Support NeoGAF

[bolkiebasher]

FPS was never an issue for me, until I started playing Project Cars (which is 60 FPS). Until then I had played an awful lot of DriveClub and all the comments from 60 FPS moaners would annoy we. Really enjoyed the graphics and could not understand why people were complaining it was not 60 FPS.
After playing a lot of Project Cars and moving back to DriveClub I do now appreciate the difference: racing games in 60 FPS are much nicer. It's hard to explain, but the graphics in Project Cars, (less detailed than DriveClub) are so much nicer.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I agree OP. High Framerate (HFR) film looks absurdly clear, because you're getting more frames, and less blur. The details of the scene are easily made out because the image isn't smearing all over the place.

That said, I'm perfectly fine with a game running at 30FPS if that's the forced limitation (many 60 FPS games on console at least tend to be fairly close quartered), but pretending the framerate doesn't enhance the visual experience is wrong. The appearance of fluidity and smoothness is a visual effect lol.

 

[Crayon]

I just started getting games on pc a few weeks ago for the first time in almost 10 years and I've noticed I'm not quite as sensitive to it as I used to be. Some engines can fool my eyes when locked to 30. Shadow warrior for example I can lock at 30 and it looks perfect to me altho I can still feel the difference in the controls. Anything on ue3 however still looks like an episode of gumby at 30. Which I don't mind. Because I really loved gumby.

 

[Fbh]

I don't know.

I love the responsiveness of 60fps which is what for me makes it obviously superior.
But as for the looks, it depends on the game but I think some still get that "soap opera" look

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I don't know.

I love the responsiveness of 60fps which is what for me makes it obviously superior.
But as for the looks, it depends on the game but I think some still get that "soap opera" look

I think we just need to get that name dropped as a start Soap opera look just implied that it was filmed at 30hz no? HFR recording and playback should be the new norm, we've got the capacity and the infrastructure for it I'd imagine.

 

[Soodanim]

Eh not really. Played through GTAV, DmC, TLoU just fine on PS3


EDIT: I'm sure there are more sub 30 fps games I've played on that console as well and it didn't make me think the graphics were any worse than when it was locked at 30. It's not really a big deal

Your eyes/mind will adjust to anything given time, but I often don't even like going back to 60fps after playing at 144fps. Framerate is huge to me in anything with any motion at all. To use your example, I didn't really enjoy GTA5 on PS3. It's so much better at 60fps, and even better at 70+.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Disclaimer: this is NOT about playability at 30 vs 60, or 30vs 60 in general. I understand discussing frame rates can get heated, please try to stay on topic.
-

Often when discussing the cost of a game's visuals versus performance, or the quality of a game's visuals, frame rates are placed on the side of performance only.

This confuses me a little, surely the clarity of higher frame rates should be considered as part of the criteria for a great visual experience?

A game that chooses to lock at 30 to fit in more visual effects instead of aiming for 60 with less loses clarity in motion. It might be better for screenshots, but while moving you lose out on a lot of that extra detail.

Let's consider a game with a spell or physics effect, say a fire spell that causes individual sparks to flutter and glow and scatter embers over the ground.

At 60fps, you see the detail of every ember clearly, you can trace each individual sparks journy. At 30, it becomes much more difficult to see this detail.

I understand it's a balance, and sometimes 30fps is beneficial if the visual upgrades create a more alluring or atmosphereic world, but I think we need to consider clarity in motion as part of the visual package.

Photo realism at 30fps versus a game with less realism but the clarity of 60 shouldn't be an auto win for the photo realism when considering which is greater visually. Games are about playing, not just taking screenshots.

-

EDIT: For clarity



Yes, I think 60fps should be considered as eye candy as much as performance.

Absolutely. The one thing that would always stand out in higher framerates are the minute movements you see from the environment. The busier, the better. From the swaying trees, to the wind blowing the leaves/paper, or fireworks effects like the example of embers, crashing rocks, waves. These elements are so pronounced at the expense of increasing the frame-rate it really sells the scene immersively - far more superior to 30 fps.

I was re-watching TLOU on YT and lo! My eyes are constantly picking up these factors that I NEVER noticed during my playthrough on the PS3. Everything feels so alive and tangible to say that it sacrifices visual package aren't looking at the bigger picture. Video games are a constant momentive medium, the faster the frame-rate, the more elements it attaches to. Go watch the U4 faux-60fps and even the dust kicked up from Nathan can be extremely noticeable.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Now play the sames games in 60fps and see what you've been missing out

Pretty much. DmC is OK at 30? OK. Just like fighting, racing, simulation etc, 60 for DMC is a must for all the same reasons as a fighting game.

 

[DeSolos]

Framerates definitely play a role in video. Film is 24fps for a specific look. TV is 30fps for a specific look. Sports and day-time soap operas are 60fps for a specific look.

The higher framerates make you feel like you are looking at a window to the real world. Lower framerates(but above 24fps) are their to allow you to "enter the magic circle" / suspend your disbelief.

With games it just so happens that input is also a factor so we tend to favor higher framerates.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I never think about soap-opera look when I see a 60fps game, probably cos soaps never interested me ever.

 

[visiblemode]

60 percent of the time, it matters everytime.

That is to say. It varies so much from game to game and person to person, it's just impossible to nail down a valuable concensus at this point.

Evidence: PC settings allow you to play with this exact balance and people choose all sorts of different settings which sacrifice one thing or another that's essential to someone else, but not them.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I really don't agree. It makes a slight difference in clarity of motion, but there's a reason most movies are shot at 24 fps—well below what most of us would consider comfortable to play.

Framerates have much more of an impact on control/playability/feel. (Which is also why, in most cases, I think it should be prioritized above graphics)

 

[Goddard]

As a PC elitist fuck who just bought a 144hz monitor, I'm left in disbelief that people are still okay with 30fps. Like I'm not going to pretend its unplayable, I play age of empires daily and that's like 10fps, but given the choice.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

60fps effectively doubles the amount of visuals you're seeing in a single second.

Not really. At lower framerates, you just see the same visuals for a longer amount of time, allowing you to take in more of those individual frames.

(To be clear, I prefer higher framerates)

 

[riflen]

I really don't agree. It makes a slight difference in clarity of motion, but there's a reason most movies are shot at 24 fps—well below what most of us would consider comfortable to play.

Framerates have much more of an impact on control/playability/feel. (Which is also why, in most cases, I think it should be prioritized above graphics)

Don't compare film projection with rasterised graphics scanned out on a pixel matrix display. Film projectors actually shutter at 48 Hz, with each frame flashed twice on screen. Also the nature of seeing a bright image flashed in a dark environment means images remain in the eye for a time after projection. This is crucial to the illusion of smooth motion and has no equivalent in computer graphics display.

 

[Maggots]

I love 60 FPS

but in some cases its just not necessary...

quite honestly in a perfect world we could have both graphic fidelity and buttery smoothft framerates

If bayonetta2 wasnt above 30... it wouldnt be as nice to play... and that game is 720p...

In most cases I'd prefer 720p60 over 1080p30

But there are certain games that I would rather have higher graphic fidelity than framerates. It really is a per game basis for me.

 

[Seanspeed]

Not really. At lower framerates, you just see the same visuals for a longer amount of time, allowing you to take in more of those individual frames.

(To be clear, I prefer higher framerates)

That's not what happens. Even if we're talking 30fps, we are talking about tiny fractions of a second. Unless a game is running at like 2fps, which is a literal slideshow, you will not be able to discern individual frames being held for longer. It will just look choppier and blurrier in motion.

 

[Stevey]

144HZ or bust, it's just so much better.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

144HZ or bust, it's just so much better.

I think you're missing the point of the thread.

Yes, I agree OP. I personally never understood how the frame-rate argument is limited to tipping solely the performance scale as it makes games looks cleaner and far more pleasing on the eyes. All one must do is play some Nintendo games to realize this. It's also a more future-proof way of designing visuals; A choppy framerate looks outdated as soon as the graphical aspects don't "wow" anymore whereas a smooth game can look good for years to come.

At this point there's no use of arguing though, people on GAF pretty much stand where they stand.

 

[To Far Away Times]

It is known. Beyond the tangible gameplay improvements of 60fps, there is also a much better visual presentation as well due to smoother camera panning and better animations.

 

[Wonko_C]

I agree with OP: I like the eye candy 60+ fps offers. That is the reason I prefer high frame rates. I have trouble noticing the input lag difference at times, but the difference in fluidity is something that I can see immediately. I can still perform links in Street Fighter IV the same when I limit the frame rate to 30fps with MSI Afterburner, but it doesn't mean it isn't less pleasing to look at.

But I guess that goes side by side with my preference for dynamic, polished arcade-quality gameplay.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Don't compare film projection with rasterised graphics scanned out on a pixel matrix display. Film projectors actually shutter at 48 Hz, with each frame flashed twice on screen. Also the nature of seeing a bright image flashed in a dark environment means images remain in the eye for a time after projection. This is crucial to the illusion of smooth motion and has no equivalent in computer graphics display.

Realistically though, I would imagine that the vast majority of movies today are consumed on pixel matrix displays (TV's).

For me, at least, I know that don't have any issues watching 24fps movies, but sub-30fps games are completely terrible.

 

[NormalFish]

I'm with you, OP. As far as I'm concerned, high framerate is just way more pleasing to the eye than most post processing crap thrown on to games. Motion blur, DoF, etc. all pale in comparison to the raw quality of 60 fps.

 

[Yarbskoo]

Higher framerates improve the look of a game a lot more more than the post processing that gets slapped on games these days.

EDIT: Yeah, what he said.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I'm not sure I understand. Upping the framerate doesn't make the image clearer or give the game more detail. Which at least to me, is how the OP reads. So, I guess I disagree? Particle effects are particles effects. They're either there or they're not. Upping the framerate to 60 doesn't make them more visible.

 

[Yarbskoo]

I'm not sure I understand. Upping the framerate doesn't make the image clearer or give the game more detail. Which at least to me, is how the OP reads. So, I guess I disagree? Particle effects are particles effects. They're either there or they're not. Upping the framerate to 60 doesn't make them more visible.

It may not increase the detail on a single frame, but over a span of time you will see more detail with motion that would get clipped out by a lower framerate. Video games are a time based medium. The experience can't be captured in a still image.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

Yup i completely agree. Watching a game world move in smooth motion is a huge plus to me. Also motion in general is important. A visually impressive world that is mostly static actually makes it less visually attractive when playing. Its all the movement in the world of witcher 3 that makes it look great to me not just textures and lighting. The grass, trees, clouds, wildlife. It makes it feel alive and bad frame rates hamper all that.

Take the new infamous games. Look great in screen shots but the world is very static and visually less impressive because of it when playing.

Frame rates and motion in general are way more impprtant to me than resolution for example.

 

[Buburibon]

I mainly find it more pleasing on the eyes due to the lack of choppiness, not because of the extra clarity.

I'd say it's both for me. Motion clarity (better temporal resolution) and less strobing are far more pleasing, and less straining to my eyes and brain. I much prefer the clarity of 1440p/60hz than 4K/30Hz if I'm actually playing a game and not just taking screenshots.

FPS was never an issue for me, until I started playing Project Cars (which is 60 FPS). Until then I had played an awful lot of DriveClub and all the comments from 60 FPS moaners would annoy we. Really enjoyed the graphics and could not understand why people were complaining it was not 60 FPS.
After playing a lot of Project Cars and moving back to DriveClub I do now appreciate the difference: racing games in 60 FPS are much nicer. It's hard to explain, but the graphics in Project Cars, (less detailed than DriveClub) are so much nicer.

I agree, and it's probably due to the temporal resolution in Project Cars at 1080p/60fps being twice of that of DriveClub.

 

[Pimpbaa]

While I do enjoy higher framerates, I don't think it has ever hampered my visual experience. Resolution on the other hand has a much higher impact for me.

 

[riflen]

Realistically though, I would imagine that the vast majority of movies today are consumed on pixel matrix displays (TV's).

For me, at least, I know that don't have any issues watching 24fps movies, but sub-30fps games are completely terrible.

Films have perfect motion blur. Once again, the comparison you're making is not valid.

 

[MercuryLS]

I love a game with smooth 60fps, it's not mandatory but 60fps is so nice in games and I always have a better opinion of games/devs that hit that mark.

 

[Nafai1123]

A solid 30fps w/ motion blur can look just as good if not better than 60fps w/out motion blur imo.

 

[TSM]

The main problem with having this conversation here is that anyone that isn't a PC gamer pretty much has the option removed from their hands. People will have a vested interest in 30 fps being adequate because that is all that will be available to them.

Given the opportunity many people would probably come around like this person:

FPS was never an issue for me, until I started playing Project Cars (which is 60 FPS). Until then I had played an awful lot of DriveClub and all the comments from 60 FPS moaners would annoy we. Really enjoyed the graphics and could not understand why people were complaining it was not 60 FPS.
After playing a lot of Project Cars and moving back to DriveClub I do now appreciate the difference: racing games in 60 FPS are much nicer. It's hard to explain, but the graphics in Project Cars, (less detailed than DriveClub) are so much nicer.

 

[UrbanRats]

Yeah, Bloodborne and Demon's Souls are the two Souls games i've played the least, by far, and a big part (other than the lack of content, compared to Dark Souls) is that playing at 30fps, instead of 60, it's frustrating to no end, in an action game.

Visually though i get more used to it, so it's not as much of a big deal.

A solid 30fps w/ motion blur can look just as good if not better than 60fps w/out motion blur imo.

I don't know about better, but either way it depends on the game.

It's hard to separate visuals from gameplay needs, when arguing what "looks better", because a messy screen can be nauseating, in a frenetic gameplay moment, even if it'd look good in a cutscene, for example.

 

[BGMNTS]

Meh. Graphics have never been important to me. When i'm obsessing over the fact its not running at 60fps or perfectly at 1080p or whatever, this magical number that means little to me, I think i'm missing the point.

Its always funny if i'm watching a Best Friends vid and Pat or Matt go 'holy shit did you see that framerate drop' or 'oh it runs at 60 well' etc etc I have no fucking clue what they're seeing

Obviously massive drops I can see, Dark Souls Blighttown for example.

 

[Abounder]

I think lower framerates will be phased out if virtual reality makes its impact, and I hope it does. Also popular game engines like UE4 should only get better and easier to maintain 60fps.

 

[Nipo]

I would say they're a large part of the actual gaming experience.

Try playing a fighting game at 30FPS.

Honest question. What FPS were Mortal Kombat and SF2 at during the SNES days? Those have always been my favorite fighting games.

 

[Wonko_C]

Honest question. What FPS were Mortal Kombat and SF2 at during the SNES days? Those have always been my favorite fighting games.

60fps (Hz). 50 in PAL regions. Nearly every console game in the 8/16 bit era was 60fps, Not just fighting games. 30 fps were less common, like the whole NES Double Dragon Trilogy.

 

[squidyj]

as long as it's stable and above lets say 25ish? I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about the goddamn fucking framerate.

I do not see a game at 60fps look better than the same game at 30fps, they look the exact same to me. the exact same.

 

[swazzyswess]

But can you show 60 fps in screenshots? What about an advert on television? You just can't and developers will continue to go for what advertises best until there is a big enough backlash for them to reconsider.

lol, love GAF's "analysis" of how game development works.

 

[squidyj]

The main problem with having this conversation here is that anyone that isn't a PC gamer pretty much has the option removed from their hands. People will have a vested interest in 30 fps being adequate because that is all that will be available to them.

Given the opportunity many people would probably come around like this person:

posts like this are one of the fundamental problems I have with these sorts of discussions on the internet. Desperate self-serving narratives that work to delegitimize and discredit views that don't agree with the poster's own views. OF COURSE there are lots of people who are fine with 30fps, THEY PLAY ON CONSOLE AND HAVE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, they HAVE to believe 30fps is fine. With the obvious implication being that 30fps is not fine.

It reminds me of certain discussions with religious people where they try to convince themselves that atheists don't really not believe in god, they actually just hate the bugger.

 

[Bornstellar]

High FPS is a wonderful, gorgeous thing.

 

[BPoole]

I agree. 60fps is my number one priority when playing a game.

 

[Neiteio]

As a PS4 and WiiU owner, I'll say most PS4 games look better in stills, but the 60 fps WiiU games look better in motion.

I generally prefer framerate, although I do appreciate all the added "texture" (grime, etc) in games like Bloodborne.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

There's nothing more important to me than performance, if a game isn't smooth I don't care how pretty it is. But sadly pretty sells games, so we'll keep getting games that can't even hold 30fps without dips.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

I would say they're a large part of the actual gaming experience.

Try playing a fighting game at 30FPS.

I have and I find no issue there.

 

[Hatty]

I'd honestly play an N64 tier game with 1080p, great draw distance, and 60FPS over most 30fps console games. Grow Home had the best graphics in 2014

 

[Lathentar]

Also popular game engines like UE4 should only get better and easier to maintain 60fps.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. If anything ue4 ensures those games will run at 30 on consoles.

 

[kyser73]

Disclaimer: this is NOT about playability at 30 vs 60, or 30vs 60 in general. I understand discussing frame rates can get heated, please try to stay on topic.
-

Often when discussing the cost of a game's visuals versus performance, or the quality of a game's visuals, frame rates are placed on the side of performance only.

This confuses me a little, surely the clarity of higher frame rates should be considered as part of the criteria for a great visual experience?

A game that chooses to lock at 30 to fit in more visual effects instead of aiming for 60 with less loses clarity in motion. It might be better for screenshots, but while moving you lose out on a lot of that extra detail.

Let's consider a game with a spell or physics effect, say a fire spell that causes individual sparks to flutter and glow and scatter embers over the ground.

At 60fps, you see the detail of every ember clearly, you can trace each individual sparks journy. At 30, it becomes much more difficult to see this detail.

I understand it's a balance, and sometimes 30fps is beneficial if the visual upgrades create a more alluring or atmosphereic world, but I think we need to consider clarity in motion as part of the visual package.

Photo realism at 30fps versus a game with less realism but the clarity of 60 shouldn't be an auto win for the photo realism when considering which is greater visually. Games are about playing, not just taking screenshots.

-

EDIT: For clarity



Yes, I think 60fps should be considered as eye candy as much as performance.

While I don't disagree with this statement or your argument as a whole, the commercial question is 'How many people will notice?' and 'Will it impact on screenshots or streaming media and affect marketing reception?'.

Playing games 6-8' away from a TV is a very different experience than playing it with a monitor 18-24" away from your face.

You don't notice jaggies as much, and unless you've got really excellent vision you aren't going to be tracing a single spark across the screen, you're likely focusing on something else and your brain is filling in the missing detail for you anyway.

I mean come on - how many average users do you think obsess over this kind of detail?

FPS was never an issue for me, until I started playing Project Cars (which is 60 FPS). Until then I had played an awful lot of DriveClub and all the comments from 60 FPS moaners would annoy we. Really enjoyed the graphics and could not understand why people were complaining it was not 60 FPS.
After playing a lot of Project Cars and moving back to DriveClub I do now appreciate the difference: racing games in 60 FPS are much nicer. It's hard to explain, but the graphics in Project Cars, (less detailed than DriveClub) are so much nicer.

PCars looks more fluid in motion, but it doesn't have the same sense of speed DC has IMO.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

It's what I don't get with developers. 60fps games just look cleaner. They're more appealing to look at in motion

as long as it's stable and above lets say 25ish? I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about the goddamn fucking framerate.

I do not see a game at 60fps look better than the same game at 30fps, they look the exact same to me. the exact same.

It looks much cleaner in motion