Support NeoGAF

[Goddard]

Right now the age old debate of 60fps vs. 30fps on consoles debate is spreading like wildfire. It is, of course, an age old debate, but at the moment every single time a game comes out that is locked to 30fps an argument completely derails the thread into the fundamental argument of 60fps vs 30fps, and although I am not trying to create a melting pot megathread, I think the debate could be improved a large amount by simply having a list of pros and cons that are either factual or agreed upon by most.

60fps

Pros:

• Highest framerate that industry standard HDTVs are capable of displaying, making it the smoothest possible framerate of console games.
• Has twice the rate of information, and half the input lag of 30fps.
• Animations are twice as smooth as 30fps, which not only looks great but can be very immersive.
• Having half the input lag, and twice the smoothness of 30fps makes gameplay twice as fluid, a huge improvement.
• Ages well.

Cons:

• Harder to market due to Youtube only supporting a maximum of 30fps, and screenshots only showing off one frame of detail.
• Requires twice the amount of power that 30fps does, which means some sacrifices have to be made relative to 30fps.

30fps

Pros:

• Twice the amount of time to deliver a frame means you can do about twice as much computation per frame. This can mean higher polygon counts, higher AA, more complex physics, and perhaps some other implications.
• Incompetent programmers only have to animate half as much, whereas most video game programmers animate in a way that can adapt to almost any possible framerate. (I'm not taking a shot at developers who chose 30fps by saying that, it is a fact.)
• Far easier to market than games at 60fps because screenshots and 30fps videos have an obvious emphasis on graphical fidelity.
• Bare minimum framerate, meaning that it also has the highest amount of leeway to heighten graphics. (Ocarina of time comparison is invalid.)

Cons:

• Half the response time causes gameplay to suffer greatly compared to 60fps. Fluidity of graphics also suffers greatly, which effects overall graphical presentation.
• For some that are used to 60fps it can also break immersion due to being able to see each individual frame.
• Causes games to age very poorly compared to 60fps games, due to both gameplay and graphics becoming outdated rather than just graphics.
• Dips below 30fps can create experiences that are nigh unplayable, dips below 60fps tend to just create violent screen tearing.
• Can cause eye strain.

Unacceptable arguments:

• "60fps feels like a soap opera."
• "The average consumer doesn't care." Not only is the concept of the average consumer not a real thing, it is just a strawman people use to argue with, but fundamentally the average consumer is not informed about the difference, and thus does not have a relevant opinion, so they are not to be considered when you are debating with other tech enthusiasts about tech related things.
• "Only fighting, racing, and shooting games make a difference with different framerates." This one is simply false because it assumes only games with fast paced action can actually show the difference, but the difference is apparent in all games. It is absolutely true that some games benefit more than others, and that aspect is largely subjective, but many people actually try and argue that it doesn't make any difference in most games, which is completely false.
• Consoles aren't powerful enough for 60fps." A lot of console warriors seem to hold this belief, and apparently so do a fair number of PC gamers, but it is simply not true, the Wii U which is very underpowered compared to XBone and PS4 runs most of its games at 60fps.
• "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.

 

[Radec]

http://30vs60.com/index.html

 

[Goddard]

http://30vs60.com/index.html

Please avoid posting comparison videos. This is not a thread to hold the debate of 30 vs 60, just a thread to help the debate be more constructive when it takes place elsewhere.

 

[syko de4d]

As a PC Gamer:

If the dev focus on 30fps on console

Pro: Games look nicer at 60fps on PC. When the game is 30fps on console their should have implemented more graphical effects than they had did with 60fps.

Con: You need a better PC to run it at 60fps.

 

[RionaaM]

"I can't see the difference." This one speaks for itself mostly, everyone can see and feel the difference under controlled circumstances. The extremely rare few that actually biologically aren't capable of seeing the difference don't have a relevant opinion in the discussion of 30fps vs 60fps.

I disagree with this. I can count with one hand the amount of times I could distinguish the difference in those comparison videos or .gifs. Whenever I'm playing something, I have no idea if it's running at 30 FPS, 60 or somewhere inbetween.

 

[-COOLIO-]

"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.

i guess this could be a semantic thing. but what kind of choice would you call it?

if you prefer having more effects, and detail at 30fps, rather than less at 60fps, is that not an artistic choice? yes, input time is reduced at 60fps but 30fps vs 60fps is still ultimately more of a change in the visual experience.

 

[Goddard]

As a PC Gamer:

If the dev focus on 30fps on console

Pro: Games look nicer at 60fps on PC. When the game is 30fps on console their should have implemented more graphical effects than they had did with 60fps.

Con: You need a better PC to run it at 60fps.

This thread is specifically about the debate when it is taking place on a closed box system like a console. Also the bolded is an invalid argument.

 

[Byron Bluth]

I think what you are missing is talk on a "locked 30fps or 60fps".

A game that shoots for 30fps but dips to low 20s is not good.

A game that shoots for 60fps and dips to low 50s is not as bad. But if it dips to 30s or 40s then it can be jarring, but not have as big an impact on controller response compared to low 20s dip.

This is my concern in the end, is that games that target 30fps don't actually lock there and dip to lower frames, which is unacceptable.

 

[Goddard]

I disagree with this. I can count with one hand the amount of times I could distinguish the difference in those comparison videos or .gifs. Whenever I'm playing something, I have no idea if it's running at 30 FPS, 60 or somewhere inbetween.

It is not an invalid position to have on the debate, but it is invalid to be debating with that position. If you cannot tell the difference, you cannot look at both sides of the argument. If you can't look at both sides of the argument, your argument is invalid.

i guess this could be a semantic thing. but what kind of choice would you call it?

if you prefer having more effects, and detail at 30fps, rather than less at 60fps, is that not an artistic choice? yes, input time is reduced at 60fps but 30fps vs 60fps is still ultimately more of a change in the visual experience.

It is absolutely a semantic thing, but a lot of people tend to interpret "artistic choice" as if 30fps has some sort of artistic quality to it, which is not true. My favourite way to describe it is a "technical tradeoff." There is more than one good way to describe it though. Artistic is not one of those.

I think what you are missing is talk on a "locked 30fps or 60fps".

A game that shoots for 30fps but dips to low 20s is not good.

A game that shoots for 60fps and dips to low 50s is not as bad. But if it dips to 30s or 40s then it can be jarring, but not have as big an impact on controller response compared to low 20s dip.

This is my concern in the end, is that games that target 30fps don't actually lock there and dip to lower frames, which is unacceptable.

It is implied that in this debate both sides are perfectly locked, however if you read my post over again you would notice that I did point out the problem that sub 30 dips are far worse than sub 60 dips.

However I would prefer to leave that out of the discussion completely, because a lot of people like to use the invalid strawman argument "locked 30 is way better than unstable 60," when of course they are really just trying to say 30 is better than 60 indirectly. I'll add that one to the list.

PS: Normally I don't like posting too much in my own threads, it is a bit circlejerkish, but I'm probably going to be posting a lot for the first while.

 

[Cygnus]

I don't find 30fps games unplayable by any means, they are OK, but I can't get my head around people actually preferring 30fps over 60 for a cleaner IQ or shinier effects, half the frames is a HUGE sacrifice for such minute details.

 

[Radec]

Please avoid posting comparison videos. This is not a thread to hold the debate of 30 vs 60, just a thread to help the debate be more constructive when it takes place elsewhere.

No, that link is the easiest way to understand why 60fps > 30fps. No need for wall of text of pros and cons when you can just see for yourself in moving images.

 

[AZUMIKE]

This was said in regards to 30FPS:

Twice the input lag, and half the rate of visual information causes gameplay to suffer greatly compared to 60fps. Fluidity of graphics also suffers greatly, which effects overall graphical presentation.

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.

 

[LastNac]

It is not an invalid position to have on the debate, but it is invalid to be debating with that position. If you cannot tell the difference, you cannot look at both sides of the argument. If you can't look at both sides of the argument, your argument is invalid.



It is absolutely a semantic thing, but a lot of people tend to interpret "artistic choice" as if 30fps has some sort of artistic quality to it, which is not true. My favourite way to describe it is a "technical tradeoff." There is more than one good way to describe it though. Artistic is not one of those.

If an artist wants 30FPS how is that not an "artistic choice."

 

[hodgy100]

[*]Incompetent developers only have to animate half as much.

uh wow... no

Animations aren't animated on a frame by frame basis in any modern 3D title its all keyframes and interpolation. Only 2d sprites are completely frame animated and very few games (if any) actually draw all 60 frames.

 

[-COOLIO-]

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.

specifically, it comes down to your input being recognized 16 milliseconds faster. i cant say i notice personally, but i suppose some might?

 

[LCGeek]

I think what you are missing is talk on a "locked 30fps or 60fps".

A game that shoots for 30fps but dips to low 20s is not good.

A game that shoots for 60fps and dips to low 50s is not as bad. But if it dips to 30s or 40s then it can be jarring, but not have as big an impact on controller response compared to low 20s dip.

This is my concern in the end, is that games that target 30fps don't actually lock there and dip to lower frames, which is unacceptable.

This sums up my current pet peeve with 30fps.

It's not constant and you can count on that fact. We have more than enough power to make 30fps consistent not 100% but easily above the average we see as a norm for console this generation or the last.

specifically, it comes down to your input being recognized 16 milliseconds faster. i cant say i notice personally, but i suppose some might?

This is a false premise. If we had to use another part of gaming to demonstrate why I would sum up with offline lan multiplayer gaming vs online. Due to the nature of how online works for some genres as we saw with fighters it can break them. More so in some fighters the speed of your connection is the difference between between doing moves with very low frames that need that and not being able to hit them at all due to the speed.

 

[tesla246]

http://30vs60.com/index.html

These gifs/small videos show the difference quite well; it is possible after some concentration to spot the difference. Some notice it quicker than others, and some may say the difference is negligible.

However, B]when actually playing a game [/B] at 60FPS, the gameplay is so much more immersive, the fluidity of movement increases greatly and the feel of ''being in control'' just isnt there for me at 30 FPS. I cannot understand how some people actually choose 30 fps (with increased fidelity)over 60fps, but to each his own. On the other side of the fence there are people saying 30fps is a slideshow and is unplayable; I do not agree with those either. 30 fps is perfectly playable (windwaker and sunshine spring to mind), but the same amount of framedrops is much more noticeable at 30fps as opposed to 60.

In the end, I would always choose 60 over 30 if available.

TLDR; the difference between 30fps vs 60 fps is noticeable on videos on the internet, staring at your computer. However, the difference when actually playing a games is something else entirely and becomes much more noticeable.

 

[Goddard]

No, that link is the easiest way to understand why 60fps > 30fps. No need for wall of text of pros and cons when you can just see for yourself in moving images.

Please stop while you are ahead. If you have read any of the recent 30 vs 60 proxy war threads this list is absolutely needed, fallacies get thrown around like crazy. Posting comparisons only serves to derail threads rather than make them better.

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.

The debate is 30fps vs. 60fps. Everything is a comparison. Compared to 60fps I:SS made a big sacrifice in the gameplay department. It is not the point of the thread to argue whether or not the sacrifice was worth it though, the point is that they had to make a sacrifice.

If an artist wants 30FPS how is that not an "artistic choice."

Because the artist is forced to make the decision because of being on limited hardware. No game designer ever wants their game to be 30fps, they just want their game to look really good, and the hardware isn't powerful enough to do it at 60. That's why it isn't artistic.

 

[Alo81]

"I can't see the difference." This one speaks for itself mostly, everyone can see and feel the difference under controlled circumstances. The extremely rare few that actually biologically aren't capable of seeing the difference don't have a relevant opinion in the discussion of 30fps vs 60fps.​

Do you have any source on this?

http://30vs60.com/index.html

These are all really, really terrible examples.

Low bitrate video that isn't properly syncronized is not a good way to compare framerates under any circumstance

 

[Michael Armbrust]

Your points on input lag are completely wrong.


60 fps does not have half the input lag or alternatively 30 fps does not have double the input lag.

There's much more to input lag than just framerate. The difference between 60fps and 30fps is essentially trivial once gamepad lag, tv lag, and game lag are factored in.

A 60fps game will on average have less input lag than a 30 fps game, but it's not a rule and certainly not significant on consoles.



Also the 30 fps is cinematic argument is incredibly valid. It's stupid that it's valid, but the soap opera effect is a real thing.

 

[Moral Panic]

(Ocarina of time comparison is invalid.

Err why exactly?

 

[Tizoc]

There are 2 GIFs/images from Dark Souls 1 or 2 that show the difference between animations in 30 and 60 FPS. I can't post them myself since they're burried in the Steam June thread >_>;

 

[PSYGN]

60fps cutscenes looks a little off to me still. 30fps looks more in line with what I see on TV. That said, I do notice 60fps over 30fps, and for twitch games and fast motion games it becomes even that much more noticeable in feeling fluid and responsive.

Edit: The latest Uncharted trailer at 60fps looks really good, though. So idk, maybe particles like dust or smoke at 60fps or even character movement if not animated naturally in a realistic scene is even more noticeably flawed in a 60fps environment.

 

[LastNac]

Because the artist is forced to make the decision because of being on limited hardware. No game designer ever wants their game to be 30fps, they just want their game to look really good, and the hardware isn't powerful enough to do it at 60. That's why it isn't artistic.

And if he/she does?

That's like saying why would any director still want to use film now that we have digital.

It would still be a matter of visual taste.

 

[oSoLucky]

Maybe I'm wrong about how it all works, but with consoles using GPU compute, aren't the implications more than just graphical effects per frame? Wouldn't AI, destruction, lighting and other physics calculations be theoretically better? Also, you stated effects, but number of objects rendered, area size, draw distance are also factors. Maybe you could add a fee bullet points or something, but it feels like you have a stake in the argument on one side already, especially with the inflammatory remark about incompetent developers.

 

[Nozem]

30fps also gives twice as much time for non-graphical calculations: physics, AI, game logic, simulations, anything.

 

[metareferential]

For gamers, there are no cons to 60 fps.

Every game is better at 60fps, if the tech supports it.

It's a development problem, mostly. And even if I prefer 60 fps every day, some games perfectly work at 30.

 

[stay gold]

No, that link is the easiest way to understand why 60fps > 30fps. No need for wall of text of pros and cons when you can just see for yourself in moving images.

It still makes no difference for me.

I can see the difference in those gifs clearly, but I just don't feel it when I'm playing. I can go from playing CoD to Halo 3 and it feels no worse to me, if I didn't post on message boards I wouldn't suspect they were doing anything different.

 

[Goddard]

uh wow... no

Animations aren't animated on a frame by frame basis in any modern 3D title its all keyframes and interpolation. Only 2d sprites are completely frame animated and very few games (if any) actually draw all 60 frames.

Any modern competently created game sure. But things like retro games, and Dead Rising 3 as a recent example tend to be code locked to low framerates, preventing you from ever running the game at 60 without either breaking the game or just game time being double. Developers can in theory take advantage of this and only animate 30 sections of an animation. I might remove that one if someone else points that out though, it was kind of scraping.

specifically, it comes down to your input being recognized 16 milliseconds faster. i cant say i notice personally, but i suppose some might?

It is not really the difference of one frame to another being twice as long, but the entire game being twice as laggy. For example, MK8 is known to have a visual oddity that results from one frame being duplicated every second. This is seen as slight visual stutter and doesn't really affect much. But when you compare a game at 60 to a game at 30 having twice the response time changes everything.

These gifs/small videos show the difference quite well; it is possible after some concentration to spot the difference. Some notice it quicker than others, and some may say the difference is negligible.

However, B]when actually playing a game [/B] at 60FPS, the gameplay is so much more immersive, the fluidity of movement increases greatly and the feel of ''being in control'' just isnt there for me at 30 FPS. I cannot understand how some people actually choose 30 fps (with increased fidelity)over 60fps, but to each his own. On the other side of the fence there are people saying 30fps is a slideshow and is unplayable; I do not agree with those either. 30 fps is perfectly playable (windwaker and sunshine spring to mind), but the same amount of framedrops is much more noticeable at 30fps as opposed to 60.

In the end, I would always choose 60 over 30 if available.

I respectfully ask that people please try to post as objectively as possible in this thread. There is no way opinions won't make their way in one way or another, but saying things like "I cannot understand how some people actually choose 30 fps (with increased fidelity)over 60fps," does not serve the discussion of this thread, it will just piss someone off. Argue those points in a different thread.

 

[GloveSlap]

How come a locked 45 FPS isn't something you see. I see all the resolutions used between 720p and 1080p, but then I only hear about 30 or 60 when it comes to framerate.

 

[system11]

It's worth remembering that the PS1 and PS2 were both more than able to run games at 60fps. 30fps being the 'norm' was a thing invented last generation with the 360/PS3, driven purely by marketing and wanting to look good on Youtube/screenshots.

 

[Joe T.]

[*]Incompetent developers only have to animate half as much.

Only the incompetent ones? I would imagine the same holds true for any developer targeting 30 fps.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't understand why there are so many threads debating this. No one who likes to play video games should be arguing for 30 fps.

 

[SuperEpicGuy]

Excellent post. Lots of good detail.

 

[gruenel]

Your points on input lag are completely wrong.


60 fps does not have half the input lag or alternatively 30 fps does not have double the input lag.

There's much more to input lag than just framerate. The difference between 60fps and 30fps is essentially trivial once gamepad lag, tv lag, and game lag are factored in.

A 60fps game will on average have less input lag than a 30 fps game, but it's not a rule and certainly not significant on consoles.



Also the 30 fps is cinematic argument is incredibly valid. It's stupid that it's valid, but the soap opera effect is a real thing.

This. I remember a DF article once measured total console input lag on PS3 and it was around 100-200ms. 60 FPS shaves a maximum of 16ms off that figure, it's noticeable but certainly not "half".

 

[system11]

How come a locked 45 FPS isn't something you see. I see all the resolutions used between 720p and 1080p, but then I only hear about 30 or 60 when it comes to framerate.

It's not possible to do without irregular updates and/or tearing, to avoid those you want the frame rate to be a factor of the native display refresh rate, which generally speaking is 60hz - although in Europe it was 50hz for a long time, hence the horrible problems with PAL/NTSC conversion back in the day.

 

[LastNac]

I don't understand why there are so many threads debating this. No one who likes to play video games should be arguing for 30 fps.

I love to play games but I'm not sure everything should visually be the same.

I'm down with every COD being 60 FPS and wouldn't expect any different.

However I agree with RaD with what they are doing with The Order.

I'm fine with some movies being 48FPS, but that doesn't mean I want all of them to be.

 

[PSYGN]

How come a locked 45 FPS isn't something you see. I see all the resolutions used between 720p and 1080p, but then I only hear about 30 or 60 when it comes to framerate.

I feel like if there are people out there who can't notice a difference between 30fps or 60fps, then it's a lost cause to render that. I think more people would notice a difference in 720p vs 1080p, so that is where a middle ground in resolution makes more sense than framerate. And instead of rendering at 45fps, they can keep it at 30fps and add more effects which would be more immediately noticeable.

 

[-COOLIO-]

30fps also gives twice as much time for non-graphical calculations: physics, AI, game logic, simulations, anything.

well, you dont haaaave to compute all of that stuff on every frame. i dont even know if button listeners or whatever are checking for input on every frame, i would just assume they do.

i wouldnt poll for AI stuff on every frame though, much less recompute it.

 

[sixteen-bit]

It's worth remembering that the PS1 and PS2 were both more than able to run games at 60fps. 30fps being the 'norm' was a thing invented last generation with the 360/PS3, driven purely by marketing and wanting to look good on Youtube/screenshots.

There were probably a higher percentage of 60fps games in the 4th generation than in the PS1 generation. That whole trend started then, not gen 7 (PS360).

 

[LCGeek]

This. I remember a DF article once measured total console input lag on PS3 and it was around 100-200ms. 60 FPS shaves a maximum of 16ms off that figure, it's noticeable but certainly not "half".

The half is coming from 16.6 MS vs 33.3 MS.

Input lag and Response time should be differentiated they are two different things op.

I feel like if there are people out there who can't notice a difference between 30fps or 60fps, then it's a lost cause to render that. I think more people would notice a difference in 720p vs 1080p, so that is where a middle ground in resolution makes more sense than framerate. And instead of rendering at 45fps, they can keep it at 30fps and add more effects which would be more immediately noticeable.

Game industry serves far more people now than really it ever has. Limiting performance to one size fits all is dumb. Devs/Publishers should figure out this issue considering their money concerns cause I think easily think of dozens people I met who don't get in gaming cause there is no sweet spot on this issue.

 

[RMI]

I don't understand why there are so many threads debating this. No one who likes to play video games should be arguing for 30 fps.

"play" videogames? for fun?

please, I want to have engaging, filmic experiences.

Seriously though, if a dev wants to sacrifice 60fps for increased graphical fidelity, they should just be up front about it and not try to dress it up as anything else.

 

[Liamario]

Dropping the framerate has a negative impact on the core aspect of games- gameplay. Some games with slower gameplay aren't affected as much, but for the vast majority of games, 60fps should be preferable.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Op has an agenda.

 

[Goddard]

"I can't see the difference." This one speaks for itself mostly, everyone can see and feel the difference under controlled circumstances. The extremely rare few that actually biologically aren't capable of seeing the difference don't have a relevant opinion in the discussion of 30fps vs 60fps.​

Do you have any source on this?



These are all really, really terrible examples.

Low bitrate video that isn't properly syncronized is not a good way to compare framerates under any circumstance

I don't have an actual source, it is all anecdotal on that point, but using basic logic it seems completely true. If you can use logic to invalidate that point I will remove it. Also I totally agree about the low bitrate comparisons being shite, that's why I ask that people don't post them here.

Your points on input lag are completely wrong.
60 fps does not have half the input lag or alternatively 30 fps does not have double the input lag.
There's much more to input lag than just framerate. The difference between 60fps and 30fps is essentially trivial once gamepad lag, tv lag, and game lag are factored in.
A 60fps game will on average have less input lag than a 30 fps game, but it's not a rule and certainly not significant on consoles.
Also the 30 fps is cinematic argument is incredibly valid. It's stupid that it's valid, but the soap opera effect is a real thing.

16.67 vs 33.33 is a massive difference in input lag, you can't deny that, don't even try. The cinematic argument is completely invalid and so is the soap opera one. Video of real life isn't comparable to that of a computer rendering.

Err why exactly?

Because with the 3D revolution nintendo was extremely limited in how much power they could use. People like to point out that Ocarina of Time is considered playable at 20fps, but just barely so by today's standards.

There are 2 GIFs/images from Dark Souls 1 or 2 that show the difference between animations in 30 and 60 FPS. I can't post them myself since they're burried in the Steam June thread >_>;

Please don't. It's a good comparison, but I don't want any comparisons in this thread.

And if he/she does?

That's like saying why would any director still want to use film now that we have digital.

It would still be a matter of visual taste.

They don't. They never will. Any publisher that says 30fps has artistic benefit other than more leeway for effects is bullshitting you. It is not even close to film vs digital, it doesn't work like that, it is an invalid argument, and it is not about taste, it's about limited computing power.

30fps also gives twice as much time for non-graphical calculations: physics, AI, game logic, simulations, anything.

Absolutely. I will edit it for clarity.

Maybe I'm wrong about how it all works, but with consoles using GPU compute, aren't the implications more than just graphical effects per frame? Wouldn't AI, destruction, lighting and other physics calculations be theoretically better? Also, you stated effects, but number of objects rendered, area size, draw distance are also factors. Maybe you could add a fee bullet points or something, but it feels like you have a stake in the argument on one side already, especially with the inflammatory remark about incompetent developers.

I generally categorize more particle effects, more complicated physics, and generally anything that requires more power as visual effects, because fundamentally they are almost the same. I don't have a stake in the argument. Anyone who has seen my posts obviously knows which side of the argument I'm on, but unless you can point out a specific example the OT is pretty much objective. Also it was not meant to be inflammatory, I was referring to how Dead Rising 3 tied everything about the game to 30fps because they had incompetent programmers. It is simply truth.

For gamers, there are no cons to 60 fps.

Every game is better at 60fps, if the tech supports it.

I tried to emphasize this in my OT.

It still makes no difference for me.

I can see the difference in those gifs clearly, but I just don't feel it when I'm playing. I can go from playing CoD to Halo 3 and it feels no worse to me, if I didn't post on message boards I wouldn't suspect they were doing anything different.

Then leave the thread. If you can't see the difference than your argument is invalid.

 

[Michael Armbrust]

The half is coming from 16.6 MS vs 33.3 MS.

Input lag and Response time should be differentiated they are two different things op.

Input lag and response time are synonyms in this case.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I feel like if there are people out there who can't notice a difference between 30fps or 60fps, then it's a lost cause to render that. I think more people would notice a difference in 720p vs 1080p, so that is where a middle ground in resolution makes more sense than framerate. And instead of rendering at 45fps, they can keep it at 30fps and add more effects which would be more immediately noticeable.

No not at all, it has to do with refresh rates, if you don't have either of the two framerates you get frame tearing.

GSync from Nvidia offers a solution though, for PCs.

 

[-COOLIO-]

This sums up my current pet peeve with 30fps.

It's not constant and you can count on that fact. We have more than enough power to make 30fps consistent not 100% but easily above the average we see as a norm for console this generation or the last.



This is a false premise. If we had to use another part of gaming to demonstrate why I would sum up with offline lan multiplayer gaming vs online. Due to the nature of how online works for some genres as we saw with fighters it can break them. More so in some fighters the speed of your connection is the difference between between doing moves with very low frames that need that and not being able to hit them at all due to the speed.

not sure i understand your analogy. online connections are pretty variable in speed. wired/bluetooth hardware in your room is pretty reliable. i cant say ive ever pressed a button on a controller and worried about the data getting lost or not reaching the computer/console at all. theres a lot more to input lag as someone else pointed out, but i feel like i could sum up each of those things and get a really close estimate on how long it would take for my button press to affect something on screen:

controller polling time + transfer time to the device + input polling in the game code + fps + monitor lag.

 

[LastNac]

They don't. They never will. Any publisher that says 30fps has artistic benefit other than more leeway for effects is bullshitting you. It is not even close to film vs digital, it doesn't work like that, it is an invalid argument, and it is not about taste, it's about limited computing power.

So if I made a game at 30FPS because I don't like the 1.5x speed 60FPS seems to give off then I'm bullshitting myself?

That's a pretty narrow view of the world.

 

[ichtyander]

[*]"30fps is more cinematic." This was proven false on the basis that computer renderings and films of real life aren't even remotely comparable in any constructive way, and that the higher framerate goes the more cinematic things tend to feel for a lot of people.

Not sure if I understood this line correctly, but as I understand it, you're saying realtime gameplay and say, The Avengers movie aren't comparable in any constructive way? I mean, they are both moving pictures displayed on a flat screen, the main difference being that one of them is highly interactive. We can put aside that interactivity for a moment and compare games and films, you can most definitely make an argument for a game looking "more cinematic".

Stuff like resolution and frame rate can most certainly be considered an artistic choice. For example, The Artist, that silent movie from 2011 was filmed at 22 fps to better depict the slightly flickery and skippy feel of some silent films, so it was purely an artistic choice. Begotten by E. Elias Mehrige has a distinct, "low fps" look because every frame of the film was rephotographed so for each minute of film 10 hours were spent on rephotographing the footage, just to get the distinct look and framerate.

These artistic choices influence how the moving images on screen look and feel so I believe it has enough basis to call something "more cinematic" and attach that attribute to any type of "moving pictures", even video games.

Also the 30 fps is cinematic argument is incredibly valid. It's stupid that it's valid, but the soap opera effect is a real thing.

This.