Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Yep when you're talking about inputs e.g. controller action to screen latency.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
60fps vs 30fps Backbone Thread: Pros vs. Cons
- Thread starter Goddard
- Start date
- Status
Yep when you're talking about inputs e.g. controller action to screen latency.
plagiarize
Banned
16 ms could absolutely be the difference for you between too much control lag and an amount you don't notice. for me I notice it around 150 ms. a 30 fps game that's around that would have obvious input lag to me. if you lopped off 16 ms from that, I wouldn't notice it any more.
and you're not just cutting the length of time a frame takes to display on screen by 16 ms, you're doubling the amount of data I get to change my inputs accordingly. if something happens in game time, one ms after a frame is drawn, I can't react to it until after that frame is drawn and displayed on screen, which will take 16 ms longer in 30 fps game than it will take in a 60 fps game.
so it's not just my inputs that are 16 ms behind in a 30 fps game, the visual stimulus that I base those inputs on is ALSO 16 ms behind in the first place, and I get half the amount of frames to base those inputs on. so it's double what you're saying, because it takes longer for the game to display what I then have to react to, and THEN it takes longer to display the result of that input.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
I mean, it's not that hard if you compare the same game. My fiancée is not a gamer by any means and yet she's able to point out which is which EVERY time given a few minutes to get accustomed with a game, *controller in hand*. I don't find videos to be proof enough to judge if the difference has an impact big enough for you to care about: you really need to sample the game by playing it and I'm positive nobody would choose 30fps and the vast majority would think the difference is kinda a big deal and can affect their enjoyment of a game. Can't wait to see 30fps aficionados sploorge over TLOU Remastered's doubly smoother gameplay.
pseudocaesar
Member
I guess a lot of people that praise 60fps as the next coming of jesus dont really consider one thing. For some, maybe most, people.. its just not an issue. I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 when they are presented side by side, but when I am playing a game at 30fps, I dont sit there and have a whinge about it not being 60. So long as its solid, and doesnt dip into the 20's, I am perfectly satisfied with 30fps. Sure 60fps is better and would be nice, but when im absorbed in a good game.. I dont even notice whether or not its 30 or more fps.
I guess.. for me.... a stable framerate is more important than a high framerate. I mean... majority of "60fps" console games spend half their time in the mid to high 40s and 50s, rarely at 60.
It might be fair to note I am predominantly a console gamer, I do have a gaming PC but its used mostly for RPG's and not really bothered by needing 60fps on them.
I guess.. for me.... a stable framerate is more important than a high framerate. I mean... majority of "60fps" console games spend half their time in the mid to high 40s and 50s, rarely at 60.
It might be fair to note I am predominantly a console gamer, I do have a gaming PC but its used mostly for RPG's and not really bothered by needing 60fps on them.
And the vast majority of "30 fps" console games spend most of their time in the 20s, rarely at 30. In other words, you're a huge hypocrite.
DOWN
Banned
I deny it. You wanna say that, you'll need an objective definition of "better." But you can't since you've acknowledged aesthetic.
So, what is it that we'd undeniably say means games play better at 60fps? Because that's not how I'd classify my experiences with 60fps.
plagiarize
Banned
games have more responsive controls at 60 fps than 30 fps. that's a fact. for many, more responsive controls = better controls which = better gameplay. that's not even touching on the potential gameplay benefits of cutting image LAG by 16 ms and providing the player with twice the temporal resolution on which they can base their inputs.
the sooner I see something I have to react to, the better for the game. the sooner the outcome of my reaction is played out on screen, the better for the game.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Like I said in a previous reply it results in 1 frame of difference, something like this for comparison:
30 fps @ 33ms (rounding down because I can) dealing reaction time of 175ms (which is incredible by the way) + controller input or screen latency of say 20ms combined is 175+20+33 = 228MS for what you watch then control and for that to appear on the screen.
60fps @ 17ms (again rounding up) dealing with same reaction of 175ms + controller or screen of 20ms is 175+20+17 = 212ms.
At the end of the day it's negligible. Even if you take on another second frame, which I disagree with due to the looping feedback, it's still only a max difference of approx. 33ms. It's inherently such a non-issue that any of the following or all would be more beneficial:
1. move from a wireless controller to wired
2. move your house to reduce online latency
3. purchase a TV with the lowest possible latency
4. do exercises to reduce your reaction time or just become a cyborg
Until just recently it was widely accepted humans couldn't process images lower than approx. 100ms, there is some evidence recently we can see a flash as low as 13ms and our brain stores that image so we can actually see it. However in real world tests it is still widely accepted humans can't actually process and react to more than 10-18 distinct images per second.
Anyhow I know some gamers just prefer 60 fps and that's fine but the delays in controller input and action in game are not just a simple 30 to 60 fps upgrade to solve all your problems.
Err, I really wouldn't expect there to be a low limit on that. Regardless of how fast the flash is, you should be able to make the eye see it by cranking up the intensity. Human temporal resolution isn't perfect, but sharp impulses will still cause the eye to register that the flash event happened.
The same is true of spatial resolution. Average human visual acuity lets us directly distinguish details only down to a bit less than 1 arcminute in precision, yet the way we interpret coverage permits amazing precision in vernier acuity, and it's certainly possible to see a very small but very bright light source from a great distance (you might not be able to distinguish precisely where it is within the arcminute it rests in, but you can tell that it's there).
//==========
Now, if the question is how snappy our response is (i.e. questions regarding flicker fusion threshold), then yeah, oscillations in the 70Hz ballpark start to become unnoticeable; that's been known for well over a century. But if the question is simply whether we can see a brief flash, I would expect that even something measured in a few microseconds really ought to be detectable if it's intense enough.
DOWN
Banned
You basically just said 60fps is faster so that's better. That doesn't make it better, that means it has a benefit. That doesn't take away the drawbacks at all. It has drawbacks that I find overwhelmingly negative in comparison to the specific compromises and benefits of 30fps experiences. I don't consider 60fps "better" and "better" is still subjective.
I don't prefer "worse," you just dislike my preference.
I'm a 60fps guy, but you sure put a whole lotta opinion in a supposedly purely factual and logic-oriented thread.
Things to fix
60fps pros:
-Bullet points 3 and 4 are completely incorporated into points 1 and 2, you're just repeating them again to make the pros list seem larger.
-Bullet point 5 is an opinion, not a fact or impregnable logic.
60fps cons:
-This section's fine.
30fps pros:
-"Incompetent" is an opinion, not a fact or impregnable logic. Remove the word. (And apparently the whole idea is wrong, according to other posters.)
-"Bare minimum" is an opinion. Remove.
-Either explain why OoT comparison is invalid, or remove the claim.
30fps cons:
-"suffer greatly" is a subjective opinion, not a fact or impregnable logic. For some, the gameplay difference is negligible. Just keep the factual parts, like "It contributes twice as much lag to the player's overall response time as 60fps."
-"For some..." You only listed the reported anecdotal experience that supports your view. To be objective, you need to include (in this section or elsewhere) that for others, the difference is negligible, and for even others, 30fps adds immersion. Either remove listing the subjective experience entirely, or include all different subjective experiences.
-"Age poorly" is, again, a subjective opinion, not a fact or impregnable logic.
-"Nigh unplayable" is an opinion. Replace it with something more objective, such as "Many players tend to report that dips in framerate during 30fps games tarnish the experience to a greater degree than dips in framerate during 60fps games."
Unacceptable arguments:
-Soap opera effect is real, even if you and I don't experience it. In an objective fact-based compilation like this thread is attempting to be, you can't pick and choose which anecdotal experiences regarding quality to accept and dismiss. Soap opera is a valid anecdotal experience to report.
-"Apparent" is subjective. Whether or not the difference is apparent in other games is not a fact or impregnable logic.
-Your "artistic choice" line should be removed. Sometimes lesser tech is used because the artist just wants lesser tech. Increased resolution is technically superior to lower resolution... yet, many developers choose pixel art for their games. Now, you can argue that developers don't ever use 30fps instead of 60fps for any other reason than increasing graphics, but that's certainly not a fact or impregnable logic.
Bottom line
Look, I agree with you that 60fps is better in virtually every way. But your stated purpose of this thread was laying down indisputable facts, and you've failed to achieve that goal in numerous instances. It's not that what you wrote was necessarily wrong, but it's certainly not indisputable fact, at least in the way you wrote most of it. This thread is essentially a "My opinion on 30fps/60fps." If that's what you want, that's fine, but that's not what the thread title or introduction says the thread is about.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
The question is not just a single flash, it's:
1. interpretation of 30 or 60 images per second (lots of continuous flashes)
2. mental processing of decided image or snippet series of images at a given time
3. mental processing of action to take at a that given time
4. executing controller input actions for that given time
5. console/pc processing of your actions and output display
6. tv processing to display on screen
7. rinse and repeat is what fps + gameplay + results is.
Again I'm not talking about adding in online latency here and it's already beyond a human even seeing one distinct image displayed for 17ms. I'm not sure why you're talking about arcminutes as they relate to accuracy measurements for distance and angles etc. Nothing about reaction times and/or processing by humans/machines.
IMO there is no way anyone is processing ALL 60 frames of information accurately, let alone pushing back so much controller input that it's creating an unplayable game from 30 to 60 fps. I call bullshit and I feel these numbers and processes back this up far more than a subjective opinion of oh it feels better at 60fps.
ethomaz
Banned
You did a really great summarize of the thread... there are only opinion and no fact the support any side.
CadetMahoney
Member
Tell that to competitive fighting game fans.
I bet none of them would be gladly handicapped to a 30fps input/refresh rate whilst his/her competitor gets the normal 60fps.
I bet's it's factual in saying 60fps for fighting games is better. One person playing a downgraded 30fps refresh rate against a competitor getting the normal 60 is not "opinion" as to which is getting a better experience.
So in the above example, the 30fps refresh rate player is not getting an inferior experience over his competitor?
I was simply responding to your previous comment, not making a sweeping claim about what's relevant to reaction time.
You brought up the notion that there might be a threshold under which an event is perceptible. I responded to that suggestion with a mildly detailed thought on spatial and temporal resolution in human vision. Nothing more, nothing less.
ethomaz
Banned
I don't get your point... or both play a game at 60fps or both play a game at 30fps.
Nobody will have advantage or disadvantage.
A fighting game at 30fps is fine like a fighting game at 60fps is fine too.
Both players will have a disadvantage. If you think Street Fighter IV would be "fine" at 30fps you are wrong.
CadetMahoney
Member
The point is one framerate is factually better than the other.
Not "if we move the goalposts so we don't compare the differences in framerates affecting the players".
that doesn't make any sense. you said "Incompetent programmers only have to animate half as much." I assert, once again, that artists are responsible for creating animations. programers program, artists animate. there is no correlation. it's like if you called an exterminator to get rid of all the ants in your house and then complained that once he was done the muffler on your car wasn't fixed.
if "I'm glad that what you think is "most developers" is actually not most. A very large amount of games are still 60 fps." why create this thread? your wish has already been fulfilled. "A very large amount of games," according to you, are 60FPS.
btw, have you ever played Grand Theft Auto 5? it's a very popular game. but it's definitely not 60FPS.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Engine input lag is much higher in reality, and the typical case on the consoles is 66ms for a 60fps game and 133ms for a 30fps game, according to the Digital Foundry. On the other extreme, Counter Strike: Go on the PC at 144fps with no vsync only has about 25ms of input lag. Reaction time is not the problem. The controls start to feel disconnected and unresponsive as the lag increases.
What the hell? What does this bizarre analogy even mean?
If you're referring to the "it's an opinion" people, in the strictest sense they're pretty blatantly correct.
When people claim that 60fps is "objectively better", they use a series of metrics - input lag, improved ability to resolve content in a moving scene, etc - which are able to be objectively measured. These things aren't particularly debatable.
However.
The question "which is better" does not provide a means to assess "better." While the metrics are objectively assessable, the choice of metrics and how they're used to inform the answer to the question is not. It's an entirely subjective choice of value system.
It probably sounds like I'm being annoyingly pedantic right now. It's true that in many conversations, people use "objectively better" in ways which are not strictly precise; this is mostly used for convenience in practical language in situations where it's clear that everyone agrees on what is meant by "better." In a conversation with someone who disagrees with what constitutes "better", however, this is not a sensible fallback.
Unless we ask a more specific question than "all other things being equal, are higher framerates always 'better'", there simply isn't going to be a sole objective answer. (In a strict sense, that would still be true even if you got complete unanimity across the whole of humanity.)
//================
This isn't a problem, unless you're someone who thinks that the opinionishness of an opinion somehow makes it less interesting or valuable, and that the life of a person whose buttocks does not produce universal truthfact is simply woefully inadequate.
I don't have an issue with massive agreement that higher framerates in games are generally superior, all other things being equal. It's a viewpoint I would tend to agree with.
But accusing people's preferences of being objectively false or invalid? That's just plain not understanding the question. It's "winning" the discussion by refusing to have it due to a basic misunderstanding. And frankly, it's a boring way to go about things.
I wasn't expecting good clean fun but holy shit the amount of holocaust deniers ITT,
I think it's got a lot to do with what PogiJones said and how you wrote the OP. Can't wait till 600fps is the norm and we can end this debate
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
There is no debate. Anyone who thinks that 30FPS is objectively better for any reason is deluded.
I think it's objectively better because it allows for better graphics. am I deluded?
Galactic Barret
Member
I have never seen a classic game being criticized for its framerate, if its been locked/stable. For example, my favorite: You go back and play FFVII, you don't complain its unplayable because of its framerate. Oot either. Or Chrono Trigger. And it won't pop up for DaSo or AC.
How many GotYs over the past gen have been at 60fps? Honest question, because I feel that has the most impact on this debate. A great game's base mechanics will shine through regardless of the framerate (again, as long as its stable).
How many GotYs over the past gen have been at 60fps? Honest question, because I feel that has the most impact on this debate. A great game's base mechanics will shine through regardless of the framerate (again, as long as its stable).
Yes, because animation is a major component of graphics, and 60 fps allows for objectively better animation.
It reminds me of the 720p vs 1080p argument. 720p is totally playable and looks really good as well. Occasionally I even get fooled by 720p into thinking it's 1080p. Usually it's the anti aliasing that trips me up. Even so, there's no argument over which is better, 1080p all the way. Does that mean we can't have as many pretty effects at the higher res? Yep! This is why we are seeing the dreaded 900p creep in.
We see the same with 30 vs 60fps. 30 looks good, but blurs motion. It's particularly problematic in first person shooters where the whole screen moves. Gameplay is affected negatively. Again, do we loose some pretty effects? Yes, but at the expense of gameplay? Judging by Metal Gear Solid 5 the 60fps target hasn't effected the scope of the game to any notable degree vs Infamous for example. The image is so much clearer thanks to the frame rate.
The reaction time argument doesn't work. I know it takes 200 milliseconds to react, but that doesn't apply to inputs to screen. We are much, much, more sensitive to input lag from the controller to the screen. Lag over 150ms in a fps gives me motion sickness after about 15min. I experienced this on my projector with the recent Wolfenstein. I had a brilliant colour option turned on by mistake and knew from reading online turning it off reduced lag to 50ms. Not only did I feel good, but I could feel it dramatically. It felt like a whole new game.
We see the same with 30 vs 60fps. 30 looks good, but blurs motion. It's particularly problematic in first person shooters where the whole screen moves. Gameplay is affected negatively. Again, do we loose some pretty effects? Yes, but at the expense of gameplay? Judging by Metal Gear Solid 5 the 60fps target hasn't effected the scope of the game to any notable degree vs Infamous for example. The image is so much clearer thanks to the frame rate.
The reaction time argument doesn't work. I know it takes 200 milliseconds to react, but that doesn't apply to inputs to screen. We are much, much, more sensitive to input lag from the controller to the screen. Lag over 150ms in a fps gives me motion sickness after about 15min. I experienced this on my projector with the recent Wolfenstein. I had a brilliant colour option turned on by mistake and knew from reading online turning it off reduced lag to 50ms. Not only did I feel good, but I could feel it dramatically. It felt like a whole new game.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
You can put a con that 60FPS creates a spectator motion sickness far more than 30FPS. Every time someone watches me play a 60FPS game, they seem to get dizzy or something, after 10 minutes or less.
Except you are totally wrong and you don't know what you are talking about. The average difference betweena 60 and 30FPS game is about 40ms - 67 to about 100. That said, 100 is for the faster 30FPS games, most of them are way beyond that, going into the direction of 150 or even 200 at worst.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3
Controller input and the directness are THE point why one should prefer 60FPS over 30FPS. Why do you think all Beatm'em ups run at 60? Why do "pro gamers" play their shooters at >100FPS? For fun?
Also, this human reaction time discussion is totally off either. Human reaction time has nothing to do with this discussion at all. It's not part of the chain we are talking about. It's just "pressing a button, seeing action on screen". Also, the TV latency thing is arbitrary. On a shit TV with a lot of lag, a 60FPS game will STILL feel better thana 30FPS game.
foolishoptimist
Member
60fps
Cons:
- Apparently, too much exposure to 60fps can ruin gaming at 30fps, and I assume TV and Movies since the frame rates are the same or worse.
which is only a small portion of what you see on screen. what about polygon count? what about high-res textures? what about anti-aliasing? sacrifices undeniably have to be made to achieve 60FPS vs. 30, and those are usually the first on the chopping block. I would prefer high polygon counts and high-res textures with good AA to 60FPS, you would obviously disagree. perhaps we should just "agree to disagree," since neither one of us is going to change the others mind. perhaps it's all a matter of opinion, which would make sense seeing the widely divergent views on the matter. and don't tell me my opinion is wrong; opinions cannot be wrong or right. they can only be subjective judgement calls, which will vary depending on the subject making that judgement call.
This.
The main advantages in 60fps games is responsiveness, try playing fighting/fps games in 60fps and then cap the framerate to 30fps. Report back here.
Sentenza
Member
Yes.
30fps also reduces the visual quality of textures as well. A texture moving across the screen at 60fps willl remain crystal clear..at 30fps any moderate movement will cause a texture to blur....meaning there was little need for it to be high qulity in the first place unless the image is largely static.
- Status