responsive controls. In titles where the physics simulation isn't as in depth and they just want a pretty looking fun title - this trade off can be worth it.
So , we are left with typically 2 scenarios where people most frequently bitch - when the visual fidelity exceeds the rendering time limit per frame more then 10% of the time , you end up with choppy graphics and frame drops that can result by extension in sloppy controls. The second scenario being an engine that's poorly coded , manages to maintain it's framerate but the controls are too delayed.
In a perfect world of gaming , people would be okay with spending 2000$ on a new games console every 2 years and every game would run at 60 FPS /1080p with no drops and perfect controls while always looking amazing. Instead , most of us (myself included) balk at spending more then 400$ every 5-6 years for a new console so we have to deal with a compromise.
I was always kind of in the camp that figured xb1/ps4 graphics would look as good as top end 2008 PC graphics did - 1080p / 30 fps for most games with DX11 level special effects and much better textures. 1080p/ 60 fps with extra Antialiasing for DX9 level stuff - ie games that ran 720p / unlocked 30 fps on 360/ps3.
Moon_frogger
Member
funny they didn't offer that option on the ps3 version then. OH WAIT it's a ps3 game, of course they were able to get it running at 60 fps on the ps4. The last of us on ps3 at 60 frames per second would have had NO shadows NO outdoor environments and no more than 2 enemies on screen at a time. They wanted to push the hardware and and create visuals that have never been seen before on the ps3. And guess what allowed them to do that? targeting 30 frames per second.
Here's the thing: 30 fps is acceptable to consumers. It's just the niche, vocal enthusiasts that make ridiculous statements like "unplayable" and "garbage".
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Not sure what this thread is going to achieve, but it did bring up a related question, wondering if any of you can answer. Why does a 24 fps movie look smooth, whereas a 24 fps game looks choppy as hell? Less stable camera movement?
JordanN
Banned
Camera's are recording real life. It captures motion blur and light perfectly in each frame.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Roge...Refresh_games_and_movies_are_not_the_same.php
ArkhamFantasy
Member
If a publisher says thier game is 60 fps then its probably 30-50 fps.
If a publisher says its 30 fps then its probably 20-26 with drops into the teens during intense sequences. Its false advertising and it needs to stop.
If a publisher says its 30 fps then its probably 20-26 with drops into the teens during intense sequences. Its false advertising and it needs to stop.
Lanrutcon
Member
You know what, I'm fine if the majority of the industry accepts and delivers 30 fps as the standard.
It's when they're lying sacks of shit about why they do it...that's what gets me. It's not an artistic decision, it's not about the user experience, and it's not a limitation of the hardware. It's a marketing decision. They sell/generate hype with pretty screenshots, and they sacrifice performance in order to get those screenshots as pretty as they can. The almighty dollar is why your shit is running at 30 fps, folks.
And as a sidenote: we have not idea how the people who design and program games really feel about the fps debate, because what they say is filtered and controlled by the people that pay their salaries. You're not allowed to openly call your employer stupid on social media, if you feel that way.
Well, first of all movies don't really look smooth. Pay attention when the camera pans across a scene relatively fast. The word you're looking for is consistent. The reason it's such a bad thing with games is that the FPS usually fluctuates and is easy to notice.
Another aspect is the nature of interactivity. Most games require fast hand/eye coordination, so our brains would rather have more data to respond better.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Imagine if OP made a thread about how 20fps is smooth and perfectly playable. How would the people who have a 30fps standard feel about it?
Messofanego
Banned
I have a sneaking suspicion that Bloodborne will be sub-30fps based on that EGX demo I played, but we'll see if alpha/beta players can confirm that or if there'll be substantial improvements during polishing stage near the game's release.
Portugeezer
Member
Yeah I don't mind 30 if it doesn't drop, and to be fair most 30fps games I have played on PS4 which are 30fps have not dropped from 30fps. Even WatchDogs, which is unheard of for open world console games coming from last gen.
I think people are mostly worried because of FROM's past games, but we have seen the framerate improve in short amounts of times, such as from Gamescom to PAX we saw improvements in performance.
I think people are mostly worried because of FROM's past games, but we have seen the framerate improve in short amounts of times, such as from Gamescom to PAX we saw improvements in performance.
Demos are in no way representative of a final game's framerate. That stuff gets polished up towards the end. I really doubt a game that is exclusive to the most powerful console this generation is going to end up sub-30. It is imperative that they tone down whatever graphics are necessary to never compromise on FPS.
100%? No. It's not the standard of any fighting game developer or most racing or shooter developers. 60 FPS is the standard there. Action game developers try to hit 60 FPS most of the time too.
It's only "standard" in most open world games and RPGs, because that's all that they are capable of getting out of the current hardware. If the hardware was good enough to match what they wanted to do and what they personally were capable of then every single one of them would go for 60 FPS too.