backbreaker65
Banned
60fps animations smooth not in Madden.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
60fps vs 30fps Backbone Thread: Pros vs. Cons
- Thread starter Goddard
- Start date
- Status
I can't.
I start noticing framerate dips under 15-20fps, not a inch before, even while trying to ascertain what's up.
For me, except in extremely competitive cases (MobA, Fightning Game, little else) where input lag is the razor's edge, 60fps is completey wasted.
My opinion is better than yours so you're wrong? Okay....
Only the incompetent ones? I would imagine the same holds true for any developer targeting 30 fps.
Most games that are locked to 30 and then ported to pc can run at 60 just fine. I am going to remove that bullet point.
Yup.
Almost everyone can see the difference. It is not a lost cause by any means.
Will do.
Publishers bullshitting consumers about the reasoning is why the debate is so big at the moment.
Nope.
People use invalid arguments, I never once said that preferring one or the other was wrong. Please read the whole thread before commenting.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
I disagree with the "incompetent devs" animating at 30 fps. First of all, the fundemental art of animation has always existed within the 24fps timecode, animating on 1's, 2's or even 3's. That is to say, a drawing held for 1 frame out of 24, or 2 frames out of 24, and so on. That aside, this mostly applies to 2D animation. CG provides a much easier environment to have a scalable framerate as long as the animation keys on the graph editor scale accordingly. While this is something that requires foresight and planning, I would not label any one deliberately animating in 24fps/30fps as incompetent. That is the timecode most animators learn on. A 60fps environment is exclusive to games, as well as something dictated by the game engine itself, not the other way around.
I think it should be readdressed. Before last generation I can't honestly think of a pc title that badly gimped. In light of various EA NFS titles or DR3 it's a valid point to bring up. I'm sure there are other examples but these are more recent ones to cite Devs being dumb and locking things down and forcing people to patch or use commands line to up both fps and ticrate is something that only benefits consumers that are aware. There has been clear intention from certain publisher/devs to just half ass ports at a rate we are seeing this pop up more than before.
Coolio that is a good idea I hope more devs look in to this generation.
It's videogame in the context of discussion they should be animating a certain way most certainly if the product is going to a platform where such performance is important. Not only that plenty of devs will before this issue cropped up have shown how you can have animation like you mentioned but have the games run 60fps or a ticrate of that. It is incompetence after a certain point to go the convenient/easier route of development only to run in to problems and expect consumers who are paying quite a pretty penny to accept it.
Its more like 3 times the amount power
"30fps is more cinematic." This was proven false on the basis that computer renderings and films of real life aren't even remotely comparable in any constructive way, and that the higher framerate goes the more cinematic things tend to feel for a lot of people.
60fps feels like a soap opera. Polar opposite of the point directly above, false for the same reason."
This is indeed a valid argument, but in no way is it in the realm of fact. This argument totally about preference and opinion.
I love Ground Zeroes but I hate the cinematics because of the 60fps, the shaky cam with the 60fps absolutely makes it less cinematic to my eyes, in my opinion. Notice the words mine, not yours. Metal gears shaky cam even gave me a headache the first time I watched it and I've had a heavy dose of shaky am videos.
Gameplay is fine in 60fps to my eyes but not the cinematics, and if I have that feeling about the cinematics, it wouldn't shock me if someone prefers the look of 30fps in gameplay. I like Tombraider in 30 & 60 and I do prefer the cinematic feel 30 has in that game, but I also don't have that same opinion about every game.
I get the soap opera argument too, because 60fps does remind me of the too smooth feel 60fps live action has.
This is perception, this is based on opinion, this trolling of someone's perceptions is asinine, because arguing perception and opinion on the cinematic side of things is impossible, it like arguing red is the best color
60fps feels like a soap opera. Polar opposite of the point directly above, false for the same reason."
This is indeed a valid argument, but in no way is it in the realm of fact. This argument totally about preference and opinion.
I love Ground Zeroes but I hate the cinematics because of the 60fps, the shaky cam with the 60fps absolutely makes it less cinematic to my eyes, in my opinion. Notice the words mine, not yours. Metal gears shaky cam even gave me a headache the first time I watched it and I've had a heavy dose of shaky am videos.
Gameplay is fine in 60fps to my eyes but not the cinematics, and if I have that feeling about the cinematics, it wouldn't shock me if someone prefers the look of 30fps in gameplay. I like Tombraider in 30 & 60 and I do prefer the cinematic feel 30 has in that game, but I also don't have that same opinion about every game.
I get the soap opera argument too, because 60fps does remind me of the too smooth feel 60fps live action has.
This is perception, this is based on opinion, this trolling of someone's perceptions is asinine, because arguing perception and opinion on the cinematic side of things is impossible, it like arguing red is the best color
You would be bullshitting yourself because the idea that 60fps feels like a soap opera is based off misinformation and inexperience. There is nothing preferable about 30fps besides the extra computational leeway.
Realtime gameplay and the avengers are not comparable, correct. I'm not going to address your whole post because it is misinformed, but I'll just leave you with this: The reason people think 30fps is more cinematic is because they know that movies usually run at 24fps. The problem with that logic is that a movie running at 24fps is far smoother than a game running at 30fps, because there are things you get while filming real life you don't get while rendering a game, like perfect motion blur.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
how so? honest question.
No. First of all: Cutscenes aren't games, they aren't interactive in any way, leave them out of this discussion. Second of all, it is not even a valid opinion. The idea that 30fps is more cinematic because it is closer to the framerate of movies is not an opinion but rather a misunderstanding of facts, so it is not to be taken for face value. This isn't trolling.
Lol this.
you've said that in literally every 30 vs 60 thread in the last week. It is fine to you, not to others, but this isn't an opinion thread. Also, even most is pretty wrong in my opinion. People are grossly underestimating the amount of games that run at 60fps.
If the only way you can hold your side of the argument is to call conspiracy, you don't actually have a real argument.
Michael Armbrust
Member
Did you even read my post?
Input lag is much more than just the length of a frame. The lag caused from the tv, controller, and game is much much longer than that. Switching to a better TV or just playing a game on PS4 verse PS3 will have a bigger impact on input lag. In the grand scheme of things, the input lag difference between a game at 30fps and a game at 60fps is trivial.
The cinematic argument is valid because the computer rendering is trying to replicate video. I don't even understand how you could think that was a logical response when depth of field, chromatic aberration, lens dust, lens flair, and HDR are all very popular game effects designed to replicate how cameras see the world, not how our eyes see the world.
Woh, nobody used the term "soap opera," I've known for years there was something "off" about the way things move with 60FPS compared to what I would see on TV. Hell, I often put my TV on MotionBlur settings. Even then though, I don't want 60FPS for everything.
I'm informed and fairly experienced. Is it so hard to belief people have different tastes, Dude?
Getting pretty defensive, aren't we?
Zombie James
Banned
Sixty frames per second is always ideal, but at the same time people like TotalBiscut who constantly harp on 30fps being an unplayable travesty are ridiculous.
I modified the OT to change "input lag" to "response time."
Also, that isn't the invalid argument. It can easily be argued that a higher level of graphical fidelity results in a more cinematic experience, but ever since TO1866 developer said that the framerate is more cinematic, people have been convinced that the framerate itself is more cinematic, which is a completely wrong.
Can I ask a dumb question:
I come from PC games, and last night I was playing TF2 with 299 frames per second most of the time (my system is good, and tf2 isn't very demanding). I could easily turn on vsync, I just haven't.
How come consoles try to focus on a specific FPS? Why don't they unlock the FPS and let it adjust based off of the rendering? Is screen tearing a serious issue for gamers?
Either way, it really depends on the game engine if 30 or 60 is required. I remember Crysis 1 ran extremely well around 30fps (and from what I remember reading, was actually targeted for that) while other games run like crap at 30fps.
Still, the PC gamer inside of me would like unlocked frames... screen tearing be damned!
I come from PC games, and last night I was playing TF2 with 299 frames per second most of the time (my system is good, and tf2 isn't very demanding). I could easily turn on vsync, I just haven't.
How come consoles try to focus on a specific FPS? Why don't they unlock the FPS and let it adjust based off of the rendering? Is screen tearing a serious issue for gamers?
Either way, it really depends on the game engine if 30 or 60 is required. I remember Crysis 1 ran extremely well around 30fps (and from what I remember reading, was actually targeted for that) while other games run like crap at 30fps.
Still, the PC gamer inside of me would like unlocked frames... screen tearing be damned!
Many people used the term soap opera actually. The idea that 60fps feels weird isn't taste. It's not even an opinion. It's either a strange defect, inexperience playing games at 60fps, or a heavily misinformed judgement.
Getting pretty aggressive, aren't we? Trying to call me out for apparently having an agenda. Lol.
I think your misinformed about tech and biological sense and perception.
I absolutely prefer TR at 30fps because it has a more cinematic feel TO ME.
This same debate has happened in film. People argued the 60fps was superior and screen tests showed overwhelming preference to 24fps. Despite your clamor ing the brain can absolutely make a distinction.
I edit film produced with different frame rates, I play games. Tombraider is much more immersive,to ME, at 30fps.
If you you can't understand sense and perception I'm sorry, people interpret sensory info differently I'm sorry. This same debate happened in film, and there are tech focused people that can't understand why people prefer lower frame rates in film. You can say they are technically different but it doesn't matter if the perceptual differences in fps are similar with the two media
I absolutely prefer TR at 30fps because it has a more cinematic feel TO ME.
This same debate has happened in film. People argued the 60fps was superior and screen tests showed overwhelming preference to 24fps. Despite your clamor ing the brain can absolutely make a distinction.
I edit film produced with different frame rates, I play games. Tombraider is much more immersive,to ME, at 30fps.
If you you can't understand sense and perception I'm sorry, people interpret sensory info differently I'm sorry. This same debate happened in film, and there are tech focused people that can't understand why people prefer lower frame rates in film. You can say they are technically different but it doesn't matter if the perceptual differences in fps are similar with the two media
Lol, i have read the thread and all i see is you trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
I just don't understand why both, at a locked frame rate, isn't acceptable?
Constantly feel like people are being forced to choose between things these days.
You answered your own question, Many people get their jimmies rustled by screen tearing (myself included.) Locked is always best imo. Even in Counter-Strike, which a lot of people disagree with me on.
The reason this debate only exists on console, and has already been solved for a very, very long time on PC is because on console you don't have a choice. You are forced into whatever the game comes out as.
If you can't name one you are farting into the wind, man.
No it hasn't. Film is not comparable. That's why I consider that argument invalid.
The term soap opera is understandable, it's not meant to be insulting, soaps are shot with a higher frame rate like a lot of things shot for TV only. It's just a perceptual similarity in smoothness and for some it feels too smooth like a soap.
People complained 48fps had too much of a soap feel when Peter Jackson initially tested the Hobbit to audiences
Muppet of a Man
Member
This thread could boil down to:
30 fps + nicer graphics
-OR-
60 fps + not as nice graphics
That's what it has always amounted to and will continue to amount to.
Publishers try to push the envelope to appeal to the graphics whores in us. They have market research in the console arena that suggests that pretty games sell well, even at expense of frame rate.
Thus, it is and always has been a cost-benefit tradeoff. Publishers want the game to look a certain way; once the devs and artists appease those needs, they try to optimize the game the best they can to reach the highest frame rate achievable while still maintaining the desired aesthetic.
30 fps + nicer graphics
-OR-
60 fps + not as nice graphics
That's what it has always amounted to and will continue to amount to.
Publishers try to push the envelope to appeal to the graphics whores in us. They have market research in the console arena that suggests that pretty games sell well, even at expense of frame rate.
Thus, it is and always has been a cost-benefit tradeoff. Publishers want the game to look a certain way; once the devs and artists appease those needs, they try to optimize the game the best they can to reach the highest frame rate achievable while still maintaining the desired aesthetic.
It's that kind of thinking that ruins games for people that believe gameplay takes precedence over graphics, which is why the debate is ongoing.
Double the headway for computation isn't a benefit?
Console games run either at 30 or 60fps because televisions most commonly refresh at 60hz or higher multiples of 60. Ideally your framerate is the same as your display's refresh rate. If not, you generally want exactly half of that so there is an even framerate. If you take anything between 30 and 60 movement will not be as consistent. It's pretty obvious why we won't want to go lower than 30.
Having your game run at 299fps will show the same amount of frames as what your display's refresh rate is set at, except the frames are torn. Getting it locked to your refresh rate would benefit you unless your method introduces latency.
I'm aware of the term, I just haven't used it.
Been playing games for almost a quarter of a century so suffice to say I'm familiar with a wide range of frame rates. Very familiar with 60FPS, I'm not saying its a negative at all. To me though, it looks videogamey, there isn't anything wrong with that, its not a negative, but it is the most "videogamey" of frame rates. I'm glad more and more people are going with 60FPS with high octane titles, but the truth is, I don't need it with slower titles like The Order or Uncharted. The Order in particular has gone to great lengths to try to visually mimic films, having 60FPS would be a constant reminder of it being a game. Like I said, its not a negative, but I don't think that's what they are looking to do.
But now your calling me defective because I don't agree with your absolutionism?
Also, don't take gifs too seriously
Yeah, some people hate change.
But, games aren't movies or animation. The illusion of motion is improved with a higher refresh rate and frame rate. The benefits start to drop off around 90.
Illusion of motion during movement, and less blur.
Muppet of a Man
Member
You don't get it; sure, in absolute terms and in isolation, a higher frame rate is always better for video games. But you have to consider what you are losing to achieve that higher frame rate. Sometimes the loss of graphics fidelity is just too high for what the game is trying to achieve.
I'm not sure that 120 better than 60 is logic.
At some point you would rather have higher graphical fidelity than trying to hit 120fps.
Any game can hit any FPS you want... but having 120fps with terrible fidelity would be a horrible gaming experience.
This seems to be like an unfavorable position here, but I would think the devs know best and hopefully create the game to match what they want to portray.
It's not insulting it's just wrong. You have are a member of the film industry, you should know better than anyone else in this thread why video game framerates and film framerates aren't comparable. The argument you are using is invalid, frames of real life are like little sections of time, frames of a video game are exact points in time, the ratio of how many frames per second you have to how smooth the video looks in film is waaay higher than it is in video games.
The whole point of this thread is to expand upon that.
Interficium
Banned
I love that even in this carefully-worded, well-thought-out, and well-researched bullet-pointed OP there's still a "lazy devs" bullet point.
Embarassing.
Embarassing.
There is no opinion beyond that. If its 60fps vs 30fps and the graphics were the same, 60fps is always better. Its a fact that is not debatable so i don't know what you're trying to achieve by attempting to debate a fact.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Every piece of hardware runs up against limitations, even the high-end hardware. Everything is relative. Last gen hardware could have created that vast majority of games with 60 fps. It would just have come at the expense of the fidelity of the graphics. The same thing happens with high end hardware.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Its pretty clear OP is on the 60fps >>> 30fps train of thought, despite any veiled attempts at objectivity.
Ok lets take the PS4 for example.
MGS5 is an open world game at 1080p/60fps with beautiful graphics.
Exactly what extra effects could possibly justify losing half the framerate?
This is a debate that is anchored to hardware limitations.
I'm aware of the term, I just haven't used it.
Been playing games for almost a quarter of a century so suffice to say I'm familiar with a wide range of frame rates. Very familiar with 60FPS, I'm not saying its a negative at all. To me though, it looks videogamey, there isn't anything wrong with that, its not a negative, but it is the most "videogamey" of frame rates. I'm glad more and more people are going with 60FPS with high octane titles, but the truth is, I don't need it with slower titles like The Order or Uncharted. The Order in particular has gone to great lengths to try to visually mimic films, having 60FPS would be a constant reminder of it being a game. Like I said, its not a negative, but I don't think that's what they are looking to do.
But now your calling me defective because I don't agree with your absolutionism?
Also, don't take gifs too seriously
You modified your argument from basically "60fps looks like a soap opera (paraphrased obviously)" to "some games can benefit from the tradeoff." Your second version is obviously a lot more logical and isn't controversial at all. Also, your old argument fit more into the category of "heavily misinformed judgement," there were three categories, lol.
I'm aware of the term, I just haven't used it.
Been playing games for almost a quarter of a century so suffice to say I'm familiar with a wide range of frame rates. Very familiar with 60FPS, I'm not saying its a negative at all. To me though, it looks videogamey, there isn't anything wrong with that, its not a negative, but it is the most "videogamey" of frame rates. I'm glad more and more people are going with 60FPS with high octane titles, but the truth is, I don't need it with slower titles like The Order or Uncharted. The Order in particular has gone to great lengths to try to visually mimic films, having 60FPS would be a constant reminder of it being a game. Like I said, its not a negative, but I don't think that's what they are looking to do.
But now your calling me defective because I don't agree with your absolutionism?
Also, don't take gifs too seriously
Best thing to do is walk away, the Internet's magic keeps people from understanding people have different perceptions and points of view.
- Status