Except 60fps makes visuals better too.
More things going on at 30, or slightly less but being able to actually see them clearly while in motion?
-
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.
Framerates are a large part of the visual experience
- Thread starter Zakalwe
- Start date
Except 60fps makes visuals better too.
More things going on at 30, or slightly less but being able to actually see them clearly while in motion?
Vincent Grayson
Member
Like I said, I value pretty much everything else over framerate. 60 fps is nice, but I'll always take an otherwise better-looking game at 30.
WarlockTheWise
Member
Call of Duty's success invalidates your post.
Diprosalic
Banned
that makes me sad but i understand it. below 60 just takes me out of the experience because i always notice the poor fps.
I'm a 30fps with better visuals and/or more ambitious world's > 60fps kinda guy, at least with the majority of genres anyway. Honestly, the only difference I feel and see with 60fps is it looking smoother, not necessarily more detailed. I don't really see any difference in perceivable detail, just an improved flow of motion itself. Quite the contrary, on consoles it's the 30fps games that tend to be more detailed and graphically impressive than the 60fps ones. For me it takes but a few minutes to adjust to 30fps, whereas worse graphics tend to be a constant sticking point.
This is about the idea that 60fps makes the game look better.
It isn't:
Better looking game OR 60fps.
It's:
Higher frame rates are eye candy as much as any other visual effect.
60fps effectively doubles the amount of visuals you're seeing in a single second. It also makes games look a lot cleaner and smoother than 30fps.
That said, 60fps also requires that you have a decent display to take the best advantage of the increased framerate. And whilst 60fps looks incredible on my VT65 plasma with native 1080p motion resolution, it looks terrible with blur, ghosting and trails on my friend's LCD with native 300p motion resolution. The only way LCD TVs can get to 1080p motion resolution is by disabling Game Mode and enabled motion interpolation, but this introduces so much input lag it makes the game unplayable.
So, essentially, yes. I believe 60fps greatly enhances the visual experience in addition to playability. But make sure you've got a decent display to make the most of it.
That said, 60fps also requires that you have a decent display to take the best advantage of the increased framerate. And whilst 60fps looks incredible on my VT65 plasma with native 1080p motion resolution, it looks terrible with blur, ghosting and trails on my friend's LCD with native 300p motion resolution. The only way LCD TVs can get to 1080p motion resolution is by disabling Game Mode and enabled motion interpolation, but this introduces so much input lag it makes the game unplayable.
So, essentially, yes. I believe 60fps greatly enhances the visual experience in addition to playability. But make sure you've got a decent display to make the most of it.
Indeed they are as long as we can agree that resolution and eye candy affects gameplay too.
And he obviously disagrees by clearly not including higher FPS as part of "better-looking."
Well Call of Duty does absolutely nothing impressive considering the game is a "corridor shooter" with small maps for multiplayer. They can't push graphics that much further and are smart to put the remaining power into ensuring 60fps.
Also, losing 60fps massively harms COD's gameplay, especially online. It is the same for any shooter or any online game tbh. Single player games aren't affected by the lack of 60fps as much as mainly online games.
The poster wrote "60 fps is nice, but I'll always take an otherwise better-looking game at 30.", which leads me to believe he's not considering higher frame rates as part of the criteria for a better looking game.
Yes. That means he does not agree with you when you say that FPS is a large part of the visual experience. Am I missing something here?
Or better hardware.
Actually, we're both making assumption about his intent as he hasn't gone into enough detail to let us know for certain either way.
His comment can easily be read as: "60 fps is nice, but I prefer better visuals" as much as the way you're suggesting.
He hasn't directly addressed the idea that 60fps = better visuals due to increased detail, until he clarifies that it's a cat in a box.
Goodacre0081
Member
not only do things look better in 60fps but they play better too
Dictator93
Member
Yep.
That is exactly how I'm interpreting it. You seem to be at a loss at how anyone else could not think that framerates play a large part in visual clarity as much as you do. Clearly there are people don't put as much emphasis on framerates impacting visuals as much as you. You continuing to say "but guys, I'm talking about how 60fps looks so good" doesn't really change the fact that for a lot of people, it's not that big a deal.
Vincent Grayson
Member
Right, and I'm disagreeing with that premise.
IMO, other "eye candy" trumps 60fps handily.
I've said multiple times I understand if people don't agree. Some people aren't as sensitive to this kind of thing, or don't consider that kind of clarity in motion important.
I'm not certain the person in question is considering the precise argument because his language is ambiguous and I'm debating with him for clarity. When so many have entered this thread and ignored the point of it going straight for "I prefer visuals over gameplay, so 60fps doesn't interest me",surely you can see how " 60fps is nie, but I prefer 30 with better visuals" might be ambiguous? Better would have been "I don't consider the clarity of 60fps to be as important as other visual effects".
Fair enough. Thanks for confirming.
I would definitely say that 60fps means improved visuals to me. A lot of my friends are in the 'i don't even notice a difference' camp which I personally cannot comprehend how someone playing a game cannot tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Native display resolution > framerate > "graphics" IMO
Native display resolution > framerate > "graphics" IMO
It isn't about performance only though, not when it's objectively true that higher frame rates offer more detail in motion.
Now, whether or not you think that's an important factor is another thing entirely.
I'm glad someone made an argument for 60 fps from the point of graphics. I am always stunned when people say they would rather have 30 fps and decent visuals over 60 fps when 60 fps is one of the single most important factors to decent visuals. Those animations and physics are half as enjoyable in 30 fps. And a game is rarely a static image where nothing moves.
There is also this ridiculous trend of over-analyzing still images, and then comparing 60 and 30 fps games in still frames, as if that would be indicative of how the game plays. But publishers know its consumers and they know that people are judging their games based on still screenshots and low-frame frate Youtube videos so they abuse that to their advantage. A 30 fps game is easier to market than a 60 fps game that looks slightly worse. Simply because the impact of 60 fps isn't present until you're actually playing the game, it tends to be a low priority for major publishers operating on strict deadlines and day 1 sales.
There is also this ridiculous trend of over-analyzing still images, and then comparing 60 and 30 fps games in still frames, as if that would be indicative of how the game plays. But publishers know its consumers and they know that people are judging their games based on still screenshots and low-frame frate Youtube videos so they abuse that to their advantage. A 30 fps game is easier to market than a 60 fps game that looks slightly worse. Simply because the impact of 60 fps isn't present until you're actually playing the game, it tends to be a low priority for major publishers operating on strict deadlines and day 1 sales.
I really wish 30 fps would go away. I love to slowly walk around and take in the art and appreciate games. When you pan the camera, (slowly or not) you completely lose clarity in the background at 30 fps, which kills immersion. 60 on the other hand, feels much more realistic for the same reason. You can't just slap motion blur on, you eyes are still getting half the information. I just wish Sony were on board with this way of thinking.
One thing I really wish had happened is something like what Kutaragi envisioned with PS3, with an "SLI" kind of setup for PS4. I would buy a second PS4 in a heartbeat if it meant I could get 1080p60 for their games. Hell I'd buy 3 if that's what it takes to get the native resolution and frame rate of my tv. It makes that big of a difference. Of course I'll still buy their games, but the multiplats will be on PC till that day comes when 1080p60 is a minimum spec to pass certification. Nintendo gets it, they can get away with 720p because of 60 fps and great art.
One thing I really wish had happened is something like what Kutaragi envisioned with PS3, with an "SLI" kind of setup for PS4. I would buy a second PS4 in a heartbeat if it meant I could get 1080p60 for their games. Hell I'd buy 3 if that's what it takes to get the native resolution and frame rate of my tv. It makes that big of a difference. Of course I'll still buy their games, but the multiplats will be on PC till that day comes when 1080p60 is a minimum spec to pass certification. Nintendo gets it, they can get away with 720p because of 60 fps and great art.
having a higher frame rate makes a game look better
it affects everything about the game
so it is, in fact, very relevant
that's a bingo
Honestly, no.
The same Call Of Duty section seen at 30fps looks better to me when its running at 60fps despite the AA, assets, lighting, shadows etc being exactly the same. It's not even about gameplay. The visual experience, the look of the game, is better.
While this is true, I find it to be one of the least impactful advantages of 60fps. It makes for a noticeable difference for competitive shooters and all because being able to spot things in the distance while running around is important, but otherwise, it's not necessarily super useful. It's not necessarily very realistic, either. In real life, we don't have ultra clarity while quickly turning our heads, for instance.
I mainly find it more pleasing on the eyes due to the lack of choppiness, not because of the extra clarity.
I mainly find it more pleasing on the eyes due to the lack of choppiness, not because of the extra clarity.
Right, I totally get some people aren't as sensitive to this as others.
I just think it /should/ be considered when discussing overall visual quality, not that it automatically should become one of the most important factors there.
I couldn't disagree with this more. Frame rate is just one of many factors influencing visual aesthetics of an animated image. A much more smoothly animated image is typically a prettier visual experience. Even if frame rate isn't important to someone, I don't see how you can say the smoothness of animation has no bearing on how aesthetically pleasing a game is.
I couldn't disagree more. You lose all clarity in the background when panning at 30 fps.
The easiest way to see this is to play a 30 fps game and walk slowly, without panning the camera. You will notice that everything in the picture, background and foreground is clear. However, as soon as you pan the camera while walking, notice that the background loses all clarity.
With a 60 fps game, you can run, walk, pan the camera how ever you want, without losing clarity in the background. It's a huge visual upgrade imo.
Saint Gregory
Member
The difference really hits you when you're playing a game that has both 30fps and 60fps like Splatoon. Jumping in between the Plaza and Octo Valley is so jarring.
The part that I really don't get is the effect 60fps plays in how natural lighting looks. Maybe it's just easier for the brain to process or something.
The part that I really don't get is the effect 60fps plays in how natural lighting looks. Maybe it's just easier for the brain to process or something.
Yea that's perfectly fair. It's something not often considered, you're right about that.
copelandmaster
Member
Exactly.
Take any youtube video of Smash Bros, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, etc. before the 60fps upgrade. None looked like the smooth deliciousness of what you played at home, but that's all you got.
Now take a look that the uploads from after October. Amazing.
Take any youtube video of Smash Bros, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, etc. before the 60fps upgrade. None looked like the smooth deliciousness of what you played at home, but that's all you got.
Now take a look that the uploads from after October. Amazing.
Fourth Storm
Member
I agree. Seeing the background scroll in smooth as butter definitely has visual appeal.
Games are animated though. You're watching them in motion. How is smooth motion not a part of what makes a game pretty?
abstract alien
Member
Some of these posts have zero to do with the actual topic lol
Framerate is a HUGE deal for me when it comes to visual prowess. It's one of the reasons I never care about screenshots as far as graphical judgment goes. How everything looks in motion is vastly more important, and clarity at high, solid framerates is much better for my tastes. There is a certain crispness it gives the overall picture that makes viewing so much more enjoyable.
Even if it didn't impact performance, I'd still rather have it than not.
Framerate is a HUGE deal for me when it comes to visual prowess. It's one of the reasons I never care about screenshots as far as graphical judgment goes. How everything looks in motion is vastly more important, and clarity at high, solid framerates is much better for my tastes. There is a certain crispness it gives the overall picture that makes viewing so much more enjoyable.
Even if it didn't impact performance, I'd still rather have it than not.
DrROBschiz
Member
STABLE framerate is what matters most to me
I dont want to visibly notice a game stuttering, flickering and slowing down
As long as shit runs smooth as butter I dont care if its 30 or 60
I dont want to visibly notice a game stuttering, flickering and slowing down
As long as shit runs smooth as butter I dont care if its 30 or 60
Right? Despite the disclaimer and added quote for clarity... I tried, I did.
I agree with your premise. Greater temporal resolution always looks better, if you have the equipment to resolve it.
The debate will never be settled, of course. Partly because the vast majority have not experienced a modern game in person with excellent image quality running at 120 fps on a 120 Hz strobing display.
When you discuss image motion quality like this, it's impossible to make any headway because everyone's frame of reference is different, sometimes hugely so. This is thanks to the massive array of displays, eyeballs and viewing conditions that exist. As one poster already pointed out; game X looks shitty on his friend's TV because it's god-awful at resolving objects in motion.
The debate will never be settled, of course. Partly because the vast majority have not experienced a modern game in person with excellent image quality running at 120 fps on a 120 Hz strobing display.
When you discuss image motion quality like this, it's impossible to make any headway because everyone's frame of reference is different, sometimes hugely so. This is thanks to the massive array of displays, eyeballs and viewing conditions that exist. As one poster already pointed out; game X looks shitty on his friend's TV because it's god-awful at resolving objects in motion.
abstract alien
Member
You really did do everything you could have, but I guess reading the OP and commenting on the actual topic at hand isn't a thing anymore.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Depending on the hardware, that sacrifice isn't always inversely proportional in my experience, having a few more graphical effects doesn't makeup for the hit to framerate, purely from a visual perspective. Games look better at 60fps with lower tessellation/hair works settings/etc. than they do at a lower framerate with those effects.