Messofanego
Banned
Of course, but From Software...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
30fps is not really 30fps
- Thread starter Jedi2016
- Start date
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Movies and videogames are completely different when it comes to the impact of FPS, primarily due to blur.
Messofanego
Banned
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
From my experience on ps4, yes it's rare. Most of the games i've played have at least a stable 30fps with rare drops.
Would be incredible if it ever happened, tbh. Never will though.
Dreamwriter
Member
I disagree with the premise of the OP - that most 30fps games don't reach 30fps. I think most 30fps console games do reach 30fps most of the time (PC it really depends on the settings the player chooses).
I agree completely OP. 60fps will always be better obviously, but that doesn't make 30fps unplayable by any means as long as it is a stable 30fps. I am more than happy with 30fps as long as the game is able to maintain in throughout the experience. I think that is also going to unfortunately be the the biggest difference between a fair number of multiplatform versions of games going forward. I think we are going to see most developers strive for visual parity in games, but in doing so there is going to be a noticeable performance gap. AC Unity is likely going to be a great example of this performance gap. Ubisoft has decided not to sacrifice the image quality of the XB1 version by maintaining resolution parity, but if they don't bump down the quality of some other effects before launch then the game is likely to come out with a pretty choppy framerate when compared to the PS4 version. So far, at least from what I have seen on PS4, the framerate has been incredibly stable this generation for the most part. I really hope that trend continues, as it makes for a much better play experience.
Some of them do, yes. And those don't get nearly the complaints of the ones that don't. Which is what you would expect, of course. My problem is when all of those, whether they hit their target or not, are lumped in by some people into a single "30fps" category. It's not quite so black and white.
I'm extremely curious at this point to see final DF numbers on AC:Unity, given that they've already had to pare back on the resolution to try to hit the target. It remains to be seen whether it was enough.
alexandros
Banned
I read the whole OP and I have to respectfully disagree. I actually tried this out on my PC, I used Nvidia's adaptive V-Sync with the half refresh rate option to lock my games' frame rate to 30 fps. I stopped playing after 15 minutes and ended the experiment. I'm sure that in time I could grow to tolerate it but it's just not a good experience. The lack of smoothness and the loss of control responsiveness means that playing at 30 fps is clearly an inferior experience.
Prophet Steve
Member
That, exactly that, is what I am talking about. You don't know that.
Me and plenty of others know full well what a real 30 FPS look like and notice a significant difference with 60 FPS and can get bothered when a game is 30 FPS.
thunder_snail
Member
30 fps requires motion blur. Without motion blur, it looks really bad.
Bornstellar
Member
Input lag mang.
Waiiiiiiit a minute...
Lego Marvel is 30fps on PS4?
Yeah. It has a GREAT object based motion blur implementation too.
First line of the OP.. this is not about 30 vs 60. I know there's a difference, I can see it too. And I know that 60fps is better. That's not the topic. I get the impression you're mainly a PC gamer.. this is primarily a console discussion, since there really isn't any such thing as a 30fps PC game these days (nothing that Durante can't fix, at any rate).
Let me ask you this, to try to clarify my point: As a console developer targeting 30fps, do you think it would be beneficial to pare back on visuals in order to hit a 100% locked 30fps, or go for the shinies and spend most of your time south of 30?
I think if they're targeting 30, it should be as close to locked as possible. They're already gaining a lot of cycles by going at 30fps and even when pushing lots of tech, it's a much easier goal to hit. With 60fps games I honestly don't mind some drops here and there because it takes much larger drops over a long period of time to be perceptible and have an impact on gameplay.
NullPointer
Member
Does 30fps always mean input lag? Something like Forza Horizon feels supernaturally responsive, even when rendering at 30fps.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Obviously this isn't exactly a 30 vs 60 thread, but it does seem to heavily imply that 30 is only a problem when it's unstable. Which is a more passive-aggressive way of saying that 30 is adequate, something which a lot of people state is untrue in threads about framerate.
Adequate is just that, adequate. It's not ideal or even preferred. But it's not inherently "bad", either.
Prophet Steve
Member
Yes, obviously a locked 30 FPS would be preferable. But you are assuming that people complain about 30 FPS because they don't know what a locked 30 FPS feels like, which doesn't have to be true. If there is a significant difference, it isn't hard to imagine that there are people that dislike the look of 30 FPS. At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if that there are people who get very bothered with 60 FPS.
It is not a big factor imo. The screen refreshes half as fast so it can take longer to see a result when you press a button, but the difference is a maximum of 16 ms.
I might be wrong but didn't Sony originally stipulate a 60fps minimum for PS3 games when the system was first announced?
Ken Kutaragi said a bunch of bullshit about it when the system was announced. I don't think it was ever a requirement.
jim-jam bongs
Member
However it's not adequate to many people, hence this is a 30 vs 60 thread despite your best intentions. Nobody disagrees with the premise that stable framerate is more desirable than unstable, which is why the discussion has centred on the notion of what constitutes adequacy instead.
Been thinking some more about this.
It'd be great if Digital Foundry's reports carried the same weight as Metatcritic ratings and provided similarly snapshot metrics. Hell, there could even be a DF-30 or DF-60 sticker on the back of the box if the game hit the appropriate 100% locked frame rates. It would be a tangible badge of honour for the developers to strive for, and a great marketing tool. Joe Public would know what he was buying too.
Something like this deep-rooted in the public conscience might be needed to wipe inconsistent frame rates from games development once and for all.
Glass Rebel
Member
Eh, 30fps, locked or not, is not desirable for many genres. Platformers, racing games, character action games, fighting games etc. There are games in these genres that run at 30fps and still manage to be good or great, no question (although I'm struggling to think of a great fighting game that runs at 30fps), but it certainly limits what you can do mechanically. It's no surprise that for example F-Zero GX and Devil May Cry 4 are 60fps.
I'd also appreciate if people on this board didn't tell me what to do. It's (sadly) unreasonable to expect every developer to go for 60fps but there's little I can do except show demand.
I'd also appreciate if people on this board didn't tell me what to do. It's (sadly) unreasonable to expect every developer to go for 60fps but there's little I can do except show demand.
RecursiveFault
Banned
Do people prefer unlocked, staying above 30, or locked 30?
I see this being pretty dependant on who's playing, but I always prefer locked stable 30 to 30-50 fluctuation.
I see this being pretty dependant on who's playing, but I always prefer locked stable 30 to 30-50 fluctuation.
lukeskymac
Member
Your Vsync experiment doesn't accurately represent what's going on with every 30fps game.
Isn't that exactly what 60-fps-of-bust people do?
MrCunningham
Member
Eye candy over stability.
I wasn't a kid during the N64 days, though.
I would say that stable 30 FPS is far from adequate. I would describe it as "shitty but tolerable sometimes".
Glass Rebel
Member
I rarely see people telling others not to accept 30fps. Maybe I don't frequent these threads enough.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Ocarina of Time was 21 FPS.
That is wrong. For the most part, it's around 50ms or even more and it's clearly noticable. For me, responsiveness is THE No. 1 reason I vastly prefer 60FPS over 30FPS.
Read here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
It would've been much more enjoyable at 60FPS. And today, it's pretty bad. You can only play it with nostalgia googles, not for the gameplay experience itself, if you don't use an emulator, of course.
NullPointer
Member
That'd be nice. I'd be interested to see standard breakdowns for framerate consistency, tearing, aliasing and even load times - though I don't know you'd objectively measure the AA.
And I really don't feel like its asking the world for a locked 30fps to be minimum on this current generation of consoles.
LightofRohan
Member
Developers should just start charging a dollar a framerate for their games.
Holy shit at how many seem to be missing the point of the OP. This isn't a 30vs60 debate.
I agree with you OP. Devs need to dial that shit down until they can hit a steady 30 at a MINIMUM and if they can go higher, give the option. Watching those Xbone ACU vids the game really shouldn't be 900p on that system.
I agree with you OP. Devs need to dial that shit down until they can hit a steady 30 at a MINIMUM and if they can go higher, give the option. Watching those Xbone ACU vids the game really shouldn't be 900p on that system.
I totally agree. I am seeing so many games marketed as 30/60 fps but most of them fail to be consistent which is sad since this is "Next Gen" and all that.
But at its core the problem is still trying to make games look good in screenshots. Devs are throwing performance to the way side in favor of more graphical bells and whistles and resolution. Then you start playing and behold glorious 24fps filmic/cinematic/hollywood experience. After last gen I realized how little graphics mattered to me. I found myself enjoying games that had solid performance over the "gorgeous " slideshow fests.
What is worse is that this problem will get worse as we go on. The current gen consoles are already dated technology. Of course there will be the likes of naughtydog, nintendo and platinum doing wonders for optimization but not everyone is the capable.
But at its core the problem is still trying to make games look good in screenshots. Devs are throwing performance to the way side in favor of more graphical bells and whistles and resolution. Then you start playing and behold glorious 24fps filmic/cinematic/hollywood experience. After last gen I realized how little graphics mattered to me. I found myself enjoying games that had solid performance over the "gorgeous " slideshow fests.
What is worse is that this problem will get worse as we go on. The current gen consoles are already dated technology. Of course there will be the likes of naughtydog, nintendo and platinum doing wonders for optimization but not everyone is the capable.
How would an emulator help? You can't raise the framerate of OoT in an emulator without changing the game's speed.
A few years ago when current-gen was being speculated about I put myself on record here on GAF stating my utter conviction that all console games would be 60fps as an enforced prerequisite. How naive I was. I'm now convinced this will never happen, no matter how powerful the hardware gets.
Mister Chippy
Member
The screenshots are the big problem here. They're also the cause of all those graphics downgrades that are happening. Companies care way to much about pre-orders and the best way to get those is having the prettiest pictures. It doesn't matter if the game runs poorly because you already bought it before it even got reviewed. No clue what we can do to stop that though, aside from not preordering games. I seriously can't believe people still do that after all the ones that haven't lived up to the hype lately...
I don't want to get into a "60fps is not really 60fps" discussion.. lol. But I've seen that too. Some games on PC seem solid to me and I'm surprised to load up FRAPS and see it hovering around 50-55fps. I twiddle with some settings to get it at 60 and it does seem smoother if not necessarily "higher". That's a frame-time issue. Same problem you see at lower framerates, but not as horrifying.
I do like that a lot of indie devs are hitting 1080p/60 on consoles.
I admittedly do think that's situational, but we'd definitely be better off if developers rarely if ever settled for less than 30, and when they do it's because they're doing something damn impressive, namely something damn impressive that creates a new type of gameplay experience; SotC is easy to forgive because HOLY CRAP YOU'RE FIGHTING COLOSSI! Meanwhile Crysis 3 going to shit in the early game in a fairly standard shootout because of rain and all other fancy effects is frustrating.
There's definitely a kernel of truth for what the AC:U guy said about 30fps/60fps for genre though, while cinematic as a reason is really lame it IS true that and other slower paced games don't strictly need 60 fps, whereas a racing game is doable but not really ideal that way, and shooters and, uhh, stylish action games can feel and play very differently at 60.
Dreamwriter
Member
Which is one of the best things about the 3DS remake, which has a solid 30fps
Altered Juice
Member
LightofRohan
Member
I know everyone keeps saying they want every game to be 60fps. But then how would we determine goty? There is no other metric to go by to determine a games quality.
Messofanego
Banned
Bethesda advises against going above 30fps in The Evil Within with the debug commands
patrickthehedgehog
Member
True facts up in here. The tail end of last gen with the sub 30 fps games were really gross. 30 fps will work for most game types just fine. 60 always tho if possible.
Nizz
Member
Yep. I can play a 30fps game fine as long as it's a rock solid 30. There should however be no excuse for a game this gen dipping below 30. I got so tired of playing sub-30fps games last gen. Don't want to put up with that this gen.
CadetMahoney
Member
When ppl say they prefer 60fps they don't mean "target 60" either but "locked 60" (as in no framedrops).
See past Tomb Raider discussions. If the framerate fluctuates up and down like a weather vane in a tornado the 60fps monicker is inappropriate and comes with a big stipulations even though they can say "60fps".
See past Tomb Raider discussions. If the framerate fluctuates up and down like a weather vane in a tornado the 60fps monicker is inappropriate and comes with a big stipulations even though they can say "60fps".
reptilescorpio
Member
Solid 30 is fine for me.
Variable 30 is irritating as fuck to me to the point where I'll put a game down.
Solid 60 is great.
Variable up to 60 gives me the shits, not as much as variable 30 but I find it distracting and annoying.
Keep your shit consistent game devs and I'll likely buy your game.
Variable 30 is irritating as fuck to me to the point where I'll put a game down.
Solid 60 is great.
Variable up to 60 gives me the shits, not as much as variable 30 but I find it distracting and annoying.
Keep your shit consistent game devs and I'll likely buy your game.