Support NeoGAF

[AstroNut325]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

 

[LastNac]

I have never liked this line of thought. How does very smooth motion not increase immersion more than better looking foliage?



From claiming that 30fps itself has artistic merit to claiming that artists can have a vision, lol. You haven't really expanded you have just changed the argument. Saying that a developer might chose 30fps because of an inherent property of 30fps that makes it better besides just the graphical leeway and then saying that it's just the graphical leeway is a pretty big move.

30FPS is a tool, it's how someone uses a toll that determines the end result. I reiterate, if someone sets out and wants to generate the feeling of playing a movie, they have every right to select 30FPS over 60FPS due to the motion not being that "videogamey" in contrast.

My narrative on the matter hasn't changed.

 

[SapientWolf]

I think my take on 30fps versus 60 is a bit different than other people's. I've never been all that sensitive to input lag. I can tell a difference of course but it's the clarity of motion and fluidity of animation that I think makes 60fps preferable. 30fps is completely acceptable for me but I definitely consider 60 to be ideal.

I've felt that 30fps is worth it for games that can utilize the extra detail to immerse you in the environment and setting through the extra fidelity when that was important to the game's experience but, if ND pulls off Uncharted looking like that trailer at 60fps, I'm going to be FAR more critical of 30fps in linear titles. Open world games, just due to the sheer processing power required to make them feel populated, I expect to remain mostly 30. I just hope they are consistent 30 and not the mess they got to be at the end of last gen.

I say this in every framerate thread, but it's worth repeating. 30fps blurs the shit out of the graphics. People don't notice because they don't have 120hz blur reduction monitors to compare it to.

 

[Goddard]

There can never be a general consensus to the that question because its simply comes down to preference so i don't know what the OP is trying to accomplish. An opinion or preference cannot become a fact and vice versa in this scenario.

Did you even read the thread title? I am not trying to prove anything, I am compiling a list of things that I think accurately represent the difference between 30fps and 60fps in gaming, and inviting people to challenge my points or offer some of their own. It's not like I am the king of the debate or something, lol. The debate will continue on forever regardless, however having an anchor to use whenever someone uses a fallacy to prove their point is very constructive in my opinion.

reread my edited posts for hopefully further clarification. i can see where they are coming from because generally videogames dont have accurate motion blur, while film does. So 24/30fps videogames will look stuttery compared to a real life motion blured 24fps film. 60fps gets us closer to the fluidness of 24fps film.
But if that game had real accurate motion blur with photorealstic rendering at24/30fps it would generally come off as more photoreal than a the same game done with no motion blur and at 60fps game. But the opposite would be true if it were all done in VR.

Obviously I am only strictly talking about photorealsim and if that is what you want to achieve.

The thing is at this point in time that the Next gen consoles (still calling them next gen btw, current gen is still confusing to me,) is that even at 1fps they probably couldn't achieve the kind of motion blur you get from filming real life, it is extremely challenging, and ultimately pointless because instead of just trying to recreate motion blur you could be just flat out recreating motion by adding more frames per second, because without motion blur you never really hit the uncanny valley in video games, or at least not because of the framerate itself.

 

[RoboPlato]

I have never liked this line of thought. How does very smooth motion not increase immersion more than better looking foliage?

If the characters and world look more detailed they can be easier to relate to. There's also things like advanced destructibility and AI that can have a dramatic impact on gameplay that may be too taxing for 60fps. I'm also talking exclusively about console games. If I was on PC I would be aiming for 60 all the time.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I have never liked this line of thought. How does very smooth motion not increase immersion more than better looking foliage?
.

They are 2 separate aspects of immersion--both contribute but in different ways. You are not going to get a consensus here on which is better, and you never will.

 

[Derekloffin]

I am not denying diminishing returns, nor am I actually actively arguing for 60fps, nor am I forcing opinions or feelings, the inability to see the difference between to 60fps and 30fps as if there is very little difference at all is just plain absurd, anybody who can see the difference (which is to say, the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what the difference is,) will know how big the difference is, trying to say that there is little to know difference, or that there is massive diminishing returns between 30 and 60 (there isn't,) simply serves to dilute and derail the argument, so whether or not someone actually can't see the difference doesn't matter, the argument is between the pros and cons listed, which most people have agreed on, not "people who can see the difference vs people who can."

Unless you have a scientific study that has a good estimate of the gaming population's assigned actual worth of 60 fps vs 30 fps, please stop with the generalizations. You are attributing properties of one type of gamer to all which is plain and simple false. While there are studies to show we can see the difference, there is none that I know of that assign any worth to that difference across the gaming population.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

I prefer that. If that option existed I would probably play more console games.

 

[NeoGeoOwner]

I want my elite games in elite 60fps. Everything else can stay away from my console. Sorry, developers. The honeymoon period is over. Life starts now. The era of 60fps starts now. Everything else is not accepted. We need to make this one clear. 60fps or bust. Developers need to react and work on that stuff. NO MORE HONEYMOON.

NO MORE HONEYMOON.

Yours,

Franck

 

[RoboPlato]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

Optimizing around multiple performance targets would be a huge pain for developers and take away several of the benefits of focusing on a single platform.

I say this in every framerate thread, but it's worth repeating. 30fps blurs the shit out of the graphics. People don't notice because they don't have 120hz blur reduction monitors to compare it to.

Did you mean to bold that sentence or the ones I wrote before it?

 

[Goddard]

30FPS is a tool, it's how someone uses a toll that determines the end result. I reiterate, if someone sets out and wants to generate the feeling of playing a movie, they have every right to select 30FPS over 60FPS due to the motion not being that "videogamey" in contrast.

My narrative on the matter hasn't changed.

That's wrong though. As long as you aren't trying to recreate visual effects of movies with things like artificial motion blur, the higher the framerate gets the more similar it is to the 24fps of movies, because the framerate to smoothness ratio is an order of magnitude higher in movies than it is in video games. Another important thing to consider is that even trying to recreate the motion blur that comes with filming real life at 24fps is completely counterproductive in a video game because video games are an inherently interactive medium, and the lower the framerate you go the worse the interactive aspects of the game are, which, when coupled with the fact that games actually get more similar to movies at higher framerates, and they play better too, there is literally no good logical reason to cap framerates when trying to emulate movies unless all you want to do is add more effects that make it come closer to photorealism. "Video gamey" is a good thing in video games, lol.

 

[a916]

Well there's your problem:

Incompetent programmers only have to animate half as much

 

[cakefoo]

I asked you a question. The point in the OP might not be worded correctly, I don't really know, but the difference between receiving a new frame ever 16.67 milliseconds vs ever 33.33 milliseconds is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important aspects of the difference between 60fps and 30fps, if you want me to word it better so it makes more sense, go for it, but if you want me to remove it as if it is not real you are insane man.

Games typically have 64-160ms of lag. 16ms is 10-25% less lag, not 50%.

 

[barrok]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

Sounds like PC gaming is more down your alley.

This is also one of the things that I miss coming from PC gaming. Why is the developer determining the graphical settings, why can't it?

In fact some of my favorite parts of a particular game (Farcry 2 and Crysis 1 for example) were tweaking the settings to get really good frames + have the game look fantastic.

 

[LastNac]

Yeah, ok it's nice that you feel that way, you're just completely wrong. Framerate is temporal resolution. Clarity of motion is a consequence of your eyes receiving more visual data, in a completely equatable sense to 1080p giving your eyes more visual information than 720p.



Well I'm glad that you aren't in charge of creating any visual cinematic experiences. Videogames are meant to immerse, not detach. Low framerate in movies only manages to also facilitate a level of immersion because you don't have input.

Wrong, eh?

Oh look, another guy throwing down another grand generalization about what videogames "should be." Immersion, my friend, is more than just frame rate. You probably think VR is automatically more immersive just because you put the headset on.


Pfft, talk to me about what immersion is, as if there is one specific answer that you are beheld to exclusively?


Give me a break.

 

[AstroNut325]

Sounds like PC gaming is more down your alley.

This is also one of the things that I miss coming from PC gaming. Why is the developer determining the graphical settings, why can't it?

In fact some of my favorite parts of a particular game (Farcry 2 and Crysis 1 for example) were tweaking the settings to get really good frames + have the game look fantastic.

I do game on the PC. Which is why I would want a 60fps option in console games.

 

[SapientWolf]

Did you mean to bold that sentence or the ones I wrote before it?

No, it's harder for me to get immersed in all that nice extra detail when I'm looking at a blurry mess. It almost washes out. Of course, I'm hyper sensitive to it now after getting used to my current setup.

 

[majik13]

Did you even read the thread title? I am not trying to prove anything, I am compiling a list of things that I think accurately represent the difference between 30fps and 60fps in gaming, and inviting people to challenge my points or offer some of their own. It's not like I am the king of the debate or something, lol. The debate will continue on forever regardless, however having an anchor to use whenever someone uses a fallacy to prove their point is very constructive in my opinion.



The thing is at this point in time that the Next gen consoles (still calling them next gen btw, current gen is still confusing to me,) is that even at 1fps they probably couldn't achieve the kind of motion blur you get from filming real life, it is extremely challenging, and ultimately pointless because instead of just trying to recreate motion blur you could be just flat out recreating motion by adding more frames per second, because without motion blur you never really hit the uncanny valley in video games, or at least not because of the framerate itself.

true, but there are many cinematic/filmic games that dont have continous amounts of action or movement. So in a lot of these games motion blur doesnt fully come into play or is not that necasarry. And objects are generally not close up to the camera where motion blur would be most pronounced. So the main thing someone would notice in these instances is just the framerate discrepency and the higher framerate has the subconsicne effect of making something feel more digital/cheap and non photoreal. So i think these photorealistic games presentation would benifit more in 30fps than having it at 60fps.

basically this general consesus is this The Hobbit Feels Like A Video Game. That's Not A Good Thing.

and this general verdict http://www.eoshd.com/content/9357

a live acion film looking like a videogame or some cheap soap opera. Partly because of a high frame rate.

 

[AmyS]

I just hope PlayStation 5 has enough performance to do most games @ native 4K Ultra HD | 30fps, and some games @ 60fps, if developers choose to do so.

Not unlike how the majority of 360/PS3 games were 720p|30fps (native 720p or sub-HD or otherwise).
*Some* games last gen were native 1080p|30fps and a small handful were native 1080p|60fps (i.e. PS3 Ridge Racer 7).

Obviously 8K Ultra HD, which needs 16 times the pixels that 1080p needs and 4 times the pixels of 4K, is totally completely absolutely out of the fucking question for PS5-era consoles. 8K panels / TVs don't even exist yet in the consumer market. Only multi-million dollar prototypes (i.e. CES 2014). There isn't even yet a PC game that can be run at 8K resolution. So 8K console games won't happen until a generation *after* the PS5 gen.

There's no doubt Mark Cerny is doing calculations in his head figuring out what in-development future silicon from AMD (or even others like Nvidia) might be good enough for 4K gaming at 30 fps (and vs) 60 fps, that is both highly power-efficient, and suitable to a $399 game console, and for near the end of this decade.

 

[Goddard]

They are 2 separate aspects of immersion--both contribute but in different ways. You are not going to get a consensus here on which is better, and you never will.

No one in this thread is looking for a consensus. Stop pretending we are.

If the characters and world look more detailed they can be easier to relate to. There's also things like advanced destructibility and AI that can have a dramatic impact on gameplay that may be too taxing for 60fps. I'm also talking exclusively about console games. If I was on PC I would be aiming for 60 all the time.

That is a good point.

Unless you have a scientific study that has a good estimate of the gaming population's assigned actual worth of 60 fps vs 30 fps, please stop with the generalizations. You are attributing properties of one type of gamer to all which is plain and simple false. While there are studies to show we can see the difference, there is none that I know of that assign any worth to that difference across the gaming population.

I am not assigning arbitrary worth to everyone on either side of the argument. But, the generalization is extremely important here, because the majority of people that are arguing for either side, especially the developers themselves, can see the difference and understand that it has a massive impact on gameplay, even if you deny it has a massive impact on visual smoothness. you have every right to believe that there is barely any real world difference and that there is no point in going for 60 fps, but if you really don't see a difference you don't have a very educated opinion, nevertheless one that is neutral on the subject, so there is no point in arguing an extremely niche opinion. I am not trying to use everyone as a scapegoat to support a side of the argument I prefer, the points are pretty much all either cold hard facts are things that are treated as universal truth by people partaking in the debate. If you can prove that they are neither of those, I will modify the post, but for the time being I think they aren't too broad sweeping, and aren't incorrect.

I want my elite games in elite 60fps. Everything else can stay away from my console. Sorry, developers. The honeymoon period is over. Life starts now. The era of 60fps starts now. Everything else is not accepted. We need to make this one clear. 60fps or bust. Developers need to react and work on that stuff. NO MORE HONEYMOON.

NO MORE HONEYMOON.

Yours,

Franck

Not really sure who you are making fun of here. There isn't a lot of elitism in this thread.

 

[ichtyander]

Anyone who actually prefers the feel of 30fps itself, without even considering the benefits of graphical leeway or more complex calculations, just the feel of 30fps is either heavily misinformed or insane in my book. The only think more cinematic about 30fps is that there is more room for photorealism.

I think you're being a bit drastic in your reply by calling people who prefer 30 fps as insane, but I can understand your point of view. Certainly, I prefer playing in 60fps but I can appreciate the look and feel of 30fps, just as I can appreciate the look and feel of a silent movie or a stop motion animated movie compared to standard 24fps Pixar CG flicks. Just saying that I can totally see a future where 120fps is the standard but still have a number of devs go for 30fps for nostalgic and artistic reasons.

I guess I should've focused on this bullet point, although it's an extension of what I mentioned earlier:

"30fps is an artistic choice." Again this one is an extension of the idea that it is more cinematic, which is false, but 30fps is a compromise made to increase the room for graphical processing, there is no inherent benefit to 30fps compared to 60fps besides this.

You can argue that developers saying The Order: 1886 playing at 30fps is purely an artistic choice is bullshit but it can very well be one. Any technical alteration to the visual end result can be an artistic choice.

 

[BONKERS]

"List of arguments known to be invalid:"

OK. So people aren't allowed to have different opinions then.

So this thread is pretty much circle jerking
Smoothest performance. Or better graphics.


You are trying to rationalize your own opinions for why things you don't get are invalid.


With 24FPS film, when displayed in a theater, there is a great amount of motion blurring between frames even on the best display projection technology. And there is a certain cadence to the pacing of the frames that makes it feel cinematic.

It may NOT TO YOU. But it does to A LOT of people.


30FPS on current display technology has a similar cadence to the pacing of frames, and by the time it reaches your display and the display panel is creating motion blur of it's own thanks to similar lack of unique frames vs display refresh and sample and hold blur among others, in addition to many times post processing motion blur.

It DOES feel similar.


And it is CERTAINLY a VALID argument to be made. Just because you don't agree or try to rationalize some explanation that it's not. Does not make it absolutely so.


It just makes you look like an arrogant bigot who doesn't understand different perspectives.


This is coming from someone who widly priorities 60+FPS in a lot of games when I personally feel it's needed. Which it is A LOT.

 

[Nemmy]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

No.

If there's one thing I like about playing on console, it's that I play the game the way it was optimized and meant to look. Given how many games are 30 fps on the box cover only with frequent <25 dips, and how 60 fps is usually oscillating between 40 and 55, I don't want to see pretty looking trailers and screenshots only to discover I need to deal with 20fps for that, or otherwise I'll get a PS2-looking game because "that was the only way we could get 60fps!".
Let's not kid ourselves that both versions would be optimized properly, this stuff costs money and time.

What I'd actually like to see are the options to turn off motion blur and/or adjust the FOV, but that's for different reasons completely.

 

[Goddard]

Games typically have 64-160ms of lag. 16ms is 10-25% less lag, not 50%.

There is more to the difference that just input lag.

Wrong, eh?

Oh look, another guy throwing down another grand generalization about what videogames "should be." Immersion, my friend, is more than just frame rate. You probably think VR is automatically more immersive just because you put the headset on.


Pfft, talk to me about what immersion is, as if there is one specific answer that you are beheld to exclusively?


Give me a break.

Providing a counterbalance to one side of an argument always has some value, but you are wording your counterarguments in a way that is just setting everyone's pants on fire, this is more of a list thread than an opinion thread, I would ask that you try to stop antagonizing people, and if you don't have any greater point to just post in a different thread. EDIT: I read that over and it looks like I'm just trying to silence you, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that having an argument about what "games are about" is way, way farther reaching than this thread is supposed to be.

true, but there are many cinematic/filmic games that dont have continous amounts of action or movement. So in a lot of these games motion blur doesnt fully come into play or is not that necasarry. And objects are generally not close up to the camera where motion blur would be most pronounced. So the main thing someone would notice in these instances is just the framerate discrepency and the higher framerate has the subconsicne effect of making something feel more digital/cheap and non photoreal.

basically this general consesus is this The Hobbit Feels Like A Video Game. That's Not A Good Thing.

and this general verdict http://www.eoshd.com/content/9357

a live acion film looking like a videogame or some cheap soap opera. Partly because of a high frame rate.

Your posts are quite logical, given the amount and the accuracy of the information you are basing your thoughts off of, but as I, and many others have pointed out before, The Hobbit at HFR looking cheap is so wildly and fundamentally different, even to the point where it challenged human psychology of how we perceive things, that it really is not comparable to video games in any meaningful way.

 

[cakefoo]

That's wrong though. As long as you aren't trying to recreate visual effects of movies with things like artificial motion blur, the higher the framerate gets the more similar it is to the 24fps of movies, because the framerate to smoothness ratio is an order of magnitude higher in movies than it is in video games.

framerate to smoothness ratio came out your ass, and 30fps games often do have motion blur, especially ones that openly attempt a cinematic feel.

Another important thing to consider is that even trying to recreate the motion blur that comes with filming real life at 24fps is completely counterproductive in a video game because video games are an inherently interactive medium, and the lower the framerate you go the worse the interactive aspects of the game are

This varies in weight depending on how a particular game is paced. For instance, a lot of people find 30fps ok for arcade racers, but need 60fps for sims.

which, when coupled with the fact that games actually get more similar to movies at higher framerates

This "fact" came out your asshole. Movies are filmed at 24fps with a 1/48 second shutter speed. To my eye any 30fps video regardless of shutter speed runs noticeably faster than a 24fps 1/48 film. It's insane to suggest that 60fps games look more like film than 30fps games.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I have said for a long time now that 60 fps looks fake in 1st & 3rd person games where you move the camera around a lot, like shooters. Play CoD and move the camera, every object on the screen is static when you move around. Now move your head back and forth in real life, nothing is static, it's all blurred. In CoD it's all stationary and fake looking. Motion blur doesn't fix it for most of the games because it still looks fake at 60.

60 fps for sports games and fighting games is important, though.

 

[Goddard]

framerate to smoothness ratio came out your ass, and 30fps games often do have motion blur, especially ones that openly attempt a cinematic feel.

This varies in weight depending on how a particular game is paced. For instance, a lot of people find 30fps ok for arcade racers, but need 60fps for sims.

This "fact" came out your asshole. Movies are filmed at 24fps with a 1/48 second shutter speed. To my eye any 30fps video regardless of shutter speed runs noticeably faster than a 24fps 1/48 film.

The ratio did not come out of my ass, lol. It is simply logic. As some people with a greater understanding than myself have pointed out long before I started this thread, games running at 60fps without any motion blur tend to look a lot more like movies shot at 24fps than a game running at 30fps with some artificial motion blur placed in. The point is though that because things tend to get more immersive the higher the framerate gets, and gameplay gets better the higher the framerate gets, there is literally no good reason to try and cap at 30 if your goal is to emulate the look of movies.

 

[Lightning4Ever]

People over-exaggerate when it comes to 30fps from what I've seen.

Would I rather play a game at 60fps? Of course.

Is a game at 30fps unplayable? Not even close.

 

[Goddard]

I have said for a long time now that 60 fps looks fake in 1st & 3rd person games where you move the camera around a lot, like shooters. Play CoD and move the camera, every object on the screen is static when you move around. Now move your head back and forth in real life, nothing is static, it's all blurred. In CoD it's all stationary and fake looking. Motion blur doesn't fix it for most of the games because it still looks fake at 60.

60 fps for sports games and fighting games is important, though.

Your post doesn't have a point.

 

[Goddard]

People over-exaggerate when it comes to 30fps from what I've seen.

Would I rather play a game at 60fps? Of course.

Is a game at 30fps unplayable? Not even close.

People tend to exaggerate both ways, that's why I made this thread. "60fps is way more than necessary and doesn't make any difference." "30fps is a fucking slideshow and is completely unplayable" both of those are invalid in my opinion and that's why I wrote them both down as invalid in the OT.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Your post doesn't have a point.

?

 

[majik13]

There is more to the difference that just input lag.



Providing a counterbalance to one side of an argument always has some value, but you are wording your counterarguments in a way that is just setting everyone's pants on fire, this is more of a list thread than an opinion thread, I would ask that you try to stop antagonizing people, and if you don't have any greater point to just post in a different thread. EDIT: I read that over and it looks like I'm just trying to silence you, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that having an argument about what "games are about" is way, way farther reaching than this thread is supposed to be.



Your posts are quite logical, given the amount and the accuracy of the information you are basing your thoughts off of, but as I, and many others have pointed out before, The Hobbit at HFR looking cheap is so wildly and fundamentally different, even to the point where it challenged human psychology of how we perceive things, that it really is not comparable to video games in any meaningful way.

many games look to and are inspired by films, whether we like it or not. And licenses cross between he mediums all the time. So I think they are comparable in a meaningful way. Also all computer graphics rendering is based on whether it is photorealistic rendering or not. So if you are going for realism with your renders/presentation you need to considered the qualities of film. (Edit: besides maybe DOF, but is fundmentally different)
Not just framerate, this goes for Lens Flares, grain, DOF, motion blur, chromatic aberration, frame rate, etc. All these things are added in games to make them seem more real, and they all are strictly related to camera and film qualities. They dont exist in real life to our naked eye
Again wether we like it or not. i will say that many games and developers over use, or over rely on these effects to their own detriment, or are not acurently used because of processing power.

Ill agree that most of these have no "meaningful relation" to gameplay though. But in some instances they can help gameplay when used wisely.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

No one in this thread is looking for a consensus. Stop pretending we are.

You were the one looking for consensus with your question, were you not?

I have never liked this line of thought. How does very smooth motion not increase immersion more than better looking foliage?

 

[cakefoo]

The ratio did not come out of my ass, lol. It is simply logic. As some people with a greater understanding than myself have pointed out long before I started this thread, games running at 60fps without any motion blur tend to look a lot more like movies shot at 24fps than a game running at 30fps with some artificial motion blur placed in. The point is though that because things tend to get more immersive the higher the framerate gets, and gameplay gets better the higher the framerate gets, there is literally no good reason to try and cap at 30 if your goal is to emulate the look of movies.

I don't care who said it, it's objectively false. You can't get a more cinematic motion by targeting a framerate FURTHER from film's frame-rate.

 

[Derekloffin]

I am not assigning arbitrary worth to everyone on either side of the argument. But, the generalization is extremely important here, because the majority of people that are arguing for either side, especially the developers themselves, can see the difference and understand that it has a massive impact on gameplay, even if you deny it has a massive impact on visual smoothness. you have every right to believe that there is barely any real world difference and that there is no point in going for 60 fps, but if you really don't see a difference you don't have a very educated opinion, nevertheless one that is neutral on the subject, so there is no point in arguing an extremely niche opinion. I am not trying to use everyone as a scapegoat to support a side of the argument I prefer, the points are pretty much all either cold hard facts are things that are treated as universal truth by people partaking in the debate. If you can prove that they are neither of those, I will modify the post, but for the time being I think they aren't too broad sweeping, and aren't incorrect.

You mean, they are "universal truths" or "cold hard facts" to the people you don't out of hand reject?! And you say I'm generalizing when in fact you have set a self fulfilling requirement to enter the debate?!

I'll repeat, come up with some scientific research that measure worth, so stop speaking for in generalizations.

 

[Goddard]

?

many games look to and are inspired by films, whether we like it or not. And licenses cross between he mediums all the time. So I think they are comparable in a meaningful way. Also all computer graphics rendering is based on whether it is photorealistic rendering or not. So if you are going for realism with your renders/presentation you need to considered the qualities of film.
Not just framerate, this goes for Lens Flares, grain, DOF, motion blur, chromatic aberration, etc. All these things are added in games to make them seem more real, and they all are strictly related to camera and film qualities.
Again wether we like it or not. i will say that many games and developers iver use this effects to their own detriment, or are not acurently used because of processing power.

Ill agree that most of these have no "meaningful relation" to gameplay though. But in some instances they can help gameplay when used wisely.

There are some decent points to be made about adding some similarities if you are trying to make a film into a game while maintaining the main characteristics of the film's look, however I think the overarching subject is kind of silly honestly. Even the greatest of films would probably make shitty games, and it is just generally not an optimal thing to do. If you're trying to do something that is hilariously inoptimal, like port a film into a game as closely as possible, sure there are better ways to do it than others, but overall it's still going to be very inaccurate after all is said and done, so I don't really see any value in trying to recreate it, never mind including those aspects into the general discussion of 30fps vs 60fps. Often the decision has literally nothing to do with filmic look whatsoever, that's only really being brought up because of The Order. For example Skyrim was locked to 30fps because despite not having impressive graphics it was trying to do a shit load at once.

 

[Nemmy]

I have said for a long time now that 60 fps looks fake in 1st & 3rd person games where you move the camera around a lot, like shooters. Play CoD and move the camera, every object on the screen is static when you move around. Now move your head back and forth in real life, nothing is static, it's all blurred. In CoD it's all stationary and fake looking. Motion blur doesn't fix it for most of the games because it still looks fake at 60.

60 fps for sports games and fighting games is important, though.

30fps is not blurred though, it's choppy. Moving my head in real life is not choppy, it's smooth. Also our eyes doing the blurring are fundamentally different from the image being blurred in the first place - which is why motion blur causes nausea in some people, but moving their head doesn't.

Besides, when playing a shooter, I want to be able to see my surroundings as clearly as possible while moving the camera. Whether or not it is "fake looking" doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Freeman]

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.

So I can't say its fine, but other people can say it isn't? It's fine most of the time, it wasn't a big problem or bullet point in the past, I guarantee most of those who complain and act like 30fps is disgusting like a lot of games that are 30fps.

 

[Sentenza]

60 fps cons: it's not 120 fps.

 

[Goddard]

You were the one looking for consensus with your question, were you not?

No. I was just posing a counter-argument to plato's suggestion that 30fps heightens immersion. It was more or less rhetorical.

I don't care who said it, it's objectively false. You can't get a more cinematic motion by targeting a framerate FURTHER from film's frame-rate.

You don't understand the difference between film framerate and video game framerate then. There is literally no water to your statement whatsoever.

You mean, they are "universal truths" or "cold hard facts" to the people you don't out of hand reject?! And you say I'm generalizing when in fact you have set a self fulfilling requirement to enter the debate?!

I'll repeat, come up with some scientific research that measure worth, so stop speaking for in generalizations.

There are absolutely requirements to enter the debate. You can't have a debate about evolution vs creationism if the creationist thinks that a monkey had a baby one day and it was a human. Same applies here, if you don't understand both sides of the debate, you aren't debating you are mudslinging, and that's why your opinion is invalid if you literally cannot see any difference between 30 and 60, in context of this debate. You on the other hand are arguing as if I am claiming that everyone values the difference the same way, which I am obviously not, because anybody who prefers 30fps probably doesn't feel personally that the difference between 30 and 60 is big enough to warrant sacrificing the graphics they are used to, but most of them can absolutely see the difference.

 

[Lambda Pie]

Is there anyone else who would prefer a FPS selector in console games? Choose between 30 and 60 fps. And I don't mean just unlocking the framerate. I mean... selecting 60fps deducts the graphical settings, resolution, ect... to have consistent 60fps.

this suggestion never makes sense.

there's already hardware that allows you too chose framerate and level of detail in your games.

 

[Goddard]

So I can't say its fine, but other people can say it isn't? It's fine most of the time, it wasn't a big problem or bullet point in the past, I guarantee most of those who complain and act like 30fps is disgusting like a lot of games that are 30fps.

Most of the people that claim 30fps is disgusting are using hyperbole, and not in the neogaf sense of hyperbole which is apparently a very strong very offensive opinion, but in the actual literal sense of the word which is a huge exaggeration that is not meant to be taken seriously, thus they probably don't actually think 30fps is disgusting, they probably just dislike it. The ones who aren't using hyperbole are probably just using an invalid argument, an invalid argument that I have listed in the "invalid arguments" section of the OT. Again, most games are not slowly paced over the shoulder narrative based third person shooters, that is simply not true. "It's fine" is not a bullet point for a good thing of 30fps.

60 fps cons: it's not 120 fps.

 

[Goddard]

this suggestion never makes sense.

there's already hardware that allows you too chose framerate and level of detail in your games.

Honestly I agree with you, I find it pretty funny at times, as if the PS4 and XBone are just heavily subsidized PCs. That would completely defeat the purpose of a box where everyone's experience is the same.

 

[HTupolev]

You don't understand the difference between film framerate and video game framerate then. There is literally no water to your statement whatsoever.

There really is.

Motion blur in films is distinguished from motion blur in games by various subtleties, but the idea that it somehow makes motion look astronomically less choppy runs completely counter to all my experiences. Motion blur can help the brain more easily distinguish motion vectors, but the temporal chop is generally hardly mitigated at all. A wide pan in 24fps films if anything tends to look less smooth than a wide pan in a 30fps game, even one which uses no MB.

 

[LastNac]

That's wrong though. As long as you aren't trying to recreate visual effects of movies with things like artificial motion blur, the higher the framerate gets the more similar it is to the 24fps of movies, because the framerate to smoothness ratio is an order of magnitude higher in movies than it is in video games. Another important thing to consider is that even trying to recreate the motion blur that comes with filming real life at 24fps is completely counterproductive in a video game because video games are an inherently interactive medium, and the lower the framerate you go the worse the interactive aspects of the game are, which, when coupled with the fact that games actually get more similar to movies at higher framerates, and they play better too, there is literally no good logical reason to cap framerates when trying to emulate movies unless all you want to do is add more effects that make it come closer to photorealism. "Video gamey" is a good thing in video games, lol.

How is it wrong, even mathematically 6 is a smaller gap than 36.

Trust me, I get that games are interactive and I love them for that aspect. Let me use Uncharted 3 as an example, I'm a huge UC3, really the only thing that has ever fulfilled that wish of wanting to "play a movie." I've seen the 60FPS video of the desert that was released and I don't like it at all. There is something more layered about the 60FPS video, it's almost as if Drake stands out amongst the environment as opposed to being there. It feels "off" to me, maybe its because UC3 wasn't developed with 60FPS in mind and that the video is a conversion. Maybe my mind will change when I see it implemented better.

I do know that I have played the Order and my enjoyment of what I played was not hindered or handicapped by 30FPS. Trust me, if/when you see it in person you'll see how dedicated they were to trying to recreate the visual sense of a movie9 (CGI film as a better comparison). The focus was not how fluid the character moved, objects, moved, etc. With it being 60FPS, the character didn't visually stand out.

Things seemed to mesh better overall. I'm not saying 30FPS is inherently better, I'm just saying everything worked with the look The Order was trying to create. Truth be told, it made me appreciate the black bars as well. 30FPS isn't necessarily a "weakness", its an aesthetic.

Videogamey isn't a bad thing, but when you are actively working against that look, it helps to not rely on techniques that would only be counterproductive .

 

[Ramza]

I personally don't care if it's 30 or 60 as long as it's locked.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

this suggestion never makes sense.

there's already hardware that allows you too chose framerate and level of detail in your games.

Then why are there games let you lock or unlock your framerate? Why don't the devs just choose for us?

Honestly, having a simple option for 30 or 60 fps in a console game would make me play more console games. The people that like the choice already are on different hardware, the point I'm making is, what is wrong with consoles having a simple choice? You want better graphics? 30fps it is, or you'd rather have a smoother experience? you got it. More people win. But again, the point that there is already hardware where you can choose isn't relevant to this discussion, so I apologize for digressing.

 

[Goddard]

There really is.

Motion blur in films is distinguished from motion blur in games by various subtleties, but the idea that it somehow makes motion look astronomically less choppy runs completely counter to all my experiences. Motion blur can help the brain more easily distinguish motion vectors, but the temporal chop is generally hardly mitigated at all. A wide pan in 24fps films if anything tends to look less smooth than a wide pan in a 30fps game, even one which uses no MB.

The smoothness of motion vectors is the main differentiator, and I don't think it's importance can be overstated. You can still see new frames in a wide pan really easily, true, but the motion is the thing that makes the biggest difference, and motion is a lot smoother in games running at 60fps with little to no motion blur than it is at 30fps with a lot of motion blur, thus 60fps tends to be a lot more similar to movies in the most important way. When people are trying to go for a filmic look they aren't trying to recreate the 24fps, they are trying to recreate the general look that 24fps gives you, which is a lot more effectively emulated at high framerates, and at high framerates the gameplay is better so usually it's a win win if you are going for film-like immersion, honestly though I don't think The Order is that big of a deal and the 60 vs 30 debate isn't anchored to that one game, so I prefer to just leave the really intense attempts at comparing the two as much as possible, because as I said, the majority of 30fps games are 30fps for other reasons than cinematic recreation.

 

[Amir0x]

I was coming into this thread wondering what conceivable cons would be for 60fps, but it's fair. That's pretty much the only arguments against it I can see haha

Not even sure I'd put the marketing bulletpoint in there because that's not an issue for the 60fps itself, but for youtube as a site

 

[RoboPlato]

No. I was just posing a counter-argument to plato's suggestion that 30fps heightens immersion. It was more or less rhetorical.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that the framerate itself was more immersive. Just some of the added effects and simulation afforded by a lower framerate can, in some cases, have a larger impact on reaching developer goals than a higher framerate.