Support NeoGAF

[mkenyon]

It is frankly astonishing how many people outright deny that 60fps is positive in games. Like come on, it's completely okay to prefer the graphical tradeoff, but all this stockholm syndrome "60fps looks cheap" shit is really annoying.

It's like talking to a brick wall. Even seeing the usual movie comparison tropes is maddening.

Oh well. Glad I'm a PC gamer.

 

[Acccent]

Lol. It would be both an artistic travesty and incredibly stupid.

My poor man. I was gonna say I'm glad your line of thought isn't indicative of what devs aim for, until I realised it actually totally is, and now I'm depressed. Sure, whatever, highest framerate forever, yadda yadda, I hope you enjoy that wonderfully diverse, ambitious, brazen videogame landscape of yours.

:'(

 

[Goddard]

TLOU will suffer from the same thing.

Uncharted 4 probably won't summer from anything, I don't see why did TLOU would.

 

[ANDS]

Uncharted 4 probably won't summer from anything, I don't see why did TLOU would.

Feel like it's a game by game thing. TR looked. . .not great to me. I recently went back and played DS1. Splendid. Same with FFXV.

 

[Goddard]

My poor man. I was gonna say I'm glad your line of thought isn't indicative of what devs aim for, until I realised it actually totally is, and now I'm depressed. Sure, whatever, highest framerate forever, yadda yadda, I hope you enjoy that wonderfully diverse, ambitious, brazen videogame landscape of yours.

:'(

Lol. 1 fps 1p master race.

 

[Goddard]

Feel like it's a game by game thing. TR looked. . .not great to me. I recently went back and played DS1. Splendid. Same with FFXV.

Dark Souls 1 looked good to you? On ps360? What? Dark Souls is one of the glowing examples of how big of a difference that can be made by capping games at 30 versus 60. blighttown on PS3 ran at like 11 fps it was atrocious.

 

[nomis]

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.

Yeah. It is.

You can be in a Tron-like unrealistic, low poly landscape, and if the visual feedback and immediacy of your interaction is approaching realism, your body will (as much as it might shock you) accept it.

 

[Goddard]

Anyway, since the thread is flying off the rails faster each second, is there anything anyone thinks should be added or removed from the list in its current state? It's been a while since anyone added any useful critique.

 

[mkenyon]

My poor man. I was gonna say I'm glad your line of thought isn't indicative of what devs aim for, until I realised it actually totally is, and now I'm depressed. Sure, whatever, highest framerate forever, yadda yadda, I hope you enjoy that wonderfully diverse, ambitious, brazen videogame landscape of yours.

:'(

I'm at a loss at the ridiculousness here.

It's like every informal fallacy rolled into one. You've got appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule, appeal to novelty, false dilemma, red herring, and good ol' strawman all present and working.

Anyway, since the thread is flying off the rails faster each second, is there anything anyone thinks should be added or removed from the list in its current state? It's been a while since anyone added any useful critique.

I think you forgot to add "It's not 120" to the 60 cons.

 

[Azulsky]

I think the notion that you always have 30fps is flawed. The fps has to dip, otherwise they have to drastically compromise computation complexity to guarantee the framerate at all times especially during rich scenes.

It would be interesting to see an FCAT test on a console

 

[mkenyon]

I think the notion that you always have 30fps is flawed. The fps has to dip, otherwise they have to drastically compromise computation complexity to guarantee the framerate at all times especially during rich scenes.

It would be interesting to see an FCAT test on a console

I've often thought the same thing. It would be amazing.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Input latency of a wireless console controller + your average human reaction time + mental processing before reacting = who gives a shit about 30 vs 60 fps.

That doesn't even factor in online play and netcode/mechanics. I take issue with games that drop to 15 or 20 fps as this has gameplay affecting issues. A solid 30 fps is more than sufficient and factually provides more than ample time for your meagre reflexes to respond.

Just look at the average human reaction time...215ms and that's not even factoring in mental processing before reacting. Even if you said gamers are super human and posted average times down to 150ms (which no one really does, a tiny percentage of humans can react this quick) you're still far off differences of 30fps vs. 60 fps.

30fps = 33.367ms

60fps = 16.67ms

Sorry folks, although many like the look of 60fps in terms of the argument for reaction speeds it's a bunch of bullshit. I'm far more after a locked 30fps and 1080p personally.

 

[ANDS]

Dark Souls 1 looked good to you? On ps360? What? Dark Souls is one of the glowing examples of how big of a difference that can be made by capping games at 30 versus 60. blighttown on PS3 ran at like 11 fps it was atrocious.

Sorry, if it wasn't clear I was talking about all of those games at 60FPS or above.

 

[Daingurse]

60fps is always better, it simply isn't always viable. I can't run Watch Dogs at anything approaching 60fps, at the fidelity I desire. So I locked it at 30fps. I find 30fps more than playable with a gamepad. However, mouse input is honestly a lot more iffy at 30fps.

Input latency of a wireless console controller + your average human reaction time + mental processing before reacting = who gives a shit about 30 vs 60 fps.

That doesn't even factor in online play and netcode/mechanics. I take issue with games that drop to 15 or 20 fps as this has gameplay affecting issues. A solid 30 fps is more than sufficient and factually provides more than ample time for your meagre reflexes to respond.

Just look at the average human reaction time...215ms and that's not even factoring in mental processing before reacting. Even if you said gamers are super human and posted average times down to 150ms (which no one really does, a tiny percentage of humans can react this quick) you're still far off differences of 30fps vs. 60 fps.

30fps = 33.367ms

60fps = 16.67ms

Sorry folks, although many like the look of 60fps in terms of the argument for reaction speeds it's a bunch of bullshit. I'm far more after a locked 30fps and 1080p personally.

Games react much faster at 60fps than at 30fps. I can fucking feel it. You can test it, games are far more responsive to control input at a higher framerate.

 

[Acccent]

I'm at a loss at the ridiculousness here.

It's like every informal fallacy rolled into one. You've got appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule, appeal to novelty, false dilemma, red herring, and good ol' strawman all present and working.

I'm not sure what you mean. I meant no disrespect to anyone, and I apologise if I said things that somehow offended... but I'm being sincere, I really find it sad that it's so hard for some to accept diverging views, and that homogeneity is advocated to such an extent. Oh well, I'll live.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

60fps is always better, it simply isn't always viable. I can't run Watch Dogs at anything approaching 60fps, at the fidelity I desire. So I locked it at 30fps. I find 30fps more than playable with a gamepad. However, mouse input is honestly a lot more iffy at 30fps.




Games react much faster at 60fps than at 30fps. I can fucking feel it. You can test it, games are far more responsive to control input at a higher framerate.

Prove it, debate my factual numbers and prove it to me. You can't, sure you may perceive a more responsive game but your reaction time scientifically says bullshit. Try any science-based reproducible reaction test you like and tell me you can get anywhere near anything like 16ms or 30ms. You'd be the first in the known world.

 

[Zeth]

Prove it, debate my factual numbers and prove it to me. You can't, sure you may perceive a more responsive game but your reaction time scientifically says bullshit. Try any science-based reproducible reaction test you like and tell me you can get anywhere near anything like 16ms or 30ms. You'd be the first in the known world.

Perceived latency /= reaction time

edit: ever play a direct-camera control shooter/fps with a mouse at 60 to 120fps? Just curious - it's undeniable.

 

[mkenyon]

I'm not sure what you mean. I meant no disrespect to anyone, and I apologise if I said things that somehow offended... but I'm being sincere, I really find it sad that it's so hard for some to accept diverging views, and that homogeneity is advocated to such an extent. Oh well, I'll live.

No offense taken, you just used a plethora of logical fallacies. You should look into that and possibly think about how that affects your stance here.

 

[Daingurse]

Prove it, debate my factual numbers and prove it to me. You can't, sure you may perceive a more responsive game but your reaction time scientifically says bullshit. Try any science-based reproducible reaction test you like and tell me you can get anywhere near anything like 16ms or 30ms. You'd be the first in the known world.

I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Your numbers mean nothing to me, when I can feel and perceive the difference quite easily. 60fps is not only more visually appealing, but is far more responsive. I can test it with a PC game now if I felt like it, unnecessary as these are things I've long since experimented with. Shit isn't a placebo, test it out yourself.

If you can't periceive a difference between a 30fps game and a 60fps game, in terms of control responsiveness . . . then you must be one of the lucky ones. I'd much rather not notice this shit, but I do.

 

[sector4]

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.

In all seriousness, 60fps and 30fps look extremely different, 60fps does not feel like a movie at all, and that's fine because games aren't movies they're completely different mediums. That being said, if you are trying to create a game that is like a movie like Beyond, Uncharted etc then 30fps delivers that look better than 60.

It's not a question of being better or worse, it's just different. 60fps can't achieve the same look as 30fps, that doesn't mean that 30fps is better, technically, it's worse, but it's also different. Ignoring everyone elses opinion other than your own is just silly.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Perceived latency /= reaction time

But your ability to react to what is on screen is mental processing + reaction time + game outcome rinse and repeat. It's a loop and you're only considering the first step through.

The upper most differential of input between 30 vs. 60 fps would literally be 1 frame. I already posted your reaction time is far greater than the single frame 16.67ms difference from 30 to 60 fps. Again I couldn't give two shits about your perceived latency, the facts are you're not even seeing or reacting to the difference. I feel most lump the sub 30fps into this argument. The differential between say a 30fps game that dropped to 5, 10 or 15 is far worse than the leap from 30 to 60. This is where I feel most are pushing their perception from.

Now if a game developer has online netcode dealing in frame for buffer of latency effects then you'll see larger differentials e.g. Halo 3 used a 3 frame buffer for an animation to help alleviate latency issues in multiplayer for a specific weapon. Again the latency of online simply trumps the silly argument of game netcode or 30vs60fps. Single player or offline is perhaps worthy of a single frame but it's a pretty pointless argument regardless of perception.

 

[DOWN]

Not in gaming it isn't. Anyone who has played games for more than 10 years knows that.



Fixed and yes it does cause gameplay to suffer greatly. It depends on the game and the person how greatly, but 100% is always a great difference.



I don't understand how anybody who has been gaming for even a few years holds this belief. That amount of games that actually get the effect of looking cheap at 60fps is probably below 10. The Hobbit comparison is almost literally never legitimate. If you have never played a game that has actually benefited from 60 fps, which I think is impossible, you have never really gamed. Like even Super Mario counts. In gaming the aesthetic change is always positive.

OP is unaware that the aesthetic changes caused by 60fps elicit subjective opinions on whether that change is positive or negative. It is totally legitimate (and true) that much of the public finds framerate increases to be displeasing aesthetically.

And again, your opinion is that gameplay suffers at 30fps. That's not objective. Therefore, it isn't true in that statement. You prefer 60fps. Games do not demand it.

Visual responses on the screen are an important part of gameplay. If more frames means less particle effects and other graphical achievements, I don't want more frames than 30fps. That's my preference, along with many many others'.

The devs of The Order even specifically mention how 60fps tests changed the aesthetic negatively for their preferences, in fact making it distant from the cinematic look they are striving for. Why does 30fps look more cinematic? Because games are largely based on visual reactions which are similar to the motion of cinema itself when they are at the console standard 30fps.

What aesthetic do you think we're all talking about? Comparing cinema to nothing? No, the aesthetic comparison comes from cinema vs. cheap TV like soap operas and digital bonus features that are at higher framerates. That's literally where the aesthetic argument is defined.

OP likes 60? Doesn't mean the rest of us do.

 

[Acccent]

No offense taken, you just used a plethora of logical fallacies. You should look into that and possibly think about how that affects your stance here.

I see no way to express my opinion better though. If it still won't be accepted as valid, there's nothing else for me to do.

 

[PensivePen]

My poor man. I was gonna say I'm glad your line of thought isn't indicative of what devs aim for, until I realised it actually totally is, and now I'm depressed. Sure, whatever, highest framerate forever, yadda yadda, I hope you enjoy that wonderfully diverse, ambitious, brazen videogame landscape of yours.

:'(

I don't really think that editing an ini file to cap framerate and resolution is all that creative.

 

[mkenyon]

But your ability to react to what is on screen is mental processing + reaction time + game outcome rinse and repeat. It's a loop and you're only considering the first step through.

The upper most differential of input between 30 vs. 60 fps would literally be 1 frame. I already posted your reaction time is far greater than the single frame 16.67ms difference from 30 to 60 fps. Again I couldn't give two shits about your perceived latency, the facts are you're not even seeing or reacting to the difference. I feel most lump the sub 30fps into this argument. The differential between say a 30fps game that dropped to 5, 10 or 15 is far worse than the leap from 30 to 60. This is where I feel most are pushing their perception from.

Now if a game developer has online netcode dealing in frame for buffer of latency effects then you'll see larger differentials e.g. Halo 3 used a 3 frame buffer for an animation to help alleviate latency issues in multiplayer for a specific weapon. Again the latency of online simply trumps the silly argument of game netcode or 30vs60fps. Single player or offline is perhaps worthy of a single frame but it's a pretty pointless argument regardless of perception.

I literally doubled my KDR in Tribes: Ascend competitive matches when I switched to a 120Hz panel.

Shitty controllers and poor netcode can have a larger effect, but that doesn't mean the effect is meaningless.

Reaction times are a separate thing than perceived input as well.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. Your numbers mean nothing to me, when I can feel and perceive the difference quite easily. 60fps is not only more visually appealing, but is far more responsive. I can test it with a PC game now if I felt like it, unnecessary as these are things I've long since experimented with. Shit isn't a placebo, test it out yourself.

If you can't periceive a difference between a 30fps game and a 60fps game, in terms of control responsiveness . . . then you must be one of the lucky ones. I'd much rather not notice this shit, but I do.

Prove it to yourself, setup your PC or console in an FPS with a specific target and start point. Have a friend blow a whistle and time using video recording/ms timing to when you can hit a headshot. Reproduce it the same over and over, do it 10 times on each 30 vs. 60 fps and you tell me the results.

Fuck your perception, you'll see from this simple test that 30 vs. 60fps regarding input latency is bullshit. Your mental processing + reaction time will trump that fps every single time. Your results will remain re-markedly similar irrespective of 30 vs. 60fps.

Be my guest. If I'm wrong then educate me with facts not perceptions.

 

[DOWN]

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.

This is where The Hobbit argument is legit. The audience saw the difference heavily even though the only change was framerate. They overwhelmingly disliked the higher framerate.

Framerate itself is a major aesthetic element that can easily be considered without other elements like graphical compromise. But considering 60fps does mean graphical compromise, I even more enthusiastically prefer 30fps.

 

[Daingurse]

Prove it to yourself, setup your PC or console in an FPS with a specific target and start point. Have a friend blow a whistle and time using video recording/ms timing to when you can hit a headshot. Reproduce it the same over and over, do it 10 times on each 30 vs. 60 fps and you tell me the results.

Fuck your perception, you'll see from this simple test that 30 vs. 60fps regarding input latency is bullshit. Your mental processing + reaction time will trump that fps every single time. Your results will remain re-markedly similar irrespective of 30 vs. 60fps.

Be my guest.

I'll do none of this and carry on with my life. Knowing full well that I am right, and you are wrong. My perception is more relevant to me, than anything you have to say. I'm out.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

I'll do none of this and carry on with my life. Knowing full well that I am right, and you are wrong. My perception is more relevant to me, than anything you have to say.

Ah, the old subjective opinion vs. facts in a debate, gotta love it. I'll continue to enjoy 30fps and 60fps games too

 

[PensivePen]

Prove it to yourself, setup your PC or console in an FPS with a specific target and start point. Have a friend blow a whistle and time using video recording/ms timing to when you can hit a headshot. Reproduce it the same over and over, do it 10 times on each 30 vs. 60 fps and you tell me the results.

Fuck your perception, you'll see from this simple test that 30 vs. 60fps regarding input latency is bullshit. Your mental processing + reaction time will trump that fps every single time. Your results will remain re-markedly similar irrespective of 30 vs. 60fps.

Be my guest. If I'm wrong then educate me with facts not perceptions.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that when playing an action game like Devil May Cry 3 playing at 30 vs 60 fps has a detrimental impact on my performance. Especially when trying to get off moves that have a few frames or almost frame-perfect input like Just Guard or Max-Act. I know because when I used to record a lot of gameplay the framerate would always jump down from 60 to 30 while recording and the difference was heavily noticeable.

 

[Goddard]

60fps is always better, it simply isn't always viable. I can't run Watch Dogs at anything approaching 60fps, at the fidelity I desire. So I locked it at 30fps. I find 30fps more than playable with a gamepad. However, mouse input is honestly a lot more iffy at 30fps.

It's not that Watch Dogs just looks that good, Watch Dogs is one of the worst big pc ports in history.

But your ability to react to what is on screen is mental processing + reaction time + game outcome rinse and repeat. It's a loop and you're only considering the first step through.

The upper most differential of input between 30 vs. 60 fps would literally be 1 frame. I already posted your reaction time is far greater than the single frame 16.67ms difference from 30 to 60 fps. Again I couldn't give two shits about your perceived latency, the facts are you're not even seeing or reacting to the difference. I feel most lump the sub 30fps into this argument. The differential between say a 30fps game that dropped to 5, 10 or 15 is far worse than the leap from 30 to 60. This is where I feel most are pushing their perception from.

Now if a game developer has online netcode dealing in frame for buffer of latency effects then you'll see larger differentials e.g. Halo 3 used a 3 frame buffer for an animation to help alleviate latency issues in multiplayer for a specific weapon. Again the latency of online simply trumps the silly argument of game netcode or 30vs60fps. Single player or offline is perhaps worthy of a single frame but it's a pretty pointless argument regardless of perception.

First of all, before I even read your post I knew what position you would be going for. As someone who plays a shit load of Halo you would be extremely adjusted to 30fps, and would probably stop noticing the difference. Also, the reaction time loop isn't true. Tracking motion across a screen always has more effectiveness at a higher refresh rate, there are so many factors to consider that trying to sum it up as controller latency + monitor latency + frame refresh latency = no difference is silly.

And again, your opinion is that gameplay suffers at 30fps. That's not objective. Therefore, it isn't true in that statement. You prefer 60fps. Games do not demand it.

False. Compared to 60, gameplay is always worse in 30 literally 100% of the time. You may not like the aesthetic of 60, but games playing better at 60 is an objective reality that has been known and talked about for over 3 decades, you can't deny it.

I don't really think that editing an ini file to cap framerate and resolution is all that creative.

This.

 

[adin75]

I have no real preference for 60fps or 30 fps or 720p, 900p or 1080p for that matter. I'm not saying 60fps 1080p wouldn't be ideal, just that for me, my enjoyment of a game isn't dependant on these numbers.

Obviously a game that's dropping frames all over the place isn't ideal, but if it's fairly infrequent I can even look past that.

I guess I'm one of those who can see the difference but just doesn't really care that much.

 

[Bigbillybeef]

Sorry folks, although many like the look of 60fps in terms of the argument for reaction speeds it's a bunch of bullshit. I'm far more after a locked 30fps and 1080p personally.

I totally agree with you about the gameplay implications (talking strictly about reaction times and input latency), but wouldn't you STILL prefer locked 60fps @ 1080p over locked 30fps @ 1080p, all other things being equal? Even if it had absolutely no impact whatsoever in your ability to play said game, doesn't it still just look better?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

First of all, before I even read your post I knew what position you would be going for. As someone who plays a shit load of Halo you would be extremely adjusted to 30fps, and would probably stop noticing the difference. Also, the reaction time loop isn't true. Tracking motion across a screen always has more effectiveness at a higher refresh rate, there are so many factors to consider that trying to sum it up as controller latency + monitor latency + frame refresh latency = no difference is silly.

It sums up as a generalisation your reaction time + mental processing is slower than any fps argument. Online latency again trumps fps arguments due to netcode even further.

Weird, I'm someone that has gamed since the monochromatic days of the first home PCs around with text adventures, back when they were insane to even afford. I'm a huge PC fan that's a console convert for the most part in recent years. I was a PC tech through manufacturing, assembly, distribution, troubleshooting, magazine reviews, test reviews and even retail games in my early days. I've played everything from NES and Atari to SLI powerhouse PCs, MACs and datacentre servers. I've seen more monitor brands, models, overclocking and unlocked game fps than I care for. Blah blah still doesn't change raw facts IMO. I never said no difference but the perception that 60fps is so fucking superior is a bunch of bullshit.

I totally agree with you about the gameplay implications (talking strictly about reaction times and input latency), but wouldn't you STILL prefer locked 60fps @ 1080p over locked 30fps @ 1080p, all other things being equal? Even if it had absolutely no impact whatsoever in your ability to play said game, doesn't it still just look better?

Sure in theory with unlimited processing a big YES. But then why not go for 4K 3D processing at 120fps for the Rift to really have its day? In practice the consoles should aim for generational leaps in graphics, AI, audio, interactivity, online features and fps should be a locked 30 fps or more. I'm not seeing any consoles really doing a locked 60fps with a sweet solution that is rock solid, no screen tearing, no developer rendering tricks and all that. I've only played sub 30fps games or online games where I felt the input latency was affecting my game results. Between LCD/LED/plasma latency, online latency, controller latency and mental/reaction times who cares about 16.67 difference in fps is my point.

 

[Paz]

The best part of a game being 60fps is that it actually doesn't matter if you believe you can tell the difference, or if you even think there is a difference, or if you even think you prefer 30fps, because you will get the benefits of a 60fps framerate anyway. It's unavoidable.

I've seen this numerous times in A/B testing even with people who don't know what a framerate is.

 

[Goddard]

It sums up as a generalisation your reaction time + mental processing is slower than any fps argument. Online latency again trumps fps arguments due to netcode even further.

Weird, I'm someone that has gamed since the monochromatic days of the first home PCs around with text adventures, back when they were insane to even afford. I'm a huge PC fan that's a console convert for the most part in recent years. I was a PC tech through manufacturing, assembly, distribution, troubleshooting, magazine reviews, test reviews and even retail games in my early days. I've played everything from NES and Atari to SLI powerhouse PCs, MACs and datacentre servers. I've seen more monitor brands, models, overclocking and unlocked game fps than I care for. Blah blah still doesn't change raw facts IMO. I never said no difference but the perception that 6-fps us so fucking superior is a bunch of bullshit.



Sure in theory with unlimited processing a big YES. But then why not go for 4K 3D processing at 120fps for the Rift to really have its day? In practice the consoles should aim for generational leaps in graphics, AI, audio, interactivity, online features and fps should be a locked 30 fps or more. I'm not seeing any consoles really doing a locked 60fps with a sweet solution that is rock solid, no screen tearing, no developer rendering tricks and all that.

The difference isn't really the 16.67 milliseconds of extra time, it's the double the rate of information. It doesn't matter if you have 200ms reaction time or 500ms reaction time, the difference is pretty damn big.

 

[I_D]

The only con to 60fps is worse graphics. All other things are improved with 60fps.

Those who say 60fps games look weird just aren't accustomed to the smoothness, but it really only takes a few days to get adjusted. There are, of course, games that are designed to run at sub-60fps, which DO look really weird when sped up; but those aren't designed for 60fps. If a game is designed for 60fps, it will always look and play better than the same thing at 30fps.

 

[Bigbillybeef]

Sure in theory with unlimited processing a big YES. But then why not go for 4K 3D processing at 120fps for the Rift to really have its day? In practice the consoles should aim for generational leaps in graphics, AI, audio, interactivity, online features and fps should be a locked 30 fps or more. I'm not seeing any consoles really doing a locked 60fps with a sweet solution that is rock solid, no screen tearing, no developer rendering tricks and all that.

I'm with you all the way, except obviously the 4k/3d/120Hz argument is invalid as most people don't have displays capable of this. My only point, and I honestly believe it is the only relevant point in any argument about this topic is that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL - 60fps is subjectively better than 30fps.

Of course 30fps will always be the standard, and rightly so if we are to see developers pushing the envelope in terms of AI, visual fidelity etc etc. I will always prefer 60fps, but people need to just get over the simple fact that developers will always try to push their target hardware as far as it can go, and that always means 30fps.

Even if it was $300 for the worlds most powerful hardware, and this hardware had an install base of 500 million units, many games on it would run at 30fps - and they'd be freakin' AWESOME!

 

[Goddard]

The best part of a game being 60fps is that it actually doesn't matter if you believe you can tell the difference, or if you even think there is a difference, or if you even think you prefer 30fps, because you will get the benefits of a 60fps framerate anyway. It's unavoidable.

I've seen this numerous times in A/B testing even with people who don't know what a framerate is.

This is an important point. There are probably millions of people who never quite understood why Call of Duty is so much smoother to play compared to Battlefield.

 

[Goddard]

Of course 30fps will always be the standard

It never was and never will be. It's not even the standard right now as we speak, it is just something a few companies always do. Nintendo doesn't, Valve doesn't, Blizzard doesn't, Retro doesn't, Infinity Ward doesn't, and probably a few others don't cap down to 30. Considering that these developers alone make up a massive chunk of gaming, it is extremely naive to imply that 30fps is an industry wide standard.

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

In my opinion, I'd rather have more detailed environments, lighting and physics at 30fps instead of a pretty good looking game with sacrifices to hit that 60fps.

I also hate a variable frame rate. To keep a rock solid 60fps, the game has to have the ability to hit a frame rate that is OVER 60fps at all times, then they cap it at 60 to keep it solid.

However, it's easier to keep the average frame rate over 30fps (but under 60) so they choose to cap the frame rate at 30fps. The idea is for the frame rate to never go over 30fps or under 30fps.

 

[mkenyon]

Input latency of a wireless console controller + your average human reaction time + mental processing before reacting = who gives a shit about 30 vs 60 fps.

That doesn't even factor in online play and netcode/mechanics. I take issue with games that drop to 15 or 20 fps as this has gameplay affecting issues. A solid 30 fps is more than sufficient and factually provides more than ample time for your meagre reflexes to respond.

Just look at the average human reaction time...215ms and that's not even factoring in mental processing before reacting. Even if you said gamers are super human and posted average times down to 150ms (which no one really does, a tiny percentage of humans can react this quick) you're still far off differences of 30fps vs. 60 fps.

30fps = 33.367ms

60fps = 16.67ms

Sorry folks, although many like the look of 60fps in terms of the argument for reaction speeds it's a bunch of bullshit. I'm far more after a locked 30fps and 1080p personally.

Hold the fuck on.

Before I continue, I want to understand what you are saying.

A 33ms poll rate versus a 16.7ms poll rate is arbitrary because of human reaction time, display lag, controller lag, and netcode lag.

This is your point, yes?

 

[AmyS]

It's been said countless times before, video games (console, arcade, PC, handheld, etc) are not movies / films, or television.

60fps is ideal for games, 30fps is very playable and can be okay for some types of games, but it is always a compromise of one kind of another in terms of graphical complexity / detail, lighting, etc., and rendering resolution.

What I would like to know is, with the 3DS and its parallax barrier tech / auto-stereoscopic 3D, in games like Mario Kart 7 that run at 60fps in 3D, does that mean the GPU hardware is having to render 120fps, or not?

An example would be, Super Street Fighter IV 3D runs at 60fps in 2D, or, 30fps in 3D, which can be selected in the display options.

 

[RibbedHero]

Where's the "120FPS" section?

 

[Bigbillybeef]

It never was and never will be. It's not even the standard right now as we speak, it is just something a few companies always do. Nintendo doesn't, Valve doesn't, Blizzard doesn't, Retro doesn't, Infinity Ward doesn't, and probably a few others don't cap down to 30. Considering that these developers alone make up a massive chunk of gaming, it is extremely naive to imply that 30fps is an industry wide standard.

I don't want to get into debating exactly what percentage of titles are 30 vs 60, but I dont think you can count Valve or Blizzard in this argument as they are largely PC devs. Nintendo also don't always do 60fps - the Zelda games spring to mind.

While perhaps calling it "the standard" wasn't necessary, i think it's fair to say that MANY games, probably the majority of popular AAA games in the last gen and the current gen target 30fps. This is a trend that is likely to continue.

 

[AmyS]

Where's the "120FPS" section?

Bah, 120FPS isn't good enough for driving games. We need yet another section for 240fps because:

Gran Turismo 5 Prologe @ 240 FPS running on four PS3s.

Sony have been demonstrating Gran Turismo 5 on a new FED display, with the game running at a massive 240fps. Four PS3 consoles working in partnership were required to reach that framerate on the 19-inch Nano-Spindt FED (Field Emissions Display) developed by Sony, intended to show how well the FED technology handles fast moving images without blurring.

A single PS3 is capable of producing a 60fps image, hence the need for four of the consoles in this demonstration setup. FEP relies on 10,000 electron sources (the nano-spindt emitters) per pixel, which cause a fluorescent substance to produce light. If that sounds vaguely similar to a CRT display, you'd be right; it also shares CRT's wider view angles, deeper blacks, rich color tones and resilience to motion blur.

Viewers of the demonstration were apparently "baffled by the quality of the image", which is probably what Sony were hoping for. The setup is intended more to publicise FEP than it is the PS3 console.

[source is probably banned, so just, Google]

Here's one that probably isn't banned:

PS3 Tech Demo Runs Gran Turismo 5 in 2160p or 240 FPS

What's the team a Polyphony Digital doing besides finishing their upcoming Gran Turismo 5 racing simulator? Making some crazy ass tech demos with four PlayStation 3s hooked together to share rendering time. Not only can four PS3s create a 2160p image (that's four 1080p images for a resolution of 3840x2160 blasted on Sony's 4K projector), they can create one single 1080p image that runs at 240 FPS. 240! That's faster than the human eye can see; and so fast, we imagine, that you can actually see into the future. The audience reception was described thusly:

"It is as though you are following a real world event happening right in front of your face with your own eyes. Any and all flickering in the movement of the vehicle, in the smoke from the tires, etc. are completely gone, and you are almost tricked into believing you are watching something in real life. The guests at the event were baffled by the quality of the image, and stared in amazement at the screen."

http://gizmodo.com/5094334/ps3-tech-demo-runs-gran-turismo-5-in-2160p-or-240-fps

So with 4 PS3s, GT5P could run in native 4K resolution, or, 240fps.

Not both at once.

Spoiler

That's what Cerny's PS5 will be for.

Spoiler

Combined with VR!

 

[Bigbillybeef]

Spoiler

That's what Cerny's PS5 will be for.

Spoiler

Combined with VR!

I came.

 

[SuperEpicGuy]

This was said in regards to 30FPS:

But.... doesn't infamous SS play beautifully at 30fps? Sure, compared to 60fps it suffers, but when looked at standing alone it seems to be fine.

Fine isn't amazing. Try a 120hz game then go to second son. Will feel terrible I guarantee you that.

 

[ethomaz]

Most of the point are subjective and avoid others mainly point don't make the thread better.

IMO I see the pros and cons of 60fps but I'm perfectly fine with solid 30fps... it have no real disadvantage over 60fps if coded right.

 

[tanooki27]

Jesus, this will never stop, will it? :/

sure it will. technology will progress, 60 fps will become the baseline, and people will link this thread and giggle. but then i guess we'll be chasing 120, so in a way you're right.