Support NeoGAF

[Yaphett Kotto]

Quiet ? Is spawned one of the most hyperbolic threads in recent memory.

Compared to the outrage over the downgrades of a few games a few months ago, it was pretty quiet.

That, and the fact that people were justifying the 30fps on Driveclub because of IQ and thought 60fps wasn't necessary proves standards have been warped.

There was the huge, and pretty hilarious, outcry of Tomb Raider being 30fps on XB1, but I think that had more to do with ammo for fanboys than people honestly wanting a difference.

 

[Taikun]

As long as the game is at least capable of a smooth 30 fps I can live with it. I've had to deal with worse in the past. 60 fps is a nice bonus and certainly does have a benefit on some games but I don't typically compromise on graphical fidelity to achieve it.

 

[Forsete]

1080p or GTFO in 2014.

If I had to choose:
30 fps and 1080p > 60 fps 720 p

720p is a blurry mess that hurts my beautiful eyes. 1080p is already lacking on my 52" Television set, dont make it lower.
However, I dont see any reason why devs shouldnt let you choose, so erryone is happy. If it is lé possible to make a game run at 60fps at a lower res, put it in the options menu. Le problemé sölved!

 

[M°°nblade]

But now, after playing Mario Galaxy and Mario 3D world at 60fps, a 30fps Mario game, especially on a newer, more powerful system, would be unacceptable.

Sounds perfectly acceptable to me.

See, the whole argument is about going forward. If we didn't see so many 60fps games during 6th gen, i would have absolutely no problem with 7th gen's lack of 60fps games. But we already been there, we played games with great graphics AND 60fps and most racing games were at 60fps during PS2/GC/DC/XBOX days. Which means that the frame rate in the 7th generation took a huge step backwards. And it seems like its going to stay there.

As told before, most of those 6th gen 60fps games were just interlaced.
That means you just got 60 half-frames per second, divide by 2 gives us 30 full frames per second.
The use or progressive scanning in games made motion appear much smoother as compared to interlaced (most 6th gen games).

 

[pixlexic]

I don't really care what resolution or fps ( unless it's a racing game) as long as it's polished.

Meaning no major bugs or varying frame rate.

If it can not maintain 60 fps then lock it at 30. I don't care of It only dips to 55. If it does it all the time lock it at 30.

 

[Silky]

I don't buy games for visual fidelity. The resolutiongate is lost on me, because I couldn't care less about my resolution.

However, if you're telling me that you'd rather go for a higher resolution than a better performance, then...well, I don't have to support you. Of course, there are exceptions, but I live in an enviornment where I can enjoy the games I buy at 60FPS, if not more.

So yeah. With every announced game at 30FPS shown so far, It's in my interest to not purchase them on the platform where they will be at 30FPS.

 

[faridmon]

Also, it depends on the type of games. I generally don't care about FPSes, but for racing games 60 FPS is favourable. Fighting games as well.

 

[CadetMahoney]

I'm "fine" with 30fps. Its "OK". But everything else has to as good as possible?

Do you mean Target 30fps (Dragons Dogma/Dark Souls) or locked 30fps?

Are there any locked 30fps (not a single dropped frame in heavy combat) on PS4?

 

[Tom_Cody]

This probably isn't the concern of anyone else in this thread, but 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS makes a gigantic difference when it comes to 3D on the 3DS. I assume this will be an even bigger issue with the Oculus Rift and other other VR goggles.

The problem comes in with fast camera movements and fast 2D scrolling. In this situation, the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is not trivial. It is objectively important.

 

[KnightHart]

60FPS and above all the way. I think people are just either blind or insane to not notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. Generally performance is a priority for me anyway regardless, especially in competitive games like fighting games, racing games, FPS's and RTS's (basically everything I play). I built my gaming PC so I can do 1080p/60FPS, and I can run most of my games at that setting.

The fact that Killzone Shadowfall and Drive Club are doing 1080p (or whatever strange resolution they're running at) but are doing 30FPS just seems ridiculous. It feels like the people who prefer performance over visual quality are still the minority despite the fact that many popular competitive games should be running 60FPS as a standard (Call of Duty, Battlefield, any fighting game, League of Legends and DotA, Starcraft, Counter-Strike). It feels like despite the fact Call of Duty looks dated as all hell, at least it still did 60FPS on consoles which I really enjoyed.

 

[jacksepticeye]

I'd like my games to be smooth more than pretty.If it's slightly crude lookin i can enjoy it, if it's choppy I can't

 

[virtuo]

It surprises me how obsessed some people get over these technical elements. We all want better games, but why do we cry out louder for 1080/60 and not, for example, better writing or new genres? We all hate on big publishers for being formulaic, but when all they hear from fans is #YOULIED, they'll push towards technical milestones over creative innovations. And we'll have very shiny, smooth, boring games.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Because the smoothness of a game isn't dependent on the size of a TV. 720p is fine and dandy if you're playing on a 19" monitor from 4 feet away.

My tv isn't even that big, but the pixel density is more important because I don't feel like sitting so many feet away. Native resolution is much more important to me currently than native refresh rate. Any resolution that doesn't scale well is odd, at least 30FPS scales nicely onto a 60hz display.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

Frame rate does matter, but the 60fps or bust mindset is insane. 30fps offers a good experience for 90% of games.

If 60fps or bust is insane....how do you measure 120fps or bust?

:L

 

[Moon_frogger]

A stable 30 fps is playable and enjoyable. 60 is awesome though and developers should always shoot for it if at all possible. Still, the gameplay argument is kind of silly. If a developer has to cut scope and features from a project to get the almighty 60 fps that affects gameplay far more in my opinion than a slight loss in fluidity. 30 fps will always be fine.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

30 fps is fine in most games for me. 720p looks low-rez on my 55" tv. It's going to be even worse when I upgrade to a 4k set in the next few years (probably will go to 65"). Maybe it doesn't matter on smaller panels.

 

[Chettlar]

Technically 5FPS is playable. Doubt everyone is arguing that. Still that doesn't mean it's a good experience for everyone (be it 5 or 30).

It is not. It gives me a headache to the point where I have to put the game down. Frequent drops to even 15 will do that for me.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I'm not fine with 30fps. Certainly not in racers and shooters.

If Garden Warfare had gone with 1080p/30fps instead of 900p/60fps I would be much less impressed.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Most gamers don't even know what frame rate is

 

[nkarafo]

As told before, most of those 6th gen 60fps games were just interlaced.
That means you just got 60 half-frames per second, divide by 2 gives us 30 full frames per second.
The use or progressive scanning in games made motion appear much smoother as compared to interlaced (most 6th gen games).

You cannot be serious....

Just play a 60fps game on XBOX, say, Colin Mcrae 2005 and compare it with Colin Mcrae dirt.

 

[nded]

Unless I'm playing something relatively slow that requires being able to see far away objects, I find a higher, more responsive framerate to be a better experience than being able to pick out small details in a high resolution image.

This isn't to say 30 fps is unacceptable, but given the choice for fast-paced games I will always sacrifice visual fidelity for frame rate if I have to. Vanquish and God Hand are perfectly fine at 30fps, but you're not going to convince me that they wouldn't be at least slightly better at 60fps.

 

[Obscured]

If 60fps or bust is insane....how do you measure 120fps or bust?

:L

This is what I am wondering. Is this a discussion about the optimal framerate and resolution for gaming or just wanting more? What about 4k/120fps (ignoring the hardware limitations that exist got now).

There definitely is the trade off between the two and in general I would take performance over graphics, but even 720p/30fps is a far cry from terrible. Of course more is better, but when I see that described as Vaseline or shit smeared across a screen it makes it obvious those stating that have never experienced those substances used in that application. When using that level of hyperbole to make a point it discredits the arguement.

This doesn't mean that we should just be happy with lower resolutions and framerates, but it should be in the context of what serves gameplay. Is there an upper limit to framerate based on how quickly a player can respond and the input method? It would seem like there would be. Seems like there is no upper end to graphic quality however.

As far as why in general that resolution seems to beat out framerate is that screenshots sell games better.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I'm pretty much done buying 30 fps games. I'm just going to gamefly PS4 games going forward. 30fps ruins the immersion for me when slowly panning to take in a new area.

 

[JayEH]

Certain genres it's ok. But fighters, online FPS, driving games, and character action games NEED TO BE 60 fps.

 

[nkarafo]

This is what I am wondering. Is this a discussion about the optimal framerate and resolution for gaming or just wanting more?

Just the highest frame rate standard we already had and experienced in previous generations Which is about what most TVs/Monitors are capable of. 60fps. At least on genres that benefit the most. Like FPS and racing games.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

It is not. It gives me a headache to the point where I have to put the game down. Frequent drops to even 15 will do that for me.

Frequent drops below 30, or even framerate below 30FPS shouldn't be tolerated. That should be the bare minimum seeing as how our display are mostly 60hz. I'm definitely and advocate of nothing below 30. But these last gen games running at some ridiculously awful/bizarre resolution to hit 60FPS is nuts. Diablo 3 for example was running at 1120x584. Why not just qHD 960x540 at that point and per pixel map to 1080?

 

[Solid Samus]

I'm fine with 30 fps but I really, really don't understand those who actually act like 60FPS is a bad thing or that that's not what devs should be gunning for in general.

Most people don't know what they are talking about.

One and done. I'm surprised this post doesn't get more love considering the last few months of flawed image comparisons made by console gamers who clearly hadn't even tweaked a setting in their entire lives

 

[supernormal]

For me it's graphics (lighting, particles, geometry, etc) over everything. I'd take 720p at 30fps any day if it means getting closer to some Pixar quality stuff.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Those of us who've been gaming for a long time have put up with some subpar frame rates and still had a hell of a time. I don't see why some snowball hyperbole about a certain frame rate mattering at all if it's playable enough. Of course that means I want the most solid and smooth frame rate but this is coming from an enthusiast position.

Resolution makes the most visible difference to anyone who casually plays games. I have never seen one of my nephews or casual friends/family complain about frames even if a game goes below 30 here and there.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I'm fine with 30 fps but I really, really don't understand those who actually act like 60FPS is a bad thing or that that's not what devs should be gunning for in general.

Depends on the context. 60FPS cuts the amount of ram you can access in half. If it's true that 60FPS only allows access to 4 gigs of ram on the PS4 (based on it's clock speed and bus width), then you effectively nullify the point of having more.

Oversimplifying naturally, but some truth to it depending on how much ram you need for a products vision.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Those of us who've been gaming for a long time have put up with some subpar frame rates and still had a hell of a time.

And there are those of us who were cranking DOOM down to a window half the size of our screen 20 years ago to get 60fps.

Resolution makes the most visible difference to anyone who casually plays games.

And last gen almost nobody even noticed the rampant scaling in so many games until the pixel counters at Digital Foundry pointed it out.

Best looking game so far this gen is Ryse and it's 900p. It would be fanstastic if everything were 1080p/60fps in a couple of years but if not, hopefully framerate and AA are given as much attention as the 1080p bulletpoint. And you know, there's a way to serve everyone. Bury an option in the menu of games like racers and shooters that says "Maximize Framerate (will reduce detail) Y/N?" If the hardcore wants to choose that option the game could render in 720p or whatever. ERRYBODY HAPPY.

 

[arit]

Assuming the native refreshrates and resolutions of displays will go up as slow as they do now and we'll be able to look at 60fps as too low .

I like playing older games and it makes me sad when they sacrificed responsiveness for effects.

And there are those of us who were cranking DOOM down to a window half the size of our screen 20 years ago to get 60fps.

That one though was limited to 35fps I recall it correctly.

 

[The Albatross]

I am okay with 30FPS, I am also okay with 720p. I am okay with just about everything as long as there's something that balances it out -- ie, maybe a game is 720p but it runs at 60fps... Or maybe a game is 30fps, but it renders at 1080p. Hell, I'd even play a 720p game that runs at 30fps (or less), like GTAV or Last of Us, and it'd be my favorite game of the year.

Honestly, I don't care in general, I leave it up to the developers to allocate time and resources where it should be. If they think that having 60FPS is more important than 1080p, then I'm good with that. I generally trust that a developer would prefer 60fps, 1080p, and a beautiful game, but they settle and compromise where they have to, to stay on budget, for hardware reasons, or some other factor in game design.

I'm very consistent with my "everything is okay" opinion.

 

[Vinc]

Framerate is a lot more important to me, but I want both. I really, really want both. I'm more interested in a game being 1080p/60fps these days than in it having lots of effects and detailed models and textures. However, I guess I'm willing to make the sacrifice for enhanced gameplay through having larger environments, more enemies, better AI, etc... depends on the game really... but in the "more effects + better textures vs 1080p/60fps" battle, I'll always pick the later. The PS4 can clearly produce games that look amazing enough at 1080p/60fps, so I'd like more of those. It's really hard to settle for less once you've gotten used to it.

 

[nkarafo]

And there are those of us who were cranking DOOM down to a window half the size of our screen 20 years ago to get 60fps

To be fair, the original Doom couldn't go that fast, if i remember correctly.

It didn't have mouse controls though, so that wasn't a huge problem.

 

[Vinc]

And there are those of us who were cranking DOOM down to a window half the size of our screen 20 years ago to get 60fps.



And last gen almost nobody even noticed the rampant scaling in so many games until the pixel counters at Digital Foundry pointed it out.

Best looking game so far this gen is Ryse and it's 900p. It would be fanstastic if everything were 1080p/60fps in a couple of years but if not, hopefully framerate and AA are given as much attention as the 1080p bulletpoint. And you know, there's a way to serve everyone. Bury an option in the menu of games like racers and shooters that says "Maximize Framerate (will reduce detail) Y/N?" If the hardcore wants to choose that option the game could render in 720p or whatever. ERRYBODY HAPPY.

I strongly disagree with this. The lower resolution was noticeable, but it didn't even bother me as much as the uneven and low framerate. Ryse wasn't very visually appealing to me, but to each their own. I find more appeal in Mario 3D World and DKCTF due to their style, but also because of their fairly clean IQ... and most of all because of their 60FPS framerate.

 

[Beer Monkey]

That one though was limited to 35fps I recall it correctly.

Oops, you are right. But the point still stands. Hell, my clan used to run the ugliest version of Quake 2 CTF you ever saw to ensure that we didn't drop frames in a firefight.

I strongly disagree with this. The lower resolution was noticeable, but it didn't even bother me as much as the uneven and low framerate. Ryse wasn't very visually appealing to me, but to each their own. I find more appeal in Mario 3D World and DKCTF due to their style, but also because of their fairly clean IQ... and most of all because of their 60FPS framerate.

I feel you, not about Ryse, but about the fact that I'm more excited for Mario Kart 8 than Drive Club because 60fps.

 

[scitek]

My tv is 720p, I think my monitor is 1080p. I don't know, I don't care. My eyesight is pretty bad anyway, so it makes no difference. All I want are well made and enjoyable games.

How'd you know that because I prefer1080p games at 60fps that it means I don't care if the game's good or not? I thought that was a secret.

 

[nkarafo]

Oops, you are right. But the point still stands. Hell, my clan used to run the ugliest version of Quake 2 CTF you ever saw to ensure that we didn't drop frames in a firefight.

I remember some people playing Quake 3 without textures (!) with low geometry detail etc, for the game to be as fast as possible.

 

[LCGeek]

And last gen almost nobody even noticed the rampant scaling in so many games until the pixel counters at Digital Foundry pointed it out.

Or beyond3d.....

Considering people noticed it early on in the gen can't really say people were behind things.

 

[Murtrod]

I'd rather have stability over jumping frame rates that fluctuate between 35 and 50 randomly. Locking at 30 FPS allows for more stability and steadier framer rates, especially on consoles.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I remember some people playing Quake 3 without textures (!) with low geometry detail etc, for the game to be as fast as possible.

We used to replace the Q3 weapons and health and powerups with sprite-based icons to not waste GPU rendering their polygonal models. We didn't kill the textures but we did use the low quality ones. For competitive play it was crucial to never drop below 60fps.

 

[Arkam]

Most people don't know what they are talking about.

LOL... and true.
The Things I read on the internet daily both amaze and depress me.
One day 'gamer's care about 60fps, the next 1080p, the next its some other arbitrary visual benchmark.
Much less often I hear discussions on UI quickness, boot times, level loading, in game latency, class balance, proper use of color theory or anything that actual impacts the user experience.

In fact I am still amazed that people were able to play games at 640x480 until the Xbox360 without complaining when those in the PC world had been gaming at 1600x1200 for a decade. So NOW you see the difference? Oh ok.

But hey to each their own as long as you are having fun.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

And last gen almost nobody even noticed the rampant scaling in so many games until the pixel counters at Digital Foundry pointed it out.

Best looking game so far this gen is Ryse and it's 900p. It would be fanstastic if everything were 1080p/60fps in a couple of years but if not, hopefully framerate and AA are given as much attention as the 1080p bulletpoint. And you know, there's a way to serve everyone. Bury an option in the menu of games like racers and shooters that says "Maximize Framerate (will reduce detail) Y/N?" If the hardcore wants to choose that option the game could render in 720p or whatever. ERRYBODY HAPPY.

Calling BS. This generation, with per pixel mapping to a 1080 set, games look better than they've ever looked, and everyone is talking about it. Last gen games look terrible in comparison, especially on anything 50"+. I can't imagine anyone enjoying a 720p game on a 65" in TV, 60FPS or not, that's straight up ugly.

I just want pixels mapped correctly. I don't care if they half the vertical or horizontal resolution, and double up, I just want the image to fit and not skew so bad. Definitely possible to still have a clean IQ with a higher framerate, and I wish that's the direction we'd head in.

 

[molnizzle]

The problem with 30fps on consoles is that more often than not it's not actually 30fps. It's "targeted" 30fps with frequent dips to the low 20's.

I recently built an inexpensive gaming PC and have been playing all of my games with a 30fps cap. I was surprised to discover that it was perfectly solid. Not just "okay," but actually quite good. What makes it good is that my games never dip below 30fps, even in their most demanding sections. This means that if I were to uncap the frame rate, I'd be sitting at 45-60fps most of the time. That's the kind of overhead you need to ensure "locked" 30fps.

I love it. I've been playing my games almost completely maxed out with outstanding AA and overall IQ. Frame rate stays at a locked 30fps with no dips. It's not 30fps that's the problem these days, it's the dips below it and fluctuations above it. Rock solid 30fps is perfectly fine, and it makes it possible for me to run my games at 1080p on high/ultra settings on a $500 PC. Fucking awesome.

30fps master race =P

 

[Trace]

1080p is more important to me than 60 fps, playing a 720p game on a large 1080p(or above) TV is disgusting. Obviously 1080p/60fps is ideal, but outside of fighting games I'll take 1080/30 over 720/60.

 

[Gbraga]

Are we gonna have 3 crowds when 120hz becomes more popular?

60fps is fine I'd rather have better graphics

lol 30fps is playable, give me 4K

anything other than 120 is a slideshow.

1080p is more important to me than 60 fps, playing a 720p game on a large 1080p(or above) TV is disgusting. Obviously 1080p/60fps is ideal, but outside of fighting games I'll take 1080/30 over 720/60.

It shouldn't be about resolution vs framerate, though. You can have both, you'll just have to cut on effects in general.

You can play on low at high resolutions too.

 

[Beer Monkey]

1080p is more important to me than 60 fps, playing a 720p game on a large 1080p(or above) TV is disgusting.

I can't fucking wait to play the ugly, disgusting Mario Kart 8 on my 1080p Pioneer Kuro plasma at the end of this month.

 

[Nydius]

If a developer decides to lock a game at 30fps and the game plays consistently at 30fps without dipping, I'm perfectly fine with it. I'd rather have a locked 30fps that's stable 99% of the time than a game that was designed for 60 fps but dips into the 40s frequently. If a dev locks the game at 30fps but it dips into the 20s or lower all the time then I'm not a fan.

 

[Trace]

It shouldn't be about resolution vs framerate, though. You can have both, you'll just have to cut on effects in general.

You can play on low at high resolutions too.

Effects sell games though. TLoU and GTA5 were great games, but one of the reasons they sold so well was because people would look at gameplay and say "Wow that looks amazing", even though the framerate and resolution were both quite low for both titles.

I can't fucking wait to play the ugly, disgusting Mario Kart 8 on my 1080p Pioneer Kuro plasma at the end of this month.

When did I say the game was disgusting? It's just that it would be so much better at 1080.