Your arguments in this topic always fail because you're always being biased towards your own preferences. Where are the 60fps console racers that are progressing dynamic weather, graphics and day/night cycles like DriveClub does? Why are you okay with standards in those respects being "just fine"?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
A few reasons why Racing games NEED to have a higher frame rate.
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
Your arguments in this topic always fail because you're always being biased towards your own preferences. Where are the 60fps console racers that are progressing dynamic weather, graphics and day/night cycles like DriveClub does? Why are you okay with standards in those respects being "just fine"?
Crayon
Member
I dont consider 60fps crucial for racing. Many good racing games have sacrificed framrate for more complex environments or gameplay features.
In a classic car racing scenario, cars do not move so quickly relative to each other, and turns approach gradually from the distance always in front of the camera.
In a classic car racing scenario, cars do not move so quickly relative to each other, and turns approach gradually from the distance always in front of the camera.
nkarafo
Member
Because we are talking about racing games. I explained what's important about them in the OP (IMO). If we were talking about The Witcher 3 or something, i would agree 100% with you. Different genres, different goals, priorities, sacrifices, etc.
Also, 60fps was ALREADY a standard during 6th gen. Maybe i got spoiled then. And because, you know, games evolve, i don't like when standards drop. Stick to what you have reached and start improving from there.
So there's that.
How are graphics not important to a racing game? Don't dynamic weather conditions occur in real life races? Don't race car drivers have to deal with varying levels of sunlight and glare in real life?
nkarafo
Member
These conditions exist on 60 fps racing games too. Driveclub didn't invent them.
Good to confirm given that it is an irrelevant hypothetical and useless question to ask.
Kageshinzo
Member
The funny thing is that back in the 90's, if we'll just take racing games as an example, I would play Daytona USA and think "Oh man, it would be so awesome if we can get this buttery smooth feel in consoles!", and even magazines would always call for that holy grail that is arcade-perfect ports.
60 fps should be the standard now; it shouldn't be something that devs consider as "expendable" and gamers, as consumers of an interactive media, should call for that improvement going forward, not settle for something that has been established as perfectly achievable generations ago.
60 fps should be the standard now; it shouldn't be something that devs consider as "expendable" and gamers, as consumers of an interactive media, should call for that improvement going forward, not settle for something that has been established as perfectly achievable generations ago.
Xan Kriegor
Banned
I severely disagree with you OP. I'll explain later why.
nkarafo
Member
Basically, my biggest complain is that we had already reached that standard. PS2/GC/XBOX had 60fps racing games as the standard. That's my problem. Why did they have to take a step back from there? They could stick to that standard and improve the graphics as much as each gen allowed them to do so. It's pretty reasonable thing to ask. Because 60fps made such a huge difference on that particular genre.
If someone weren't around that time, i get it. But i guess i was spoiled. Can't drop my standards unfortunately : /
Day/night cycle is pretty integral in an open world racer.
Many people agree DC achieved a fantastic balance between frame rate, graphics and gameplay altering features like weather and day/night cycle. I applaud both DC and Forza 6 for the respective packages they deliver. In fact I'm playing Forza 6 right now. That's the difference - we can have both type of games without being completely dismissive of one like you are.
You're just proving my point about their priorities. They can push graphics AND prioritize performace first, but they'd have to develop on the PC. Have a look at DICE's Star Wars engine and what it's capable of. That counts as pushing graphics. They just chose not to funnel all that detail down to the PC version since not only will it require really good expensive hardware, it will also make the consoles and the majority of gaming rigs look pretty bad in comparison.
nkarafo
Member
I don't want to dismiss Driveclub. You think i like being sensitive to this matter? Or that i liked how i couldn't find racing games to play on my 360? I wish my eyes could tolerate this, i tried to like the game. But i can't have fun with it. It doesn't give me the feel i want from a racing game. And i explained my self in the OP. Still my opinion, i know. But it's a legit case, especially after how things were during the 6th gen of consoles.
So because you're ultra sensitive to framerate that means all developers should adhere to a 60fps model? What about people who get motion sickness? Should developers make all games in a certain way for them so they can play comfortably?
grandwizard
Member
OP is completely right. Motion clarity with higher framerates is overlooked so much when discussing this. Still screenshots might look more barren when you compare 60 and 30fps games but in motion they are just so much nicer to look at due to getting twice the visual information. And this is all secondary to the improvement in control response and feel.
nkarafo
Member
I hate to repeat myself. It's about standards and priorities. Some standards were already met and they took a step back. That's the real problem. My sensitivity for frame rate is just the reason i care so much.
NullPointer
Member
I'm all for more arcade 60fps titles, if devs can get them made and sold. I'd be into playing those as well.
Where I sympathize with you is when it comes to a lack of choice for 60fps arcadish racers on the consoles. Where I differ is that I'm glad we have the choices that we do have now for 60fps and 30fps, but there's definitely room in my world for more.
Aren't the original Burnout folks looking to make a spiritual successor? A track based 60fps Burnout would be all kinds of welcome.
Your sensitivity is the reason you're framing the violation of "standards" as a big deal. For all intents and purposes they're the exact same argument.
Which is why this discussion always goes in this particular circle.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
For me motion clarity is the primary reason I like higher framerates. I'm very sensitive to that while I'm not all that sensitive to input lag.
Pretty much. You also realise everyone arguing with your is also repeating themselves constantly due to your circular logic?
nkarafo
Member
Well, at least i made the right choice for myself and got a gaming PC for this gen. I have lots of multiplarform racers to play with unlocked frame rate. Sure, they are not as impressive as Driveclub but they looks so much better in my eyes... And that new Dirt Rally game is the best looking Rally style game so far. I kinda prefer dirt racing, was a huge Sega Rally 2 fan.
Actually no. Like i said, many times, the reason i insist about the standards is that they were already met during 6th gen. You seem to ignore this for some reason.
This.
No, that's just the excuse you use because you apparently find 30fps intolerable. "Standards" and "priorities" change all the time from game to game depending on the developer and core design philosophy. You just keep banging on about this instance of "standards" because of your own preference.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm addressing it directly.
If you didn't think that a 60fps target necessarily provided a net benefit to console racing games, would you be insisting that it's a critical standard?
HueyFreeman
Banned
Not at all, I can totally get down on both 30fps or 60fps racing. i want a stable frame rate - but a game can be equally enjoyable at either.
The whole argument is getting extremely tired.
The whole argument is getting extremely tired.
nkarafo
Member
What if tomorrow, the standards "change according to design philosophy" and suddenly all games start having low polygon counts and colored textures instead of textures? Wouldn't that look like a step back for the worse to you?
I wouldn't say that it's not, that's for sure. I wouldn't argue with you if you thought so.
Duallusion
Member
If racing games (or any other genre of games) NEEDED to run at 60fps, they would be.
They don't.
They don't.
So you think that even if a given game would be a better product with a 30fps target, the devs should compromise that to satisfy your standard? You're avoiding backpedaling, but with that sort of stance, at best you could preach to the choir.
Krappadizzle
Member
No game "need's" to be any framerate.
Duallusion
Member
nkarafo
Member
Would it? What kind of game is better at lower frame rates? A slow paced RPG? Sure. But if it was a speed/motion centered game i would disagree with the developer's choice. Especially if the previous offers were already 60fps, so there would be the issue of taking a step back.
I only tolerate back steps in technical aspects when a game is ported to an inferior machine. I knew the Saturn was inferior to the Model 2. I didn't have the expectation of enjoying similar looking games at 60fps there. Standards were low. But enjoying a 60fps racing game on PS2 (WRC) and it's sequel being 30fps on a VASTLY superior machine? (XBOX360)? Sorry, i find this kinda unacceptable.
Cave Johnson
Member
VR essentially tells us that the demand for better input would simultaneously require for better frame-rate. I agree that 30fps is a step backwards. You can always have that power delta from new gen consoles anyways. 60fps will make significant jumps accordingly.
Obviously some racing games by some people's preferences.
Not that that's relevant to the hypothetical case.
I kinda agree with the 30fps stuff. I feel that a lot of detail is lost in motion in 30fps, especially on poor displays, and the extra visual oomph you get isn't as impressive as it should be unless you're standing still or moving slowly. This is mostly an issue for me in faster paced games but I think I almost always enjoy the visuals more in 60fps games. Like, Driveclub looks ridiculous in pictures and in motion too but I felt more immersed in the 60fps ridge racer games (ps3 + psp).
I don't really mind 30fps on PC though cause I've never really had an amazing computer so
I'll take what I can get lol.
I don't really mind 30fps on PC though cause I've never really had an amazing computer so
I'll take what I can get lol.
nkarafo
Member
Ok here's the thing, it all comes down to this:
We had racing games running at 20-30 fps during 5th gen. People liked 60fps in the arcades but didn't demand them because we knew consoles had vastly inferior hardware. Having textured mapped 3D polygons to begin with was impressive enough so we didn't mind that much.
When PS2/GC/XBOX (and even DC) were released, we started having those arcade experiences at home, this time without compromises. We had better graphics than before AND 60fps. For the whole duration of that generation, most racing games were 60fps. It was the standard and for a good reason.
Then the PS3/360 were released and poof... back to 30fps again. Why? Dunno. I have some theories about this but im not going to address them because i won't be able to handle the hate they will probably generate here. There are enough arguments already. But the case is simple. Many racing fans (including me) are used to 60fps at this point. Can't go back to 30, its a step back, feels like a step back and it's especially annoying knowing that we have so much more powerful machines now compared to 6th gen.
It's a pretty simple case really.
Frankenstrat
Member
No. Nor is it a coincidence that the futuristic racer that it shares the throne with is also 60fps. TRUTHFACT
AbandonedTrolley
Member
This is the one! Fuck screen tearing, I don't care for framerate as long as it's solid. DC is perfectly fine as a game, not once have I sat there thinking, I'm sure those trees looked better on the forums when they are whizzing past me at 160mph.
Prophet Steve
Member
S, many types of things that really aren't applicable only to racing games.
Lys Skygge
Member
I disagree with OP. Especially considering my favorite racing games are 30fps (Driveclub, PGR)
DerSchniffles
Member
It would seem that some people are just more sensitive to things like frame rate and screen tear. I cant stand screen tear....but some don't seem to notice it.
I also wonder how many people who claim to not notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps are using tv's with frame smoothing enabled and don't even know it.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates
Some of you are honestly telling me you cant see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 fps ufo's in that test? 0 difference whatsoever?
If you can't then more power to you, but the difference is startling to me and tons of other people. You can tell how much detail you lose when running at a lower frame rate and you are in motion. Go back to the ufo test and increase the speed to 1920 pixels. Its pretty easy to see.
I understand what you are saying OP. I kinda feel like 30 fps is being used because we had such high hopes/expectations for this new gen after last gen being out forever and we still have problems running 1080p with decent framerate. So the obvious choice to make the graphic fidelity higher is to run 30fps. Just an opinion, not sure how much validity is here.
I also wonder how many people who claim to not notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps are using tv's with frame smoothing enabled and don't even know it.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates
Some of you are honestly telling me you cant see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 fps ufo's in that test? 0 difference whatsoever?
If you can't then more power to you, but the difference is startling to me and tons of other people. You can tell how much detail you lose when running at a lower frame rate and you are in motion. Go back to the ufo test and increase the speed to 1920 pixels. Its pretty easy to see.
I understand what you are saying OP. I kinda feel like 30 fps is being used because we had such high hopes/expectations for this new gen after last gen being out forever and we still have problems running 1080p with decent framerate. So the obvious choice to make the graphic fidelity higher is to run 30fps. Just an opinion, not sure how much validity is here.
If we're talking framerate here, I'd much prefer 120fps as the goal over 60fps.
finalgamer
Member
In complete agreement with OP.
But DriveClub is the best of all time and it runs at 30 FPS!