You know what the difference is? Most people defending 30fps also love 60fps games which the 60fps or bust crowd are entirely dismissive of the former. I wish every game could be 60fps obviously, but at the same time I can appreciate a well executed 30fps game like DriveClub or Uncharted 2.
O, is that the difference? One of my favorite games of all time is 30 fps. I still hate 30fps. It won't stop me from playing a game I'm interested in, but I will count it as a negative mark.
No game by any means NEEDS to be any framerate, this is a true statement. BUT, games objectively look and run better at 60+fps.
Same game, with a way faster sense of speed than pretty much every current racer around. You tell me which side looks better and looks to control better.
The gameplay of NFS HP was absolutely fine. Could it have been better at 60 fps? Sure, but let's no act like it was bad in any way because of the 30 fps.
Criterion found a perfectly good middle ground between graphics, performance and gameplay. People loved the game and it sold a lot.
O, is that the difference? One of my favorite games of all time is 30 fps. I still hate 30fps. It won't stop me from playing a game I'm interested in, but I will count it as a negative mark.
No game by any means NEEDS to be any framerate, this is a true statement. BUT, games objectively look and run better at 60+fps.
Same game, with a way faster sense of speed than pretty much every current racer around. You tell me which side looks better and looks to control better.
Is anyone arguing that 60fps isn't better? That video has them at the same settings aside from frame rate so obviously the 60fps version is much better. Trackmania is clearly the type of game that should be "60fps or bust" since it requires price controls and no one plays it for the graphics.
Clearly better graphics are important to a lot of people, even in racers since they're consistently some of the best looking games around. DriveClub barely had any positive reaction from the wider community until they patched in the weather system.
Two best racers I played this gen were 30 fps (Driveclub, Forza Horizon 2). Sense of speed in both were greater than in many previous 60fps racers.
60fps DC obviously would be better no doubt about that but saying that at 30 games are unplayable is crazy.
Is anyone arguing that 60fps isn't better? That video has them at the same settings aside from frame rate so obviously the 60fps version is much better. Trackmania is clearly the type of game that should be "60fps or bust" since it requires price controls and no one plays it for the graphics.
Clearly better graphics are important to a lot of people, even in racers since they're consistently some of the best looking games around. DriveClub barely had any positive reaction from the wider community until they patched in the weather system.
I think the main root of contention for people advocating 60 fps is that developers and gamers are settling on something that can objectively improve gameplay experience over something that is basically just improved eye-candy.
If RAD or Evolution Studios have started their projects with 60 fps in mind as base and then projected from there, squeezing all the console's powers and juices and skillfully manage to bring out a still awesome-looking game, I am quite certain people here will hold that as the de facto graphical standard instead of the current one. Will it look less graphically impressive than how DC or TO is now? Yes, it will. But years down the line, when graphics have evolved to a point where current DC/TO have become standard fare, games that play 60 fps will be deemed better than those that were graphically better but at 30 fps.
I am also reminded of threads here in GAF where people profess that they can still play games regardless of graphics as long as the gameplay is there. That's funny now because in this thread, it's basically "we want the graphics and we're willing to compromise a setting that provides a better gameplay experience for it."
I think the main root of contention for people advocating 60 fps is that developers and gamers are settling on something that can objectively improve gameplay experience over something that is basically just improved eye-candy.
If RAD or Evolution Studios have started their projects with 60 fps in mind as base and then projected from there, squeezing all the console's powers and juices and skillfully manage to bring out a still awesome-looking game, I am quite certain people here will hold that as the de facto graphical standard instead of the current one. Will it look less graphically impressive than how DC or TO is now? Yes, it will. But years down the line, when graphics have evolved to a point where current DC/TO have become standard fare, games that play 60 fps will be deemed better than those that were graphically better but at 30 fps.
I am also reminded of threads here in GAF where people profess that they can still play games regardless of graphics as long as the gameplay is there. That's funny now because in this thread, it's basically "we want the graphics and we're willing to compromise a setting that provides a better gameplay experience for it."
Yes, it will. But years down the line, when graphics have evolved to a point where current DC/TO have become standard fare, games that play 60 fps will be deemed better than those that were graphically better but at 30 fps.
You do realize that there are 60 fps racing games from previous generations that still play great but most people don't want to play anymore because they look ugly and dated right? It goes both ways. Graphics are important. Whether they are more important than performance is up to each one own opinion.
It is possible to say you care about gameplay and yet are OK with 30 fps. Believe it or not and I think you probably know this but latency on 30 fps doesn't need to be double the latency of 60 fps. It is possible to optimize latency in 30 fps games so that they perform closer to 60 fps games.
A compromise will always be made. Sometimes graphics will be sacrificed, others it will be performance. And frankly that's the way it should be. This way everyone will find what they are looking for. People who want performance will have that option, as will people looking for eye candy.
It's not like devs make that compromise without even thinking of the consequences. They consider it every single time they start development of a new game. It's their job.
The thing is they have data, market research and a lot of other tools that show then that the majority of their target audience is fine with such compromises. The ones that push 60 know that for their game, and for their audience the sacrifice to get that performance is worth it.
Insomniac has gone on record saying that investing in graphics gives then a better return (probably in term of sales) than sacrificing it for performance. Most devs think the same way but won't go on record because the minority that really cares about this debate can be quite loud.
The market has spoken and people that advocate 60 fps or bust on consoles are going to be swept by the tide. Thankfully for then they can always go PC.
Here's a simple question for those who don't have a problem with 30fps. What if the next F-Zero was 30fps with some extra shaders and better lighting? Would you be OK with it? And if not, what's the big difference between this and a game like Driveclub? If it's the top speed then at how many km/s must a vehicle run before you start having an issue with 30fps?
What matters is the sense of speed and the latency to the controller.
You give me a F-zero at 30fps and it's a beautifull game at 30fps locked and people will eat it ...
The sad truth is that very few devs out there have that mindset to stick with 60fps and have graphics at a lower priority. 343i, DICE, Call of Duty devs, Turn 10 and some few others.
The others succumb to how graphics can be shown in screenshots and trailers to sell games, while framerate can't be marketed that way.
It's going to keep happening for a long time.
I've probably said thousands of times in my life wow these graphics are amazing. I can honestly say I've never said wow look at this framerate. I think you'd be surprised how many people don't know what framerate means. For example I had friends who didn't understand why bf4 ran better on current gen. As I was explaining it was like I was speaking a foreign language.
I've probably said thousands of times in my life wow these graphics are amazing. I can honestly say I've never said wow look at this framerate. I think you'd be surprised how many people don't know what framerate means. For example I had friends who didn't understand why bf4 ran better on current gen. As I was explaining it was like I was speaking a foreign language.
Having worked in video game store for a while i can safely say that the general public only cares if the game is consistent and beautifull ... That is unless you have a brand name on the product ( like gran turismo ) , then they buy on the name alone.
Having worked in video game store for a while i can safely say that the general public only cares if the game is consistent and beautifull ... That is unless you have a brand name on the product ( like gran turismo ) , then they buy on the name alone.
What matters is the sense of speed and the latency to the controller.
You give me a F-zero at 30fps and it's a beautifull game at 30fps locked and people will eat it ...
When the clouds react to lighting, and you have sudden shafts or beams of light pop out of nowhere in front of your view or on the track ahead in varying degrees of strength, or they block light with gloomy conditions that reduce your visibility, or moments where in combination with the positioning of the sun you get weird and wonderful hues and colours that completely change the look of the track, and all of this happens dynamically and randomly, then yes, I'd argue it affects gameplay.
What of the physics calculation refresh-rate / internal tick-simulation?
A 30 FPS F-Zero would work if it's internal physics was very high, like 360hz or higher.
Drive Club is one such example of 30fps racer with a very fast sense of speed. I am curious to know what it's internal tick refresh is myself.
I've played dozens of racers over the years, there aren't many that given me the same sense of speed, or the illusion of going extremely fast in the way Driveclub has. Only few other games have done this.
Considering I've been playing racing games as far back as original Test Drive under the Accolade brand at the time, that is a TON of racing game history to compare to.
Well, no one makes racing games anymore, but any dev that doesn't understand that a higher framerate makes for a better game deserves to die off anyway.
When the clouds react to lighting, and you have sudden shafts or beams of light pop out of nowhere in front of your view or on the track ahead in varying degrees of strength, or they block light with gloomy conditions that reduce your visibility, or moments where in combination with the positioning of the sun you get weird and wonderful hues and colours that completely change the look of the track, and all of this happens dynamically and randomly, then yes, I'd argue it affects gameplay.
Would DC be better at 60, of course, but to say it is unplayable, and does not provide amazing sense of smooth speed and responsiveness at 30 is hyperbolic.
The dynamic lighting/weather conditions where it had me squinting like real life has done more for gameplay in a racer to me than any of the 60fps ones I have ever played in the past and present.
Everyone knows what 30 and 60fps feels like in racing games. There's absolutely no point telling others what they should want. 60fps isn't some new unknown experience that needs preaching.
How hard would be for devs to add an option? Since Racing games do benefit a lot from 60fps, wouldn't it be great if they added some option that reduces graphical detail somewhat and making the game run at 60fps? This way everyone would be happy.
How hard would be for devs to add an option? Since Racing games do benefit a lot from 60fps, wouldn't it be great if they added some option that reduces graphical detail somewhat and making the game run at 60fps? This way everyone would be happy.
How hard would be for devs to add an option? Since Racing games do benefit a lot from 60fps, wouldn't it be great if they added some option that reduces graphical detail somewhat and making the game run at 60fps? This way everyone would be happy.
That's fine for PC gaming, but doesn't really work for console gaming due to the closed platform nature. Where they design games from the ground up for one or the other, and that way get far more efficient and effective results. It's not like jumping from 30fps to 60fps is some small margin either. It's huge, and in console terms it often means the difference of a completely different game altogether, not just a few less stark lighting, shadow or other graphical tweaks such as is often the case with PC games.
There's got to be a limit to the actual speed the car can go in a 30fps game. The faster the car goes the difference between the frames gets greater and greater. You'd end up with a blurry stuttery mess if you went to fast. 60 fps games feel faster because they are faster.
You could probably work out the max speed you can go at the different frame rates.
60fps is better, but that could applied to just about everything, not just racers.... but 30fps is perfectly functional and playable, assuming the game is designed around it.
That's fine for PC gaming, but doesn't really work for console gaming due to the closed platform nature. Where they design games from the ground up for one or the other, and that way get far more efficient and effective results. It's not like jumping from 30fps to 60fps is some small margin either. It's huge, and in console terms it often means the difference of a completely different game altogether, not just a few less stark lighting, shadow or other graphical tweaks such as is often the case with PC games.
Totally agree. With a high end PC, it's sometimes not even possible to get things running at 30fps! Even if you do, there's hardly anything to be gained from doing so outside of maybe higher resolution/textures. Games like Bloodborne/DC would change considerably with the cuts required for 60fps.
You think the common people who isn't "an expert" ( i'm talking about the casuals ) cares.??
They don't care.
When you try to sell a game to the general public, framerate is at the bottom of the priority. They just check if it's not a slideshow ( if they even check )and they are done with it.
Believe me , if nintendo makes another f-zero ( on wii U for exemple ) it would be at 30fps and if the sense of speed is there , people would still play it and enjoy it at 30fps.
How hard would be for devs to add an option? Since Racing games do benefit a lot from 60fps, wouldn't it be great if they added some option that reduces graphical detail somewhat and making the game run at 60fps? This way everyone would be happy.
Very expensive and depending on the engine used , it could also be a technical challenge. Asking an engine to output the double of framerate is noot just a box you have to check in and you're done.
Believe me , if nintendo makes another f-zero ( on wii U for exemple ) it would be at 30fps and if the sense of speed is there , people would still play it and enjoy it at 30fps.
I highly doubt it based on their record. They completely stripped off any background details of F-Zero X to keep the frame rate at 60fps + 30 vehicles on screen. They also made every recent Mario Kart game at 60fps (a slower paced game) while having great graphics too, so there is no need for as huge sacrifices as the N64 version.
After F-Zero X and GX (60fps and still the most impressive GC title btw) making a new F-Zero game at 30fps would create a backlash similar to that of OtherM.
You think the common people who isn't "an expert" ( i'm talking about the casuals ) cares.??
They don't care.
When you try to sell a game to the general public, framerate is at the bottom of the priority. They just check if it's not a slideshow ( if they even check )and they are done with it.
People do care, no the average person isnt gonna be able to point out 'this game feels half the framerate!'
But you better believe if Madden 17 was 30fps you'll have a bunch of casuals complaining that something aint right.
Damn I feel like its 2005 again when Xbox fanboys were desperately trying to justify Forza 1's 30fps to GT fans.
You think the common people who isn't "an expert" ( i'm talking about the casuals ) cares.??
They don't care. When you try to sell a game to the general public, framerate is at the bottom of the priority. They just check if it's not a slideshow ( if they even check )and they are done with it.
Believe me , if nintendo makes another f-zero ( on wii U for exemple ) it would be at 30fps and if the sense of speed is there , people would still play it and enjoy it at 30fps.
Very expensive and depending on the engine used , it could also be a technical challenge. Asking an engine to output the double of framerate is noot just a box you have to check in and you're done.
The mainstream is clearly more discerning when it comes to gameplay than graphics. Look at the top 10 list for last year, or the past few years. Minecraft never won any graphics awards. And framerate has a direct effect on how a game feels and controls. That effect persists even if consumers don't know the exact terms or underlying concept.
Ultimately, if going to 60 doesn't compromise the gameplay then I don't think it will compromise the sales either. Graphics alone won't sell a game.
I highly doubt it based on their record. They completely stripped off any background details of F-Zero X to keep the frame rate at 60fps + 30 vehicles on screen. They also made every recent Mario Kart game at 60fps (a slower paced game) while having great graphics too, so there is no need for as huge sacrifices as the N64 version.
After F-Zero X and GX (60fps and still the most impressive GC title btw) making a new F-Zero game at 30fps would create a backlash similar to that of OtherM.
i disagree on the bolded ..You're overestimating things , IMO. Yes some people would complain but if the core game is solid , those complains will disappear like it disappeared for every franchise there was a similar thing.
NFS the run was 30fps ..people complained the first day and then complains disappeared slowly but steadily.
People do care, no the average person isnt gonna be able to point out 'this game feels half the framerate!'
But you better believe if Madden 17 was 30fps you'll have a bunch of casuals complaining that something aint right.
Damn I feel like its 2005 again when Xbox fanboys were desperately trying to justify Forza 1's 30fps to GT fans.
The mainstream is clearly more discerning when it comes to gameplay than graphics. Look at the top 10 list for last year, or the past few years. Minecraft never won any graphics awards. And framerate has a direct effect on how a game feels and controls. That effect persists even if consumers don't know the exact terms or underlying concept.
Ultimately, if going to 60 doesn't compromise the gameplay then I don't think it will compromise the sales either. Graphics alone won't sell a game.
I don't think you understood my bolded sentence given your reply.
The 30 vs 60fps is not a concern of the casual market that's the only point i'm saying.
Of course the public cares how a game plays.. but that's not the point i'm arguing
Where did I say that? theres a reason why the big sports and fps franchises are in 60fps. This is what the average person wants. Whether they know the technical reason why is irrelevant.
i disagree on the bolded ..You're overestimating things , IMO. Yes some people would complain but if the core game is solid , those complains will disappear like it disappeared for every franchise there was a similar thing
I think you underestimate the F-Zero X/GX fans. 60fps is like the core game. You can't have a F-Zero without it, it will be a different game. Only people who never played those games would not have a problem. And even them would start having concerns after showing them GX.
Where did I say that? theres a reason why the big sports and fps franchises are in 60fps. This is what the average person wants. Whether they know the technical reason why is irrelevant.
Well i guess i misread your previous point then.
I'll stand by my own experiences trying to sell games to casuals. ( in shops )
And IMO , what the average person wants is smoothness, if they can get it at 30fps , they'll take it.
There was a time where i needed to sell NFS : the run ( a 30fps racing game ), the framerate was steady and all that matterred was what's happening on screen ( the car was being chased by some avalanche ) the music , how the car controlled but not if it was 60fps. Maybe i'm in the wrong place or something , but you don't try to convince someone to buy racing game with 30fps or 60 fps arguments
I think you are overestimating the casual audience on this aspect
I think you underestimate the F-Zero X/GX fans. 60fps is like the core game. You can't have a F-Zero without it, it will be a different game. Only people who never played those games would not have a problem. And even them would start having concerns after showing them GX.
Well F-zero didn't start at GX.
it's a superb game and a technical showcase , but it's not like there aren't f-zero games on some consoles not at 60fps.
Well F-zero didn't start at GX.
it's a superb game and a technical showcase , but it's not like there aren't f-zero games on some consoles not at 60fps.
Fzero X on N64 was also 60fps I believe and that was the first time series was in 3D. Pretty sure Fzero has always been 60 since the series has been in 3D, don't know about the 2D games as I never got into them like I did the 3D Fzeros.
So, after reaching this amazing point where GX had both incredible graphics and 60fps, you say that people will accept the series taking a step back and keep just the graphics part?
That's what i mean when i talk about standards. F-Zero GX exists. It set the bar at some certain height. Consoles are 100 times more powerful now. Shouldn't the next game be, you know, at least as good if not better? Why settle with worse? It's not like the days where we had 8bit consoles and were forced to settle with inferior arcade or 16bit ports...
Also F-Zero X was 60fps too and i think SNES F-Zero also updates at 60fps.
Even if GX was the only game at 60fps, it exists. It set new standards. Why take technically inferior versions on inferior consoles as the base? I mean, for the new generation, you want it to be better than the Gamecube version, which is technically the most advanced so far. And that's already more than a decade old hardware. Why care for the technical limitations of even older hardware than that?
sigh
It turned into a f-zero debate all of the sudden . i guess i'm partially at fault
Let's clear some misconceptions about my thoughts on paper before i exit this thread because i believe nothing will advance anymore from my POV.
I would ..i don't think i would be alone in this either.
It's an endless debate but i don't feel wrong for not minding this.
AT this point it's speculation anyway , so we'll just agree to the disagreement.
Fzero X on N64 was also 60fps I believe and that was the first time series was in 3D. Pretty sure Fzero has always been 60 since the series has been in 3D, don't know about the 2D games as I never got into them like I did the 3D Fzeros.
Valid argument ..but i'm talking not about f-zero GX , not about the 3D f-zeroes but the entire saga and i started with an opus that certainly wasn't at 30fps.
I certainly realise that my argument is at odds with the subject here ...but all of us need our entry points to a franchise.
Yes , my first f-zero game was on nintendo DS
EDIT : i played a gba F-zero game..Btw
So, after reaching this amazing point where GX had both incredible graphics and 60fps, you say that people will accept the series taking a step back and keep just the graphics part?
That's what i mean when i talk about standards. F-Zero GX exists. It set the bar at some certain height. Consoles are 100 times more powerful now. Shouldn't the next game be, you know, at least as good if not better? Why settle with worse? It's not like the days where we had 8bit consoles and were forced to settle with inferior arcade or 16bit ports...
Also F-Zero X was 60fps too and i think SNES F-Zero also updates at 60fps.
Even if GX was the only game at 60fps, it exists. It set new standards. Why take technically inferior versions on inferior consoles as the base? I mean, for the new generation, you want it to be better than the Gamecube version, which is technically the most advanced so far. And that's already more than a decade old hardware. Why care for the technical limitations of even older hardware than that?
But other franchises did similar things too.
Let's take an exemple not that old. DMC , a franchise rooted in 60fps , frame link combos and combo showcases videos.
DmC came ,on the same hardware as the previous opus that was 60fps and was 30fps.
Sure many complained, but the fact of the matter is that people bought the game , enjoyed it ..and you have people defend it now.
In my previous exemple , you had NFS , a game that was really 60fps on previous attempts that on some occasions went to 30fps.( for some games )
Your idea of standards is fine.. but it's not a ironclad rule that prevent a 30fps from appearing in a franchise.
Yes , people will complain , people will be wary ..but that's certainly not what will make people starved for a new opus avoid it.
Other franchises did it , f-zero won't be an exception.( if they decide to do it ) and that's my point of view
I guess i was under the false impression that when you're using the wii U tablet you're at 30fps. i might be wrong as i don't have all the specs in my head right now.
---------------------------
And that's it i answered the questions , no need to bother me with them anymore.
The tablet does not slow down the main video output, and the tablet itself can receive 60fps video. It's even got better input lag than a lot of HDTVs.
While on-point (especially for console gaming), Drive Club at times seemed to have seriously impressive visuals, compared to anything in the genre.
Although that's second-hand impressions through videos. But racing games, even on PC, still have poor graphics and shiity trees...optimisation and all. I appreciate that they pushed graphics in a racing game.
Apologises for the confusion, after a good night sleep , i realise that mistake ..will correct the previous post. Don't write things at 1 am when you're bound to mess up somewhere.
The dynamic lighting/weather conditions where it had me squinting like real life has done more for gameplay in a racer to me than any of the 60fps ones I have ever played in the past and present.
That's because it isn't. Framerate is far more important than that and it always will be.
As for the overall discussion, I feel like framerate should be based on the "seriousness" of a racing game. If it's something open world and more about enjoying the scenery than going for the fastest lap, 30fps is fine.
If it's closed-track and is serious about having players be competitive/set a fast time, it HAS to be 60.
I don't think you understood my bolded sentence given your reply.
The 30 vs 60fps is not a concern of the casual market that's the only point i'm saying.
Of course the public cares how a game plays.. but that's not the point i'm arguing
The two cannot be separated. That's the point that I'm making. The framerate has a direct and pervasive effect on how a game plays, and it also effects how the game looks. I don't expect the 30fps last gen CoD to be as well received by its fanbase as the previous iterations for that reason.
High speed arcade racers would suffer the most by dropping to 30fps.
The dynamic lighting/weather conditions where it had me squinting like real life has done more for gameplay in a racer to me than any of the 60fps ones I have ever played in the past and present.
