• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

I actually prefer Spider-Man (PS5) at 30fps.

Virt McPolygon

Scared of guns. Even though they are smaller weapons than me.
May 8, 2019
1,400
2,133
495
It does look better when you use the Spiderverse suit since they animated the characters "on twos" for the movie and tried to replicate that in the game.

I also played The Evil Within at 30fps by choice and it did have a better "look" to it(most of the game animations were created with 30fps in mind).

Everything else, though, especially action I like 60fps or higher.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tommib
Jan 29, 2019
6,742
7,493
520
This whole cinematic frame rate and movies being 24 fps... It's all based on compromises. Basically, 24fps is the minimum frame rate you need to convey realistic motion. Less than that and the illusion breaks. More than that and it becomes more expensive than it needs. There are other technicalities that led to this standard, stuff that had to do with 1920's equipment, but they were all compromises.

The idea that 24fps is "correct" or chosen to be the "best" because of some artistic reason is laughable. You just got used to some compromised shit originated 100 years ago and anything that is factually better feels wrong to you because it's not familiar to your eyes. The so called "soap opera effect".

Everythign else being the same, a higher frame rate is always better.
I watched plenty of 10/15fps cartoons as a kid as I was pretty happy! 😐

I owned you so bad now it must hurt to be so wrong! I go beyond cinematic, I go old cartoons framerate! Imagine all the raytracing!
He Man Motu GIF by Masters Of The Universe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem and tommib
Jan 29, 2019
6,742
7,493
520
You prefer 30fps over 60fps? No thank you. It's like saying: "I prefer to see with one eye instead of two"
You see twice as many details with less eyes... I don't think your using the right image here, but you should definitely play at 60at all cost if playing at 30 makes you want to poke your eye out.
 

DinoD

Member
Mar 7, 2020
473
1,187
340
I am an old fart with reflexes of a dead horse. Been gaming since 1982. I play mostly story driven, single player games these days, and don't mind 30 fps. All of you 60fps youngsters can go and eff yourselves. :D
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

Ivan

Member
Nov 5, 2011
1,180
47
680
I really, really like your post, OP.

I wish we had more people with the ability to articulate very abstract stuff that good.

And I agree, BTW. You'll be ridiculed by "tech only" bunch, but there's a lot of truth in your post. It actually requires knowledge, but you'll be ridiculed for the "lack" of it.

Reactions say a lot about today's gaming audience.
 

White-fire

Member
Jul 25, 2020
139
341
285
For certain games (non twitch FPS’ for example) I don’t mind playing at 30 fps if it means the game looks really nice. It’s a single player game, I am not trying to be hyper competitive and it helps with enjoying the story if I’m invested.
 

Audiophile

Member
Jun 25, 2015
716
2,374
700
England, UK
Maybe he also prefer 240i over 4k.
Temporal and spatial resolution are different beasts. But to play into your point, some tv/movie content is shot at 16mm for artistic reasons. Now 35mm, 65mm, IMAX 15/70 and pretty much any modern digital cinema camera is technically superior. But I'm not arguing technical superiority, as a parallel I'm arguing the emotional response is different between a lower framerate and a higher framerate; and in the context of certain titles, I think the former can be more fitting.

I've clearly stated in my post that I prefer 60fps for most stuff and that it has clear advantages.

This is a joke post right lol, we play games not watch them. Can we not ban people for being stupid.
We watch them while we play them. It's still a visual medium whether passive or interactive. Different visual qualities evoke different feelings, that's all I'm saying.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: tommib

Spaceman292

Member
Mar 11, 2019
2,146
3,650
425
I know it has become a bit of trope that 30fps is closer to 24fps; and therefore it is "more cinematic". But this is one of those games where it holds absolutely true for me.

While I am in absolute agreement that 60fps feels more responsive and has less undesirable judder; and I do prefer 60fps for many game types, (first person, survival, sim, arcade and many other third person games etc.). Spider-Man just feels better to me in 30fps in terms of a sense of momentum, in terms of the visual believability, how the assets appear and just my overall emotional response to the game.

The heightened sense of reality can bring about a sense of mundanity that makes the experience feel less fantastical. Just as in movies where most scenes at HFR break down and literally come across as sets and actors in dress up.. In certain games that are trying to be conveyed as intrinsically cinematic or epic experiences, the more rudimentary nature of assets becomes more apparent with increased temporal resolution.

Insomniac also have exceptional motion blur; and the 60fps modes do not appear to have appropriately adjusted shutter speed for it. With this also comes that sense of momentum: 60fps is giving me more information but it feels mundane, but at 30fps I feel like I have weight and I'm swinging faster. The motion is implied within each frame and my brain is filling in the gaps to create something greater than the sum of its parts. Whereas at 60fps I'm just getting my current position.

Again, I'm totally in favour for 60fps for most other games as well as being an option for games like this. But, for games like this..... that present the character/s and the world to you as one in a somewhat cinematic or epic manner as opposed to presenting the world to you as if you're the character, then I hope making a 30fps option available remains the norm (just as ND did with the recent TLOUII PS5 patch, you can choose either in the menu).

While of course movies and games are different things, there is obviously some cross-over, particularly in games such as Spidey. But one eg. I'd also like to give in respect to movies and in a different regard (spatial resolution and shutter speed vs temporal resolution) would be Mission Impossible: Fallout. There's a few "LIEMAX" scenes near the end shot on a Panavision 8K digital camera at 1.90:1 (as opposed to the 35mm Film 2.35:1 scenes elsewhere). Now from what I can gather these are meant to make the scope feel bigger, to make the action scenes more clear and epic. In reality, these shots overload my sub conscious with visual information (high frequency detail, smoother motion) and subsequently they felt more mundane, too real and removed me from the movie; the fixed shots of Cavill in the chopper just felt like someone stuck a high res camera in a chopper on a documentary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm favour of all kinds of approaches (and especially options for the end user) across different content of different types, but I think it's important to take into account the visual texture of the medium in addition to the content and how it impacts peoples' emotional response to it. And of course, when it comes to games and if it is 30fps, it has to be rock-solid with tight frame-pacing, no tearing and as little latency as possible.

What I don't like is when a game is originally released in 30fps but is updated for new platforms and is only available in 60fps. Days gone did this on PS5 and while I personally do prefer 60fps for it, there should always be an option to revert to the original fps. I can't recall if it was the The Nathan Drake Collection of The Last Of Us Remastered; but one of these released on PS4 with only 60fps available and I absolutely hated it, the texture of it not only robbed it of the feels but last gen geometry stuck out like a sore thumb.

So yeah, to summarise: I think Spidey on PS5 just feels better at 30fps, greater sense of momentum, greater emotional response, more aesthetically pleasing image and more artistically in keeping with the content. And I personally prefer to trade-off some responsiveness and visual comfort in favour of that.
Not gonna read all that but you're wrong.
 

Audiophile

Member
Jun 25, 2015
716
2,374
700
England, UK
You're batshit insane OP.
Can you elaborate on why?

I mean, I've conceded that I prefer 60fps generally, that you should still have your 60fps option (cause I can think about more than myself). But that our emotional response can differ with more or less samples in an (interactive) visual medium and that my preference in very specific circumstances is for lower framerates because it befits that content better, even if I have to trade off some responsiveness and visual fluidity. I've been calm and reasonable, if a little rambling...

Who knew? Even when we're talking subjective emotional responses, they can be objectively and technically wrong..

Not gonna read all that but you're wrong.
Short version: lower framerates in all visual mediums elicit a different emotional response and sense of momentum / I prefer 60fps for most things too, but in regards to spidey I personally prefer 30fps for these reasons and am willing to make the trade off in responsiveness / 60fps options should still be there where possible for those who prefer it, like yourself.

No matter what information is provided to people like you, how much we try to convince you with data on why your post is the most retarded shit today on this board, you still believe you made a great post.
Can you fill me in on this "information" and "data" that contradicts my subjective, emotional response to a different framerate and how having a preference in specific circumstances is retarded? Not to mention the crazy idea that perception of motion is effected by the motion properties of the visual medium..
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Member
Feb 28, 2021
2,135
3,817
385
I tried it, and I guess it’s because of my hew LG tv having an even more negative effect, but it was genuinely borderline unplayable. It looked awful. 60 FPS with raytracing was delicious!
 

rofif

Member
Sep 13, 2019
7,368
10,245
660
I tried it, and I guess it’s because of my hew LG tv having an even more negative effect, but it was genuinely borderline unplayable. It looked awful. 60 FPS with raytracing was delicious!
well, if You have oled, 30fps is a bit more harsh on it since the response times are so fast, you see more judder. Do not disable moton blur at 30fps to help a bit
 
  • Like
Reactions: DenchDeckard

DenchDeckard

Member
Feb 28, 2021
2,135
3,817
385
well, if You have oled, 30fps is a bit more harsh on it since the response times are so fast, you see more judder. Do not disable moton blur at 30fps to help a bit
I'll try that if I have to but fingers crossed 60 fps is here to stay.
 

yurqqa

Member
Jun 16, 2010
477
757
965
I'm playing TLoU2 and in the forest area in "Seraphites" chapter at 60 fps everything around you looks more artifical - leaves look more plasticky, trees look less natural.
Like you notice cheaper decorations in films shot on TV camera in comparison to film camera.

But from the gameplay point 60 fps feel much better - no doubts about it.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Dust-by-Monday

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Feb 10, 2020
17,282
80,938
965
35
Salalah, Oman
I am an old fart with reflexes of a dead horse. Been gaming since 1982. I play mostly story driven, single player games these days, and don't mind 30 fps. All of you 60fps youngsters can go and eff yourselves. :D

Ricky Gervais Laughing GIF


I'm healthy and can manage 30fps as well :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DinoD

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,733
8,524
1,070
Can you fill me in on this "information" and "data" that contradicts my subjective, emotional response to a different framerate and how having a preference in specific circumstances is retarded? Not to mention the crazy idea that perception of motion is effected by the motion properties of the visual medium..

I explained to you (but you didn't respond) how your "emotional response" is based on technicalities and compromises the movie industry did 100 years ago. It's not an artistic decision, it's just cheaper. Same with cartoons. Despite first generation cartoons making use of the same (already compromised) frame rate as movies, they decided to halve that as well to make them cheaper.

Your "emotional response" is nothing more than you being used to a cost cutting standard.

Even videogames started life with filling every refresh the TV could produce with a different frame. Any videogame that repeated the same frame every 2 refreshes was a compromise to show more complex graphics on weak hardware. Someone probably though, "eh, if movies get away with it, games can do it too".

Most people have this idea that graphics are sacrificed for 60fps and that smooth frame rate comes with compromises. But it's the other way around. Frame rate is sacrificed for more visual effects and more detailed graphics come with compromises. Making full use of the refresh rate your TV can provide should be the default.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pegasus Actual

Whitecrow

Member
May 7, 2018
2,331
3,779
615
Most people have this idea that graphics are sacrificed for 60fps and that smooth frame rate comes with compromises. But it's the other way around. Frame rate is sacrificed for more visual effects and more detailed graphics come with compromises. Making full use of the refresh rate your TV can provide should be the default.
Very very wrong.

A good balance is always the way to go.
Sacrifice everything in order to maximize fps, or maximize just one thing, is stupid.

There's a lot of great gaming experiences at 30 fps, so more is just a plus, not mandatory.

EDIT
I'll tell you Mr. Fps Elitists, one thing. And burn it to your skin with fire:

The average reaction time to visual stimulous is more than 200 ms.
At 30 fps, frames are rendered each 33.3 ms.

Do you really, really, think, it makes a world of difference in responsiveness, 30 fps from 60fps?
If you think so, you are terribly biased.

The difference is 90% motion smoothness, where the hardest moment is the transition from more to less fps. After a while, your brain gets used to it.

But for some reason, some of you feel the need to hyperbolize the issue to absurd limits.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,733
8,524
1,070
Very very wrong.

A good balance is always the way to go.
Sacrifice everything in order to maximize fps, or maximize just one thing, is stupid.

There's a lot of great gaming experiences at 30 fps, so more is just a plus, not mandatory.
Same 30fps experiences would be much better at full refresh rate.
 

SoulTas

Neo Member
Oct 7, 2017
27
31
210
A good balance is always the way to go.
Sacrifice everything in order to maximize fps, or maximize just one thing, is stupid.
These days minimum acceptable fps is 30, maximum is 120. It can go below 30fps if you want but can also go higher than 120 if you use a 240hz monitor.

Minimum resolution screens are 1080p, maximum is 4k.

If you like balance you should advocate for 60fps/1440p. Otherwise it's you who sacrifices everything to target the absolute minimum acceptable frame rate. That's not balanced. 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: alabtrosMyster

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,733
8,524
1,070
EDIT
I'll tell you Mr. Fps Elitists, one thing. And burn it to your skin with fire:

The average reaction time to visual stimulous is more than 200 ms.
At 30 fps, frames are rendered each 33.3 ms.

Do you really, really, think, it makes a world of difference in responsiveness, 30 fps from 60fps?
If you think so, you are terribly biased.

The difference is 90% motion smoothness, where the hardest moment is the transition from more to less fps. After a while, your brain gets used to it.

But for some reason, some of you feel the need to hyperbolize the issue to absurd limits.
Just because your standards are low, doesn't mean others hyperbolize.

I'd love to see you play a deathmatch at 30fps against a 60/120fps player. Let alone with a keyboard/mouse.

Btw, it makes a world of difference. Source: Me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL
Mar 16, 2014
1,258
1,114
780
There's another point that nobody is bringing up...

It's harder to sustain a 60fps target 100% of the time, especially when a lot of stuff is going on. In my opinion, it's much easier to spot frames dropping when the game goes from a smooth 60 to suddenly the 50s. The judder is immediately noticeable and breaks the illusion of smooth gameplay.

However, if the game is capped at 30, it's much easier to get the game to run above 30fps, so capping it provides a consistent experience throughout the game... and if there happens to be a frame lost here and there, it goes by mostly undetected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llOswaldll

Gaelyon

Member
Sep 15, 2020
263
355
275
There are the good 30fps, and the bad 30fps.

The bad 30fps, you see, they are 30fps... but they are bad.

The good 30fps however, well, they definitely are 30fps, but you see, they are good.
Is that a "Les inconnus" parody ? As in "les bons chasseurs et les mauvais chasseurs" ? Bien vu ^^

However, if the OP feel 30fps are a better, "cinematic" experience, i think it's fine. It's like 48fps movies, we're so ingrained in motion blur that's weird and some peoples can't support it. No big deal as long as both options are available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cireza

Popup

Member
Oct 20, 2007
228
190
1,275
You can always play at 60 and just blink really fast to simulate the cinematics when needed.
 
Mar 16, 2014
1,258
1,114
780
Graphics whores are worse.



But when you are required to cut frame rate in half for it, that means you don't have the power to do it.
This will never not be the case. 30fps will always allow for better graphics because you have twice as long to render each frame. So therefore, any time a game is 60fps, that means they could’ve done more visually if they had a 30fps target instead. Same goes for 20fps, 15fps, 10fps and 1fps, but obviously those are TOO LOW to be playable. However, 30fps games have been a thing for a long time and it has been known for a long time that 30fps is perfectly playable with a controller.

I’m not saying every game needs to be 30fps, but some games don’t need to be 60fps if they’re going for really insane graphics at the cost of frame rate.

Also, most people couldn’t tell you what frame rate a game is running at and some people can’t even tell a difference between 30 and 60, but they do notice the hit in resolution and effects.
 

wArTHEIST

Neo Member
May 19, 2020
28
23
130
I play some games in 30 fps over 60 fps. Someone in this thread said it pretty well, it's a different feel, it's more "grand", it's heavier, more cinematic. I don't give a shit if this is a joke to people, to some it just is, visuals are subjective.

It only works in some games, though, mostly slower 3rd person or isometric games. In FPS, especially competitive MP FPS I agree that 60 fps are mandatory.

Btw I hate when movies run in 60 fps. Shit looks cheap.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
May 31, 2018
6,794
15,103
815
Leeds, UK
I was fine playing Miles Morales at 30, it's well built for it.

Demon's Souls went straight on 60 mode because it actually needs it.