Support NeoGAF

[Moon_frogger]

I think one day we will look back and laugh that 30 fps was acceptable.

Not as long as undepowered consoles are matched with the newest most advanced gaming engines. There are no more. 60 fps games now then there were in the ps2 days. And with the advent of steaming technology for gaming, it won't get any better .

 

[Lord_Balkan]

Its not the framerate that matters, its how its utilized. 60 fps on a turn based game means nothing but in a game where pros can dissect things by the frame like a shooter it can make a difference.

Compare fps to network lag as both have identical effects. If your internet affects your play then you lose. If the framerate affects your play, you lose.

60 is a nice bonus and in some cases necessary. 30 should be the locked to ensure consistant gameplay.

Try playing Civilization 5 on a PC with a mouse @ 30fps

 

[names2hard4you]

I miss back in the good old days, when I was a kid, there was no fps or pixel resolution count to worry about, it was just about playing the goddamn game.

Granted I prefer 60fps, but I won't turn a game the cold shoulder because it can't reach that many frames. As long as the game runs without hiccups I'm golden.

 

[rjc571]

Why is "perfectly playable" good enough? Did you ever order a meal at McDonalds and say to yourself "That meal was totally acceptable! Who needs gourmet restaurants?"

 

[manueldelalas]

I'll take stable 30 fps (or 20) over unstable 60 fps any day.

60 fps is great, 120 fps on my gaming PC is much better, but I really don't care much about it; I do hate it when there are constant dips in frame rate.

And yes, I can distinguish between 30 fps and 60 fps very easily, but this whole 60fps or nothing movement just screams ignorance on the matter, IMO they are the new hipsters.

As for the thread, I was playing arcade games and console games in the 90s (Atari, Commodore, NES, SNES and Genesis) and I remember the hype for 60fps arcade perfect ports for some games.

 

[Asriel]

Why is "perfectly playable" good enough? Did you ever order a meal at McDonalds and say to yourself "That meal was totally acceptable! Who needs gourmet restaurants?"

This is such a hyperbolic analogy.

Outside of fighting games for obvious purposes, having a 60fps rate is not a big deal to me. It's more like icing on the cake with games like Ninja Gaiden II and Bayonetta for me. If it weren't the already terrific combat, the 60fps would mean nothing to me.

 

[ReBurn]

Why is "perfectly playable" good enough? Did you ever order a meal at McDonalds and say to yourself "That meal was totally acceptable! Who needs gourmet restaurants?"

People who eat at McDonalds don't go there expecting a gourmet meal. The analogy doesn't make sense to me, because when it comes to fast food acceptable is good enough.

 

[outunderthestars]

OP, I was gaming then and couldn't possibly care less about arcade games. I have never cared about specs, I just want to have fun.

 

[Azure Wolf]

Probably the bravest decision regarding 60fps was F-Zero X on the N64.

Nintendo were totally upfront about it and basically said this game isn't going to look great, in fact they admitted it looks quite basic, but it was a necessary compromise to bring you the real deal of 60fps gameplay and 29 competitors.

If you were fortunate enough to play it back then it was so clear they made the right decision, as it played beautifully.

That's 16 years ago, so 60 fps has been a consideration for gamers at least since then, and long before it too.

I just wish more developers would be brave like that and consider gameplay over graphical fidelity, because whatever people are saying about 60fps not being essential, 60fps is first and foremost all about improving gameplay quality, there's no reason it shouldn't be expected as standard.

 

[Newline]

I'm probably in the minority here but I find anything below 60fps to be unplayable on a competitive level. I do currently have a 144hz monitor though and i've been playing COD:BLOPS2 on it for a year which sometimes makes 60fps look like dirt if I switch between the two. But yeah sub 60fps physically strain my eyes unless i'm playing a game with pretty slow mechanics, i'm more likely to get a migraine during a prolonged session.

 

[RodrigoDorta]

Cause the media dont care. when in the last gen you saw a review giving a low score to a game cause the fps ruins the experiencie? (notable ofender last of us ps3)

People don't give a shit about the specs of a game, so long as it's fun.

If people don't give a shit about the specs, all the games were 60 fps or more, just like 8/16 bit era.

60 fps isnt a matter of graphics, is simply a matter of gameplay. every genere benifits from it.

 

[TomRL]

OP and most of this thread is stupid.

 

[anotherVegan]

So if my Mario Kart 8 goes down to 59 FPS, I'm sending it back to Nintendo.

Okay, I'm kidding. I don't care too much about framerate as long as it doesn't look like a Power Point slideshow, and the game is fun.

 

[vg260]

OP and most of this thread is stupid.

Thanks for contributing. Care to elaborate?

 

[Thrakier]

Poor analogy. 30 FPS is like getting your meal on a paper plate rather than a ceramic one. The steak on the plate is still delicious but it's a little less appetizing now that the paper one is starting to get a little soggy.

FPS has very little to do with the quality of the game, there are plenty of amazing games at 30, which is exactly why some people don't care.

Are you sure you're not the one who's fallen to marketing? Game X, now with 60fps, buy again!

No poor analogy but exactly the right one. People eat shit because they don't know better. It happens all the time with all products.

60fps is what makes great gameplay concepts shine. The one reason not more games are 60fps is because marketing focuses on selling better graphics - something they can easily show off on pictures and videos and something everyone can understand immediately. Better playability, even a technical term like framerate, is only sellable to knowledgeable people. Even in a Hardcore forum like neogaf this is like 2 out of 10 people, as this thread shows. So as marketing influences game making on all stages, they tell devs "make something we can sell with pretty graphics". And so they put a lot of effort in graphical fidelity instead of playability. They may have great gameplay concepts, but from a technical point of view, they shit on it. There is no great playing game at 30fps. None. No matter the genre. It's a compromise each and every time which is just not percepted as such by people who don't know about it.

Read the tlou thread, it should be eye opening. The original was a mess. Many people didn't notice it. Now the very same people can easily compare and even describe 30fps as a stuttery mess, forgetting that the original was an even worse experience. While they think it's a bad implementation of 30fps, it is not. It is just their brain being able to percept more frames than before, which ultimately leads to a way more immersive gaming experience. You feel in full control of your character, whole 30fps are like a constant wall between you and the gameworld. That's what they suddenly notice and that is what other 60fps people learned already. And that is the thing: You really need to learn and witness it. There is no sense in discussing a difference which you don't actually know or understand.

 

[yiepekaiyei]

it's funny when people talk about the importance of gameplay over fps when those two are tied together. Or do you prefer playing with input lag?

 

[nded]

Frame rate is not the sole determining factor of whether a particular game is good in terms of gameplay, but I would say in most cases it contributes more than texture detail, effects and even rendering resolution. A higher frame rate won't make a bad game less fundamentally bad, but most of the time it can make a good game even better.

What really annoys me are the people who seem to think 60fps is just some meaningless, bullet-point marketing gimmick that has no bearing on how a game plays, that somehow games like Ninja Gaiden and Street Fighter would be just as good at 30fps (or even 24fps from people who have no idea how refresh rates work). I've played SFIV on enough crappy computers to know otherwise.

 

[Tain]

Its not the framerate that matters, its how its utilized. 60 fps on a turn based game means nothing but in a game where pros can dissect things by the frame like a shooter it can make a difference.

Aesthetics still matter in turn-based games. 60fps menus are still more pleasing than 30fps menus.

 

[Alx]

it's funny when people talk about the importance of gameplay over fps when those two are tied together. Or do you prefer playing with input lag?

The main argument is that it's no deal breaker, and that a game can be enjoyable even in lesser conditions. Nobody is saying that 60 fps is bad and they don't want it, but saying "I won't touch a game that isn't 60 fps" is dismissive of many good games that have other qualities.
And yes, many people had fun with games with input lag, especially before they knew what input lag was.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

it's funny when people talk about the importance of gameplay over fps when those two are tied together. Or do you prefer playing with input lag?

Not really. I mean everyone is different and no two people perceive the same thing exactly the same. I'm sure there's people whose eye's are more sensitive to frame rate than other, or something like that. But for me, gameplay design is completely independent of frame rate. I can definitely notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, but when I'm playing 30FPS games it doesn't really throw me off nor do I really notice input lag. If the gameplay design is done well enough, then I can get to a point where my mind forgets I'm playing a game and I am completely immersed, regardless of 30FPS and 60FPS.

I don't deny that 30FPS is a really bad experience for some people, which is rather unfortunate. For me, I have never been put off from a game because of the lower frame rate.

 

[Thrakier]

I miss back in the good old days, when I was a kid, there was no fps or pixel resolution count to worry about, it was just about playing the goddamn game.

Granted I prefer 60fps, but I won't turn a game the cold shoulder because it can't reach that many frames. As long as the game runs without hiccups I'm golden.

Every game under 60fps has hiccups. It's a technical fact.

 

[Nostremitus]

it's funny when people talk about the importance of gameplay over fps when those two are tied together. Or do you prefer playing with input lag?

Back in the day that was just part of the learning curve when training your muscle memory.
Now days, people act like the games are unplayable at 30fps... It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of willingness to look past technical deficiencies to enjoy something. I don't need absolute perfection in order to find enjoyment. If the choice is between a solid 30 or choppy 60, I'll go solid 30 any day. At least a solid 30's lag is consistent and you can train your mind to automatically account for it. Dipping framerates have variable amount of lag that cannot be subconsciously adjusted to. Also, If "60" comes with screen tearing? I can't play it. It makes me motion sick. I'm physically incapable of playing it... So yeah, 30 is not perfect but it's just fine if proper 60 is off the table due to hardware constraints.

 

[TomRL]

Most games on the PS4 are 60fps I think. Looks like we are having a generation closer to the 6th.

 

[Banana Aeon]

The offensive attack against 60 fps becoming the industry standard is a bit discerning. It might just be because I have a physical condition that prevents me from enjoying lower framerates.

I also would love if movies would move up to 48fps too. 24fps gives me wicked headaches, as does 30fps games, with camera movement and motion blur.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Every game under 60fps has hiccups. It's a technical fact.

That's as reductive as saying every 60fps game has "hiccups". It's a technical fact.

What a useless comment.

 

[JCX]

I was gaming during that period, and I had no idea what the frame rate was. I just knew when the game was normal and when it slowed down. I actually thought it was cool when it slowed down during heavy action since 7 year old me was like "I'm pushing this genesis to the limit!"

Still don't really notice it much today either, and based on this board's obsession with it, ignorance may be bliss in this situation.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

The offensive attack against 60 fps becoming the industry standard is a bit discerning. It might just be because I have a physical condition that prevents me from enjoying lower framerates.

I also would love if movies would move up to 48fps too. 24fps gives me wicked headaches, as does 30fps games, with camera movement and motion blur.

Nooooooo, pull down is the worst, we should have gone to 60p recording a long time ago.

 

[Altima]

I'm comfortable with 30 fps. See no reason to make myself uncomfortable.

Why people here want me to stick with 60 fps if that make me unhappy when I play 30 fps game ?

 

[HTupolev]

And then Rallisport Challenge 2 came out at 60fps and it had even better graphics than PGR2.

I might agree that RSC2 looks better, but graphically PGR2 is arguably doing significantly more each frame. RSC2 splits its world visually into really small bubbles with extremely low-quality backgrounds that you mostly don't notice courtesy of the game being fast. PGR2 also supports twice as many cars on the track, and it renders a rearview mirror when in bumper cam, which is beneficial for gameplay and can be graphically costly due to adding an extra geometry pass.

The comparison of PGR2 and RSC2 isn't the important question, though; it's apples to oranges. The important question is whether RSC2 could have done noticeably more per-frame at 30fps, and the answer is blatantly obviously "yes."

Also, Metroid Prime 1/2 and F-Zero GX are among the best looking GC games. Both at 60fps. Same with Ninja Gaiden on XBOX. These are games that look like they suffered no graphical compromises for their 60fps update.

Again, compared with what? Are you actually claiming that these games couldn't have expanded their rendering and/or gameplay if they had targeted a lower framerate?

Those games mostly don't have very sophisticated lighting models, and they don't tend to have very massive encounters or large contiguous environments. Maybe that was fine for the gameplay and artistic visions of those games, but hacking things away to hold 16.7ms arguably would have been very destructive to something like Halo.

//==================

I guess I just don't get what point you're making. Are you saying that the graphical and gameplay design possibilities between games that target 30fps and 60fps on past platforms are nonexistent? That's obviously a false statement. Are you saying that all developers who targeted 30fps in the past are untalented hacks, and the developers who targeted 60fps are geniuses? Maybe, that's partly a matter of opinion, but that wouldn't disagree with the claim that dropping to 30fps gives the opportunity to do much more per-frame, it would just say that the best devs didn't actually do it.

 

[Banana Aeon]

Nooooooo, pull down is the worst, we should have gone to 60p recording a long time ago.

While I agree, seeing this topic, we might have to go through these changes gradually.

 

[ugoo18]

Those games mostly don't have very sophisticated lighting models, and they don't tend to have very massive encounters or large contiguous environments. Maybe that was fine for the gameplay and artistic visions of those games, but hacking things away to hold 16.7ms arguably would have been very destructive to something like Halo.

Isn't Halo 5 meant to be targeting 60fps though?

How destructive could that 30fps to 60fps jump be if 343 is actively going to push the series or at least the next entry anyway to target 60fps?

 

[HTupolev]

Isn't Halo 5 meant to be targeting 60fps though?

How destructive could that 30fps to 60fps jump be if 343 is actively going to push the series or at least the next entry anyway to target 60fps?

Halo 5 isn't running on an original Xbox, and has different design targets from the original game.

I'm not arguing that games should never target 60fps, in fact I think most console games right now probably should. I'm arguing that they should target whatever is appropriate for them to achieve their vision on a given platform, and that nkarafo's commentary is unclear and/or misleading.

 

[rjcc]

Thanks for making this post, you've made me think about fps in a whole new way.

(I don't think anyone else is going to say it, or that it's true, but it's what you want to hear and you should be happy, OP)

Yes. every game could be 60fps. For a lot of reasons, they mostly aren't. You haven't unlocked the secret of OMG IT'S A GAME DESIGN CHOICE

 

[Moon_frogger]

Why is "perfectly playable" good enough? Did you ever order a meal at McDonalds and say to yourself "That meal was totally acceptable! Who needs gourmet restaurants?"

That's not really the debate here. Nobody is saying 'we don't ever need 60 fps' a quick scan of this thread will see there are basically 2 sides. One that says 60 is nice but 30 is acceptable (the rational, reasonable side) and the other saying there is absolutely no reason or acceptable excuse for 30 fps, ever( the armchair developers without a clue how games actually work)

I know there are game developers posting on gaf, show me even one who is on the '30 fps is unplayable garbage' side and you might begin to make me understand that perspective. Otherwise, no it's just silly elitism.

 

[fernoca]

Been playing since the 80s. Atari...Coleco..arcades.

As long as the game doesn't struggle and starts with slowdowns; I don't mind. Of course 60fos is smoother, but no biggie in my case.

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

I was gaming before then even and I don't care all the much about frame rates. If a game is enjoyable to me it doesn't bother me if it's 30 or 60. 60 is preferred obviously but, I'll take fun 30 over average 60 100 times out of 100.

 

[Night Angel]

The offensive attack against 60 fps becoming the industry standard is a bit discerning.

I have yet to see anyone attack 60 fps. Such hyperbole.

 

[Damian.]

Halo 5 isn't running on an original Xbox, and has different design targets from the original game.

I'm not arguing that games should never target 60fps, in fact I think most console games right now probably should. I'm arguing that they should target whatever is appropriate for them to achieve their vision on a given platform, and that nkarafo's commentary is unclear and/or misleading.

Why should gamers have to suffer when the vision by the developers is a vision of blurry smeary dog shit? Fuck this apology people keep rattling off, it's bathed in ignorance, don't keep repeating it.

 

[nkarafo]

OP and most of this thread is stupid.

Excellent post. I like your arguments. You are a great poster.

 

[TomRL]

Excellent post. I like your arguments. You are a great poster.

^This post has all of the irony.

 

[nkarafo]

Again, compared with what? Are you actually claiming that these games couldn't have expanded their rendering and/or gameplay if they had targeted a lower framerate?

Compared to console games of that generation.

And no, i'm claiming that these games looked good enough to receive praise about their graphics and become some of the most impressive titles of their generation while having 60fps smooth gameplay at the same time. Could they look even better at 30fps? Probably, yes. But THEY DIDN"T HAVE TO. They already looked great. They looked better than the majority of 30fps titles of the time. There was no reason to sacrifice smoothness just to add even more stuff in there. They achieved the perfect balance in graphics quality and had the frame rate to support the gameplay and make those visuals stand out even more, because smoother graphics are also better looking than stuttering graphics.

 

[shandy706]

Devs need to get over their arrogance and let users decide if they want to play the game with improved playability, or add a couple of mostly unnoticeable effects to cut the framerate in half. One would think that games were meant to be looked at in still images, that isn't the case, so 60 should be an option for those that want to actually play the games the best way possible.

A single scale-able option would be great, as would a few simple options.

I honestly think they should include 3. Have the game set to the best graphics at default, but include these in the menu.

VSync: On/Off (alters the obvious, might would just replace with AA ON/OFF and always go Vsync )
Framerate Priority: On/Off (alters things like shadows, LOD, lighting, AA)
Resolution Priority: On/Off (alters resolution 720p/900p/1080p)

Heck, you might even make AA a 4th setting separate from "framerate priority".

Make its stupid simple. Each one creates a pre-set design to lean towards one's preferences. No reason not to allow this ESPECIALLY in games with PC ports.

Vsync ON + Framerate Priority ON + Resolution Priority ON = 900p/45fps
Vsync ON + Framerate Priority OFF + Resolution Priority ON = 1080p/30fps
Vsync ON + Framerate Priority ON + Resolution Priority OFF = 720p/60fps

 

[GOGOheadray]

I care more for graphical fidelity than I do for 60FPS solid. A thing that people forget is that these home consoles have to meet a mass market price since these are mass market items. You can't throw all types of stuff in them; price it at 600 bucks and expect them to sell to the general consumer.Can these consoles give us the grapical fidelity that is their selling point for the consumer while giving us 60 FPS; while also making a price point that wont cause the consumer to pass over your console? Something has to give and so far its been the FPS that has been sacrificed thus far.

 

[Gamerblood]

The difference between 60fps and 30fps is obvious imo. Will that stop me from playing a game at 30fps absolutely not.

 

[Basketball]

People don't give a shit about the specs of a game, so long as it's fun.

truer words have never been spoken

 

[MCN]

I don't like how the OP assumes I was into arcade games back then. I never was. I considered them to have sub-par gameplay purely designed to frustrate you into putting in as much money as possible for minimal reward. Kind of like many modern mobile games, in fact.

 

[notoccupanther]

Playing the older consoles, in my nerdless ignorance back then, I accepted the dips in frame rate as a free bit of slow motion when the action got goin. Lol... So i suppose I'm a tad LTTP where the debate lies. Shadowman on the Dreamcast and certain parts of Virtua Racing on Saturn amongst others suffered, but I never really cared tbh. Suppose as tech moved on and optimisation became a thing, one could not but be swayed somewhat.

But a game is a game...a means to while away a segment of my futile existence with a smile on my face...framerate or not, if a game delivers a smile...it warrants a trial

 

[ToyMachine228]

Food for thought for people who feel the need to tell other people what they should or shouldn't care about; Stop.

 

[Asbear]

I've been playing Sleeping Dogs on my Gamer laptop from 2011 and the first thing I did was set resolution to 900p, play around with graphics until I reached the perfect balance between visuals and performance (1080p + all things ultra is 6.4fps average)

I can get an average of 28fps now so I set the FPS Lock to 30FPS. Take that OP. Much more enjoyable to me than playing at 60fps and the game lacking realistic shadows and environment detail.

 

[nkarafo]

I've been playing Sleeping Dogs on my Gamer laptop from 2011 and the first thing I did was set resolution to 900p, play around with graphics until I reached the perfect balance between visuals and performance (1080p + all things ultra is 6.4fps average)

I can get an average of 28fps now so I set the FPS Lock to 30FPS. Take that OP. Much more enjoyable to me than playing at 60fps and the game lacking realistic shadows and environment detail.

From all the posts that missed my point, this takes the award. Congratulations.