-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
John Carmack: "Many next-gen games will still target 30 fps"
- Thread starter alexandros
- Start date
MrCookiepants
Member
Cool. Nothing wrong with 30.
I imagine it may have a subconscious effect: they may not really put their finger on WHY (or they'll think of soap opera smoothness and TVs with interpolation rather than 60 FPS), but they KNOW it's just so much smoother than all the other (30 FPS) shooters out there.
EDIT: Well, actually, it may not even be the FPS in and of itself so much as the kind of gameplay that FPS can support. I imagine playing a game like CoD4 onwards online at 30 FPS would be awful, it works for Halo because that's slower paced, but CoD is "see a guy, immediately shoot or die". That really does work better I'd think for 60 FPS than 30.
You have a point.
Does anyone remember? Wondering what they will promise this time....
Angelus Errare
Banned
I for one am shocked! Who would have thought developers would choose visuals over framerate?!
Madness I say!
Madness I say!
alexandros
Banned
They are undermining Windows gaming, at a time when games are by far the most popular passtime on personal computing devices.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
Well, duh.
Glass Rebel
Member
Come on, that's unfair. They made GFWL after all!
Any specific point? Because I'm not exactly eager to dig through a press conference just to see an FPS promise.
Though, honestly I think it's that early in a generation you have loads of fresh power and can do a modest upgrade at a high FPS. But then you start wanting to put more detail in, and accept compromising the framerate further. Games like Super Mario 64 and Jumping Flash were smoother than Zelda: Ocarina of Time or Medal of Honor, many early PS2 games were 60 FPS but I wonder how many late ones were too, I know ZoE1 and MGS2 were solid 60s, but ZoE2 had crazy dips and MGS3 was a mostly solid 30 FPS, and I don't recall many of those JRPGs being 60, even seemingly lower end ones like Persona 3 or 4. Then we had Shadow of the Colossus, ambition over framerate (though at least unlike Crysis 2 it was promising something VERY different gameplay-wise that couldn't have been done decently otherwise). Similarly I seem to recall a decent number of early PS3/360 titles were 60 FPS or at least a very stable 30 FPS, but now we seem to be lucky to even get a stable 30 FPS now. It'll probably happen again next gen, early games are at least a split between 60 and 30, later ones are mostly stable 30 FPS, then near the end when they're desperate to squeeze more power out we get games that struggle to stay at 30.
alexandros
Banned
MrCunningham
Member
Yeah, nothing new from Carmack. He is just reinstating something he has already said before to a random Twitter commenter. But he is right, before this current generation of consoles launched (PS3 and XBox 360) there was a lot of blind speculation that both consoles would magically achieve 60FPS at 1080p in every game, but that has been far from the truth.
60FPS could be easily achievable (for the most part) in all current generation consoles if developers want it. But there always seems to be a need to sacrifice framerate and resolution in favor of visual eye candy. The next generation consoles most likely aren't going to be very different in this respect.
Well, there is arguably the side that it's cheaper to go for lower end visuals that stay at 60 FPS than cramming in enough detail to be 30 FPS instead, but if they're optimizing to reach near-identical IQ at 60 FPS then that's probably a different story, nevermind that stuff like mocapping would still cost as much as ever regardless.
Won't matter for console exclusives (usually Japanese games... that I half expect will mostly be on handhelds and maybe Wii U anyway) or those coded with a 30 FPS hardlock because of either technical constraints or straight up ignorance/apathy for the PC audience.
LOL yeah that's what I did, because mentioning lag, glitches, bugs when it comes to next gen gaming(in a gaming related thread) is the same as mentiong political personalities lmao. Some are trying too hard.
But I won't give it any more attention. Feel free to spin it how you want, with slice of pizza, why not
The all games 60 fps/ Full HD promise. People saying did you really expect something else than 30 fps have forgotten that or just don´t trust Sony? I don´t know.
How were improvements in Shadow of the colossus HD remake? It was supposed to be 60fps?
And was Rage 60fps on PCs?
It's a very good point. Sadly, I've found lately a few games using streaming and trashing shaders routines that are sized to cope 30 fps. What a pity those routines can't scale up smoothly to 60 fps and so, they dragging down performance even on computers with plenty of power.
I can't play games under 60 locked fps.
brain_stew
Member
Then think yourself lucky that your eyesight is so poor as to not detect it as its absolutely there. Ignorance is bliss.
That was the best E3 ever. Sure many things changed but fuck it was exciting to watch. And when you see games like GoW3 GT5 and Uncharted console did deliver even if part of that event was wrong.
What are you trying to say? Sony said 60 fps / 1080 p for every game. Did they deliver? No. So I was wondering what they will promise this time.
drkOne
Member
You can't tell the difference because you only play 30FPS games. Try playing 60FPS for a change.
It's like saying there's no difference between native 720p and 1080p...
grimshawish
Banned
No. An unsteady and unfixed frame rate is the biggest problem.
For me it depends on the game.
Now let me get this straight, 60 is ALWAYS better than 30, of course, but given the compromises, if the gameplay does not require a certain amount of reaction time from the player, i think 30 fps is fine, although it does look like shit, compared to 60.
Action games, FPS, fighting games, sport games, double stick shooter etc etc = 60fps.
Slow rpg, turn based games, adventure games etc etc = 30fps.
Now let me get this straight, 60 is ALWAYS better than 30, of course, but given the compromises, if the gameplay does not require a certain amount of reaction time from the player, i think 30 fps is fine, although it does look like shit, compared to 60.
Action games, FPS, fighting games, sport games, double stick shooter etc etc = 60fps.
Slow rpg, turn based games, adventure games etc etc = 30fps.
Acquiescence
Member
Boo hoo. 60fps on the 360 didn't stop Rage being any less mediocre.
Acquiescence
Member
60fps doesn't count for a whole lot if you make a mundane shooter to go with it.
I don't see (realistic) calls for Nintendo or Sony to put their first party games on PC. I can understand PC gamers feeling slighted by Microsoft, but producing games for a console that they make and then putting it on PC just doesn't make sense to me from a business perspective for Microsoft.
SniperHunter
Banned
60 fps is impossible to maintain even on my 7950, a $300 gpu....usually you need crossfire or sli gpus to run most pc games at max settings at 60 fps
Bet your bum that RAGE being 60fps only helped its cause, had it run at 30 it would've been even worse...
It does, since it's still a whole lot better than 30.
Well of course you're gonna need to reach for a compromise, since you can always push for better IQ etc etc, unless you don't have infinite computing power, that's a given.
Most games i play have no problem running at >60 fps, with setting at high and a reasonable IQ/AA.
Acquiescence
Member
And I'm saying for the third time that the game was so routine and threadbare that it wasn't worth playing in the first place, regardless of what the fps was.
Giving a turd that little extra polish.
Erhm, ok? That's your problem, objectively speaking 60 fps made Rage (regardless if incrementally ) a better game. Now whether or not you still find the game trash it has nothing to do whatsoever with the discussion at hand.
We get it, you didn't like Rage.
Yeah we're discussing the need for 60fps, and its priority for nextgen.
I don't see how your rant about Rage is even related to this.
One game you didn't like (for reasons completely unrelated to framerats) had 60fps, therefore... ?
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
just like the whole 720p Vs 1080p situation, most people wont notice the difference. Thats not to say they wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you played the same game at 30 fps and then at 60 fps but once you get into the game, most people wont notice it / wont care.
Sure there are people who do but that means little. Personally I can tell the difference but for the most part 30 is fine. Its when it drops often below this it gets really irritating.
As others have said I'm not surprised by this at all. 2 reasons being
1) most people wont notice (see above)
2) its easier to show off graphics than frame rate.
Sure there are people who do but that means little. Personally I can tell the difference but for the most part 30 is fine. Its when it drops often below this it gets really irritating.
As others have said I'm not surprised by this at all. 2 reasons being
1) most people wont notice (see above)
2) its easier to show off graphics than frame rate.
When will you understand that a certain resolution and a certain frame rate as standards are impossible if not locked?
Without locks developers will ever try to make better graphics so they will always sacrifice resolution and framerate for better textures and polygons.
The only solution is to build a console with an hardware or software lock for the resolution and the framerate.
Without locks developers will ever try to make better graphics so they will always sacrifice resolution and framerate for better textures and polygons.
The only solution is to build a console with an hardware or software lock for the resolution and the framerate.
I totally agree, certain genres don't benefit that much from the 60fps and by that I mean I'd really wish Vanquish was 60fps when at the same time I wouldn't give a crap if FFXIII or Alan Wake was going for 60fps - sure they could look much smoother but all these resources could've been spent elsewhere (higher detail, more characters on screen, better lighting e.t.c.) and since we're talking about consoles aka closed architecture with limitations this is to be expected.
Anyone who still thinks that 1080p/60fps could be the standard for a closed architecture is delusional unless they want much lower visual fidelity as a standard next gen...of course then we would have a lot of threads saying how the graphics suck on the next gen consoles and all.
alexandros
Banned
The difference is that Microsoft is the "platform holder" for both the Xbox and Windows PC. Microsoft is essentially competing with its own platform.
I would argue that it makes perfect sense, as it is essentially the truest form of Microsoft's "unification" plan across all devices. This segregation weakens both Windows and the Xbox as game platforms. Imagine how much more potent Windows and Xbox gaming would be if Microsoft had Valve's current PC gaming market share.
It may be an extreme example, but it'd still be as out of place bitching about the Wii U OS, or how online passes should be phased out, or whatever. It's too far from the topic, and different levels of feasibility for that matter. Especially since it's essentially impossible to make a 100% bug free game of sophistication beyond Basic coding.
I was kinda hoping for a specific time space, though I must've not seen that or immediately filtered out at least the FPS as bullshit, maybe if they kept the same exact visual fidelity as on PS2 (though clearly not even that given ports like ZoE couldn't even keep a stable 60 at 720p).