-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Food for thought for those who don't care about 60fps.
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
Your claim was that 60fps games comprised 50% of all published software. That is completely untrue. 60fps was relatively uncommon, particularly in 2001.
If you prefer 60fps that is fine, but the PS2 era wasn't some magical wonderland of 60fps games. Titles running at that framerate were still quite rare, unless you are looking at a few specific genres (racing, fighting, sports).
Banana Aeon
Member
Most people can't tell you why Call of Duty feels so smooth. Doesn't mean that 60fps is any less important.
GameAddict411
Member
End thread/
The vast majority don't give a single damn about 60 FPS or 1080p. They just want to play great games regardless of the silly console war topics that rages on nowadays.
There is a lot of hyperbolic bullshit I read on neogaf every single day " 30 FPS is unplayable" " 1080p or I am not buying" " those jaggies hurt my eyes".....etc, its not even funny anymore. Just stop! Stoooooooop! Want 60 FPS? Go build/buy a gaming PC and spare us the whining in every god damn thread.
i think people are misinterpreting what the OP is saying. He's not necessarily saying 60>>>>>30. He's saying that there are certain games that benefit from 60 fps (using the arcade racers from back in the day as an example) and saying they don't get the 60 fps treatment enough they play better with 60 fps and given that we have better technology isn't is a step backwards for those games. I think its a good point and one I agree with but this is ultimately on the devs. They are the ones prioritizing stuff like graphical resolution over framerate. It sucks but there's honestly not much that can be done about it.
Purple Haze
Member
PC i prefer 60 fps always, but on consoles it doesn`t matter even Deadly Premonition dc was playable for me.
neobiz
Member
Born in 1977, grew up in arcades/played consoles as a kid, moved to pc as a teen and returned to consoles as a somewhat adult.
60 fps doesn't matter if the game is no fun. Stop worrying about it or just build yourself a decent pc to control what you can control.
I can deal with any manner of fps within reason, the only technical problem that throws me is tearing. I just can't do tearing.
60 fps doesn't matter if the game is no fun. Stop worrying about it or just build yourself a decent pc to control what you can control.
I can deal with any manner of fps within reason, the only technical problem that throws me is tearing. I just can't do tearing.
JordanN
Banned
60fps looks weird to me. While I can adjust to it over time, the "smoothness" looks so fake and unnatural.
Real life doesn't have any frame rate. When something moves too fast, it results in motion blurring. Video games are still pretty bad at simulating this.
I'm hoping technology like this becomes viable in the future. Because it looks more real to me than any 60fps game.
Real life doesn't have any frame rate. When something moves too fast, it results in motion blurring. Video games are still pretty bad at simulating this.
I'm hoping technology like this becomes viable in the future. Because it looks more real to me than any 60fps game.
Hey guys, don't talk about video games because this guy's had enough.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
This whole 60fps fixation only started this gen.
I've been playing since the Atari 2600, and only now in 2014 am I seeing modern gamers make this claim that games as far back as the NES ran at 60fps. They did? I can assure you back then nobody gave two shits, nor did they thump their chests about it. A shitty game was still a shitty game regardless of 60fps, which by the way the limited frames OF animation was something spoken about.
I think 60fps is nice, but 30fps isn't the horrible thing modern gamers try and play it out to be. I can hop from TLOU Remastered in 60fps or Wolfenstein 60fps to Destiny or Dead Rising 3, and I'm not affected one bit. Titanfall on my X1 feels fine to me. I don't sense these frame drops and I think a lot of people that talk about it are talking out of their ass, hence the reason we have to wait for DF to tell us how a game runs.
I guess this being an enthusiast forum people are going to keep blabbing about it. Thankfully the average Joe is focused on how fun a game is. How much enjoyment does a game bring? That's what matters more than anything else. I know my future purchases are not dependent on fps, but rather what interests me.
Yes it is.
I can go straight from Forza 5 to Forza Horizon without missing a beat. It's just not that big of an issue. For the majority of games 30 is perfectly fine.
The only games I think it's important to have 60 on is twitch competitive shooters on PC. Otherwise 30 is fine.
God forbid we raise standards especially when 400+ dollars are forked over for the product.
It's not like FPS can impact gameplay thus how fun your experience playing the game is.
Let's stop making threads that may raise some awareness and make more AAA release hype ones.
rbanke
Member
What gamers? People that pay close attention to games or are on message boards like this? We are the minority. The majority of game players are made up of the same people that can't tell the difference between motion smoothing being on or off on their tv's. Or that their tv isn't actually displaying in HD, or is stretched, etc. The majority of gamers know things 'look good' but probably can't articulate what that means.
I definitely think its a valid concern, but as I posted earlier, I don't share the opinion that its the utmost priority for every game, and I think that is what the argument the past few months seems to insinuate.
nkarafo
Member
Yes, i should point out that i mostly refer to fast paced games and Racing. Racing games was a genre i used to enjoy a lot on PS2/GC/XBOX. Because most games run at 60fps, it was like, the standard. Now its just not the same. I can't go from 60fps to 30, the difference is jarring and annoying.
Do this test. Play Bayonetta on PS3 for some time. Then Play the same game on 360. Then go back to the PS3 version again. Is it bothersome enough? Because if you don't find it bothersome you are just lying to yourself.
Banana Aeon
Member
I'm sorry the performance of console games are an important topic. We should totally just talk about subjective qualities of games, like fun, and entertainment, and ignore when game developers ship broken games.
OP isn't talking about 30 fps being playable or not. He is questioning why it isn't as common anymore. I agree it's a step back. My main platform is PC, so I don't go into the 30 vs 60 debate. I have my opinion that 60 fps is so much better for gameplay. And I'm really glad Naughty Dog went for 60 fps in The Last of Us Remastered and will try to push for it in Uncharted 4.
Sometimes I wonder if devs (and console manufacturers) tried to push too much on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Many games weren't HD, which was the main selling point at first. There was also a very clear RAM limitation. It also didn't help to last 8 years. I think that focus on HD limited the use of 60 fps.
I do hope the must-buy titles of this generation go for 60 fps, like Naughty Dog's games, Halo, Call of Duty and Battlefield (though I don't care for military shooters).
Sometimes I wonder if devs (and console manufacturers) tried to push too much on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Many games weren't HD, which was the main selling point at first. There was also a very clear RAM limitation. It also didn't help to last 8 years. I think that focus on HD limited the use of 60 fps.
I do hope the must-buy titles of this generation go for 60 fps, like Naughty Dog's games, Halo, Call of Duty and Battlefield (though I don't care for military shooters).
I do generally demand 60fps - which is why I buy every game I can on my PC rather than the console - even if it is 60fps, because who knows? Maybe I'll want 120fps in the future, I want the options to run the game in a way I'm most comfortable with. I complain about how developers prioritise resources on the consoles because it is often not in line with my preference, but there's nothing I can really do about that - so you generally won't find me complaining about fps on console games unless it is regularly dipping below 30 (e.g. TLOU PS3, GTAV, 10000000000 different games that generation).
Just because someone says it's more enjoyable at 60 doesn't mean they're saying it isn't enjoyable at 30, so this argument of yours isn't really appropriate.
Just because someone says it's more enjoyable at 60 doesn't mean they're saying it isn't enjoyable at 30, so this argument of yours isn't really appropriate.
nkarafo
Member
Kabuki Waq
Member
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Started "gaming" around '93. Don't give a shit about framerate, as long as it doesn't fluctuate.
And this.
The Strokes
Banned
I think that whenever I get around to building a gaming pc, I'll still play at 30 fps just to have better eye candy.
So yeah, I don't care about the fps.
So yeah, I don't care about the fps.
quantumnerd
Member
late '96 reporting in: did not have games in the crib, but feel 60 FPS is essential and sometimes insufficient.
I think the PS3/360 gen had it especially bad. The hardware was weird, so people didn't understand it too well (especially for the PS3), but a lot of studios still built their own engines, so everyone was reinventing bigger and bigger wheels. And games had to look prettier because you could start to make things kinda photoreal in places. 30FPS and 720p were the first corners cut to get there, since they're not noticeable in a Kotaku image header, or the back of the box.
These days, the hardware situation has improved (more powerful, more standard hardware), and engines are a lot better, so there's not as much pressure to cut those corners. Some people still do, but I'd rather devs not. Shooters, platformers, rhythm games and racers all benefit a lot from 60FPS, and it's sad to see their playability sacrificed for marginally better visual effects.
I think the PS3/360 gen had it especially bad. The hardware was weird, so people didn't understand it too well (especially for the PS3), but a lot of studios still built their own engines, so everyone was reinventing bigger and bigger wheels. And games had to look prettier because you could start to make things kinda photoreal in places. 30FPS and 720p were the first corners cut to get there, since they're not noticeable in a Kotaku image header, or the back of the box.
These days, the hardware situation has improved (more powerful, more standard hardware), and engines are a lot better, so there's not as much pressure to cut those corners. Some people still do, but I'd rather devs not. Shooters, platformers, rhythm games and racers all benefit a lot from 60FPS, and it's sad to see their playability sacrificed for marginally better visual effects.
Solid Samus
Banned
there's that oft-repeated point that FPS nearly always serves the gameplay to consider. To what extent is subjective and I don't mind that. I play games at 30fps and 60fps no problem, and while I prefer 60fps because of how it enhances control fluidity and responsiveness (and imo image quality as well - I enjoy lower settings at a higher framerate more than the inverse simply because of the smoothness, most of the time), if 30fps is my only option to play a genuinely interesting game you'd better believe I'd be on it.
People get a little circlejerky around here about 60fps admittedly (hey, an enthusiast website and people care about performance, who'd have possibly thunk it) but the condescending attitude toward the very idea that someone could value it highly as an element of the gameplay experience is unwarranted and that's what I was taking issue with. do you believe a proper debate can be had while it's being muddied up with inspired terminology like 'f[a]ps' and the implications that brings?
bolded needs citation
nor do i, for the record, but I think my line for what I consider people taking their reverence for 60fps overboard is a bit more lenient than yours, probably because I personally value it but also because the graphical ratrace keeps it from being a thought in the minds of many devs even after a pretty significant technical jump following the most drawn out generation
I don't think video games should necessarily focus on looking realistic and "natural". Video games aren't movies; some of us would prefer to have 60fps for certain genres where increased motion resolution and a faster response time offer more tangible gameplay benefits than more polygons and nicer effects.
Banana Aeon
Member
Why compromise, when you can do both?
I have not needed to limit my PC down, and I max out everything that I play. Hell, there are plenty of games that I can get locked 144fps, if I had the monitor for it.
Also, 30fps gives me migraines, so, I kinda can't. *shrugs*
60 fps is obviously better than 30 in most cases, but i am one of those that prefer eye candy as long as the game is playable, and 30 fps is perfectly enjoyable, even lower framerates are sometimes. Oh, and i grew in arcades, and yeah, daytonas, mvs, capcom games, all of them haf one thing in common, eye candy compared to home , not just framerate.
Because more people care about pretty graphics these days? Be interesting to see studies from mass consumers on 30fps with better graphics/more ambitious game worlds vs 60fps. Only one I know of is one mentioned by Guerilla Games a while back, in which they mentioned a focus test they carried out where more people noticed and cared about the difference between 720p and 1080p, than they did with 30fps and 60fps.
Fbh
Member
Graphics are easier to sell. The biggest advantage of FPS is in gameplay which most people don't get to experience until they buy the game, plus a whole lot of online video players don't even support 60fps so your game can be running at 120fps but the person watching the trailer won't notice
In the AAA market people value games that look amazing above games with good performance
Also:
THIS.
Ad finally, if you care about performance so much you can just invest a bit more on a gaming PC and you can get all the fps you want.
You don't even have to buy a high end machine. A mid-range PC should be able to run every new game at 60fps, specially if you don't mind lowering some of the settings and/or resolution
In the AAA market people value games that look amazing above games with good performance
Also:
THIS.
Ad finally, if you care about performance so much you can just invest a bit more on a gaming PC and you can get all the fps you want.
You don't even have to buy a high end machine. A mid-range PC should be able to run every new game at 60fps, specially if you don't mind lowering some of the settings and/or resolution
velociraptor
Junior Member
60FPS is vital.
For shits and giggles I tried the 30FPS lock on TLOU.
The game felt like a goddamn slideshow.
For shits and giggles I tried the 30FPS lock on TLOU.
The game felt like a goddamn slideshow.
you FPS folks are sassy
Born in 87. And while I'd rather 60 over 30, at the end of the day...
If I enjoy it, I enjoy it.
If I enjoy it, I enjoy it.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Or.... focus on what matters most instead of shiny effects; IQ and framerate. This should be the basis of any game IMO.
Now I admit certain games might be playable in 30FPS - Watch_Dogs controls rather well. However, no matter how well a game controls in 30FPS, it will always be inferior to 60FPS.
Steve McQueen
Member
Born in 1970 and I'm with you. 60 fps is great but 30....I can live with that too, although I prefer 60.
EvilKatarn
Member
If only nerds care about FPS then please tell me why the GTA V TV ads were 60FPS?
All response based video games should be 60FPS and that's fucking that. It's one of the main reasons I dropped The Last of Us.
Only exception I'll make is Bloodborne and there's talks rolling around that they might hit 60 as well.
I can deal with 30 in turn based RPGs and adventure games, where framerate actually really does not matter.
All response based video games should be 60FPS and that's fucking that. It's one of the main reasons I dropped The Last of Us.
Only exception I'll make is Bloodborne and there's talks rolling around that they might hit 60 as well.
I can deal with 30 in turn based RPGs and adventure games, where framerate actually really does not matter.
OP, I don't think your argument is very strong.
I remember the arcade days really well. I started gaming on the Commodore 64, played tons of games on the Mega Drive, the SNES, the Amiga, some of the glory days of the PC (including the first two Dooms), the PS1, the N64, the GameCube and now the Vita and PS4. I lived about 10 minutes from about 20 different arcades as I lived in a tourist town.
Yes, it was incredibly impressive to see Daytona and Ridge Racer and whatever else the magicians at Sega and Namco were doing with polygons, but it doesn't invalidate how wonderful a game can be regardless of framerate. I understand that sometimes a smoother framerate can enhance an experience (of course 60fps is going to be preferable to 30fps in most cases) but I am absolutely baffled by the level of importance some modern gamers put on framerate. Nothing - absolutely nothing matters more than how a game plays. A turd of a 60fps game is still a turd. A fabulous 15fps game can still be fabulous.
Like I say, I just don't get it.
I remember the arcade days really well. I started gaming on the Commodore 64, played tons of games on the Mega Drive, the SNES, the Amiga, some of the glory days of the PC (including the first two Dooms), the PS1, the N64, the GameCube and now the Vita and PS4. I lived about 10 minutes from about 20 different arcades as I lived in a tourist town.
Yes, it was incredibly impressive to see Daytona and Ridge Racer and whatever else the magicians at Sega and Namco were doing with polygons, but it doesn't invalidate how wonderful a game can be regardless of framerate. I understand that sometimes a smoother framerate can enhance an experience (of course 60fps is going to be preferable to 30fps in most cases) but I am absolutely baffled by the level of importance some modern gamers put on framerate. Nothing - absolutely nothing matters more than how a game plays. A turd of a 60fps game is still a turd. A fabulous 15fps game can still be fabulous.
Like I say, I just don't get it.
Banana Aeon
Member
I didn't hear about that! That would be too sick!
Playing DS and DSII at 60fps is a wonderful experience.
The PS1 was released the year you were born. You have no idea of the state of the industry or the games from that period.
All of this talk of gameplay over graphics yet SO FEW of you realize FPS is pretty much the only component of graphics that directly impact said gameplay?
It's a shame consoles became such a success that most games are now done console-first, which pretty much killed natural graphics advancement we used to have when PC ruled supreme.
If you're not bothered by that, you're not thinking about it enough. Think; you could be playing on the holodeck in your lifetime, but with the sort of "leaps" we're getting between generations now, you'll probably be dead before that can happen. Doesn't that matter to you at least a little bit?
nkarafo
Member
I do have a PC. Guess what, some games (racing games even!) are LOCKED at 30fps. Despite my PC being able to run those games at 200+ or something. And in some cases you can't unlock it via a .ini file and the like.
Also, just because i have a PC it doesn't mean i shouldn't make this conversation. The fact that the standards are dropping in this particular aspect of gaming (despite hardware becoming more powerful) is something that bothers me and i want to talk about it.
7 million people seem to like it on the PS3 just fine. And while I prefer PS4's 60, that didn't stop me from loving the game.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I too loved TLOU on the PS3. But it doesn't change the fact that 30FPS feels horrible particularly after you experience the same game at 60FPS.
Would you be mad at me if I said that this whole topic doesn't matter to me?
GameAddict411
Member
I think ND messed up somewhere though. The 30fps in the LoU Remaster is choppier than the 30fps in LoU PS3. Don't know if they reduced turning motion blur or what, but it definitely feels different.
Banana Aeon
Member
One, games at 60fps feel better to play than games at 30fps.
Two, 30fps with camera panning or movement, or motion blur, make me physically ill to play. So it's pretty important to me.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Born at 1990, and as long as its a stable 30 I'm perfectly fine with it. Also, it doesnt mean that I dont play games with frame-rate that drops below 30... and I'm proud of it, othwerise I would not even try Shadow of the Colossus, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and plenty of other AMAZING games!
GameAddict411
Member
its a design choice, people need to understand this before discussing this topic. it doesn't matter how powerful these consoles are but the vast majority of developers will always prefer 30 FPS.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked