• 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.

Next Gen Consoles 60FPS vs. 30FPS

Shifty.

Member
Sep 25, 2015
7,042
5,370
685
Somewhere in space
Shows how full of estrogen you are to collect all my comments just to complain typical sissy
Aww, is wittle diddums feeling thweatened that someone with a basic grasp of rhetoric is deconstructing his shit-tier arguments? Because he's too scared of losing to actually stand and back them up? Everybody be sad for the poor baby.

Grow some balls and own your discourse if you want to post on a discussion forum. Otherwise keep your trap shut.

Back in 2013 everybody was moaning for stable 1080p 30fps and the PS4 delivered a few years later everybody is moaning for 4k 60 despite 80 percent of gamers not even owning a 4k TV and when next gen consoles come out everybody will start complaining for 8k 120fps
People have been demanding 60 since the inception of HD in the 360 and PS3 era. You speak only for yourself by spouting this 'everybody' nonsense.

bunch of coconuts looking like men on the outside and little suckling girls on the inside grow up.
Aww look everyone, he's still having a tantrum and calling names if people don't blindly agree!

Acting like a wannabe hard man will get you nothing but ruthless mocking here, sport. Best you learn that before you out yourself as a bubble-blowing baby to even more members of the forum.

Back to basics graphics fidelity and the games themselves are more important moving for next gen than resolutions and frame rates because nobody ever bought a game because of frame rates
Oh look, another self-contradicting argument.

If the games themselves (and by extension, gameplay) are the most important part, then clearly framerate takes priority over graphics.

But do keep on ranting and reshuffling the same combo of self-contradiction and insults. It's good mental exercise to pick apart nonsense like this every now and then.
 
Last edited:

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
266
125
330
Aww, is wittle diddums feeling thweatened that someone with a basic grasp of rhetoric is deconstructing his shit-tier arguments? Because he's too scared of losing to actually stand and back them up? Everybody be sad for the poor baby.

Grow some balls and own your discourse if you want to post on a discussion forum. Otherwise keep your trap shut.


People have been demanding 60 since the inception of HD in the 360 and PS3 era. You speak only for yourself by spouting this 'everybody' nonsense.


Aww look everyone, he's still having a tantrum and calling names if people don't blindly agree!

Acting like a wannabe hard man will get you nothing but ruthless mocking here, sport. Best you learn that before you out yourself as a bubble-blowing baby to even more members of the forum.


Oh look, another self-contradicting argument.

If the games themselves (and by extension, gameplay) are the most important part, then clearly framerate takes priority over graphics.

But do keep on ranting and reshuffling the same combo of self-contradiction and insults. It's good mental exercise to pick apart nonsense like this every now and then.
Go get some balls n stop whining like a little duckling bitch, quack quack quack! Ru on Ur period or something...
 

Nero_PR

Member
Jun 17, 2019
76
53
230
The current generation already established what we could call a foundation for what's to come. The answer is OPTIONS.

A mode that prioritizes performance over resolution. A cinematic mode that boosts graphics quality and resolution at the cost of 30fps. And the terrible middle ground Variable mode that has dynamic resolution or fps.

I'd rather have a locked 60fps than graphical boost all the way. And let me disabled or tinker motion blur, chromatic aberration, and film grain (Yeah, I know this is basically wanting consoles to go the PC route, but that is inevitable).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helios and Shifty.

Shifty.

Member
Sep 25, 2015
7,042
5,370
685
Somewhere in space
I'd rather have a locked 60fps than graphical boost all the way. And let me disabled or tinker motion blur, chromatic aberration, and film grain (Yeah, I know this is basically wanting consoles to go the PC route, but that is inevitable).
It's certainly possible, yeah. Now the precedent for multiple SKUs has been set, there's the possibility of it gradually subdividing more and more until there's such a range that non-granular Performance / Variable / Image Quality switches aren't enough to cover all the bases anymore.

And I don't think the "base machine for current tech, hardware refresh for new display standards" thing is going to be scalable if the TV industry keeps doubling resolution every few years. Console generations are only getting longer, and there has to be a breaking point if the hardware is being pulled in different directions by pricing, resolution bumps and the demand for ever shinier graphics.



It's not an act this is how we come whether you stop or keep your weak guy whining act!
Sure seems like an act when you're all mouth and no trousers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Go back to your locker room, jocko.
 
Last edited:

Mod of War

Ooo. Piece of candy.
Staff Member
Oct 23, 2018
149
434
385
Aww, is wittle diddums feeling thweatened that someone with a basic grasp of rhetoric is deconstructing his shit-tier arguments? Because he's too scared of losing to actually stand and back them up? Everybody be sad for the poor baby.

Grow some balls and own your discourse if you want to post on a discussion forum. Otherwise keep your trap shut.


People have been demanding 60 since the inception of HD in the 360 and PS3 era. You speak only for yourself by spouting this 'everybody' nonsense.


Aww look everyone, he's still having a tantrum and calling names if people don't blindly agree!

Acting like a wannabe hard man will get you nothing but ruthless mocking here, sport. Best you learn that before you out yourself as a bubble-blowing baby to even more members of the forum.


Oh look, another self-contradicting argument.

If the games themselves (and by extension, gameplay) are the most important part, then clearly framerate takes priority over graphics.

But do keep on ranting and reshuffling the same combo of self-contradiction and insults. It's good mental exercise to pick apart nonsense like this every now and then.
Go get some balls n stop whining like a little duckling bitch, quack quack quack! Ru on Ur period or something...
Knock off the personal attacks. There is a discussion to be had for technical preferences, it shouldn't devolve into this.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Keihart

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
8,918
1,890
980
Seems very probable to me that average frame-rates are going to improve with the next gen offering major improvements on both the GPU and especially CPU side.

That being said the only way frame-rates are going to be mandated is for stuff like VR where its of actual importance. For regular games, its desirable but in no way essential no matter what the tech-fetish dorks would have us believe.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Keihart

Journey

Member
Aug 18, 2014
1,637
257
410
This will always be a debate.

Here's an easy solution. Given that the new consoles will likely be backward/forward compatible, there will be more than one target anyway, so a simple menu option for gamers to choose 4K/30fps or 1080p /60 or even 1440p/60 or whichever resolution allows them to achieve this should be a standard option, at least for the single player campaign. Competitive multiplayer should always be 60fps with a dynamic resolution. The reason this doesn't work today is because of the CPU bottleneck where sometimes dropping the res to 1080p on Xbox One X still meant they couldn't comfortably hit 60fps, but achieving 4K/30fps was still possible due to the powerful GPU. Thankfully next gen we're getting a HUGE CPU boost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shifty.

G-Bus

Member
Aug 20, 2007
2,733
208
1,080
Canada
Considering how much money I've invested into my console with digital Games.... Can't see myself straying away from ps anytime soon regardless of this type of stuff.

Of course no backwards compatibility would change my opinion. Probably go PC.
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
13,133
2,421
860
If you asked me 15 years ago, i would never thought there would still be a debate about 30 vs 60fps games. I thought after the PS2 generation (which has the highest ratio of 60fps 3D games so far) 60fps would become a standard. Yet, here we are. Not only the standards haven't increased but they even dropped. The console industry is holding gaming back more than i imagined.

In PC land there is no such thing as 30fps anymore. Now it's more like 60fps vs 120/144fps.



I would argue that in side scrolling games, 60fps isn't enough because modern displays suck compared to CRTs and there is too much motion blur/ghosting. You need 120fps+ for a more crystal clear looking motion. I played Bloodstained at 120fps (i have a 240hz monitor) and it made a big difference VS 60fps. The side scrolling was even smoother and the backgrounds more clear while moving, close to CRT quality, while 60fps was a lot more blurred.

I can't even think of side scrolling at 30fps, unless the game is very slow moving. I remember playing Sonic Generations on consoles and was not able to stand it. Especially considering this game has VERY fast side scrolling, it should be 60fps. But no, console gamers have such low standards that even that blurry, stuttering mess of a game was considered acceptable.
 
Last edited:

xool

Member
May 29, 2018
841
723
335
Elephant in the room - Field of View

Not as widespread but I can think of acouple of good games that have been spoilt by narrow field of view at the altar of graphics.

Horizon Zero Dawn is the worst example I can think of - constantly getting trashed by creatures from the side because it was out of the "looking through a toilet roll" vision

Kingdoms of Amalur also suffered from this too iirc

Must be plenty other examples.

In many cases I'd sacrifice frame rate for a playable field of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shangounchained

Nero_PR

Member
Jun 17, 2019
76
53
230
Dest
Elephant in the room - Field of View

Not as widespread but I can think of acouple of good games that have been spoilt by narrow field of view at the altar of graphics.

Horizon Zero Dawn is the worst example I can think of - constantly getting trashed by creatures from the side because it was out of the "looking through a toilet roll" vision

Kingdoms of Amalur also suffered from this too iirc

Must be plenty other examples.

In many cases I'd sacrifice frame rate for a playable field of view.
Destiny on consoles has a 72 fov. It is jarring.
 

BusierDonkey

Member
Sep 21, 2018
978
1,643
320
60 FPS is only so important in racing games shooters say maxpayne and fast paced games, never important in games like splinter cell, the order like above, 60 FPS is more about arcade fun stuff, 30 FPS has and will always be the norm.
There are very few games that don't benefit from a higher frame-rate. I would argue any game that has a free-moving camera benefits from higher framerates while the same can't be said for many of the added effects that the lower frame-rates facilitate. Having better sub-surface scattering on the character's skin isn't noticeable in gameplay in a game like Splinter Cell where your character is almost always obscured by the environment and the effect can't be seen. But a camera that moves freely is always going to be of benefit to the gameplay. Modern games seem to cater to the photo-mode and the advent of bullshots where a still picture of the game is king. I like taking shots in my games, especially the ones I've modded extensively, but when I'm actually playing the game none of those effects are a priority to me.

- First-person shooters - fast camera movement and reaction times rely on higher fps.
- Racing games (both sim and arcade) - For obvious reasons.
- Flying games (both sim and arcade) -
- Action games (Bayonetta, Vanquish, etc) - More quick camera movement, fast player speeds
- Action adventure games (Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed) - While not as fast paced as pure action games, there is still a lot of fast movement. Action Adventurere games that don't rely on QTEs to pad the lack of actual gameplay will benefit greatly from improved frame-rates.
- Adventure Games - This is about the only category I can say 30 fps would be remotely acceptable, especially the older adventure games like Myst. These games are often near-static.
- RPGs - Old RPGs like Final Fantasy 1-6, Dragon Quest, etc all ran at 60fps. When Final Fantasy 7 released on the PS1 the frame-rate dropped and the result was a choppy, ugly game laced with FMV and static rendered backgrounds. Modern RPGs including ones using turn-based systems use dynamic cameras and many use real-time combat and movement. Action RPGs like Nier sometime move as quickly as straight action games so a faster frame-rate is a no-brainer there.
- Real Time Strategy games - Swinging around a map and navigating to units at 30fps would be headache inducing. At higher levels RTS games are very much based on reaction time.
- Puzzle games - Like RTS games, at higher levels the game comes down to reaction times.
- Platformers - This should be a no brainer, wild camera movements and direction changes, timing jumps. Play Banjo-Kazooie on the N64, then again on the Xbox at 60fps and tell me which was the better experience.
- Fighting games - 100% reaction-based gameplay requiring millisecond precise timing.
- Shmups - Another genre that relies entirely on reaction times.
- Rhythm games - See above?
- Ols school arcade games like Pac-man - These were always fast-moving and always came with higher frame rates. Versions with reduced frame-rates were always poorly received.

How can anyone be happy with 30 FPS? It's the absolute minimum that is acceptable it's like saying 640 by 480 resolution is acceptable because you can see the screen. PC is starting to move beyond 60 frames per second and is going to make consoles look very dated

I agree.

But I also disagree. 60fps should be the minimum standard going forward, not 30. I understand why consoles started running sub-60 when polygon-based games first came about but by the X360/PS3 era things could, and should have gone back to locked 60fps games. There were a lot of great looking 60fps games dating back to the Gamecube like the Rogue Squadron games and Metroid Prime series. Even before then, DC, PS1 and N64 games that ran at 60fps still hold up well. Going back to older games, it's always the ones that run at higher framerates that hold up better to me. Remasters like Perfect Dark or Banjo-Kazooie (or any Xbox One X enhanced games) are much more fun to play with higher frame rates. Running emulated 30fps games at 60fps shows that a lot of games play much better when the engine isn't chugging. There are your outliers, games that are barely games. "Cinematic" experiences like Detroit, Heavy Rain, and slow paced cinematic adventure games riddled with button press challenges where they slow the gameplay to a crawl in order to jam some more effects in. May as well play those games on YouTube at this point. But even in those situations I would prefer smooth fluid camera movement to motion blur assisted low framerates.

Of all the games I've played since I started on my old Tandy 1000SL, I've always preferred higher framerates to added effects. There aren't many games I can't run 4K/60/extreme on my current PC, but when I do run into something I'll choose framerate every time even if it means a cut in resolution, lowering AA, or disabling effects entirely. Going over to my Xbox and playing 30fps games is almost jarring and takes time to get used to. Luckily most of those old games are available in some manner on PC.

I think future consoles need to offer options similar to PC settings that are accessible in-game. Resolution changes, frame-rates, AA, AF, etc, should all be able to be toggled on or off. Some people will put up with a slide-show or wildly fluctuating frame-rates, but I can't stand it in most games. My prediction is that going forward, developers will continue on their current path, keep cramming particle effects and barely visible tricks into games to make cutscenes look better, and start shipping "8K"/30fps/mid-low setting versions of games with restricted FOVs and deliberately slowed camera movement.
 
Last edited:

shutup

Neo Member
Aug 5, 2019
19
20
105
better graphics... yup and better AI :messenger_tears_of_joy:

This generation will be the generation about 4K resolution and 60fps but not the generation about the better graphics.
 

Shangounchained

Your, You're
Dec 1, 2018
266
125
330
There are very few games that don't benefit from a higher frame-rate. I would argue any game that has a free-moving camera benefits from higher framerates while the same can't be said for many of the added effects that the lower frame-rates facilitate. Having better sub-surface scattering on the character's skin isn't noticeable in gameplay in a game like Splinter Cell where your character is almost always obscured by the environment and the effect can't be seen. But a camera that moves freely is always going to be of benefit to the gameplay. Modern games seem to cater to the photo-mode and the advent of bullshots where a still picture of the game is king. I like taking shots in my games, especially the ones I've modded extensively, but when I'm actually playing the game none of those effects are a priority to me.

- First-person shooters - fast camera movement and reaction times rely on higher fps.
- Racing games (both sim and arcade) - For obvious reasons.
- Flying games (both sim and arcade) -
- Action games (Bayonetta, Vanquish, etc) - More quick camera movement, fast player speeds
- Action adventure games (Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed) - While not as fast paced as pure action games, there is still a lot of fast movement. Action Adventurere games that don't rely on QTEs to pad the lack of actual gameplay will benefit greatly from improved frame-rates.
- Adventure Games - This is about the only category I can say 30 fps would be remotely acceptable, especially the older adventure games like Myst. These games are often near-static.
- RPGs - Old RPGs like Final Fantasy 1-6, Dragon Quest, etc all ran at 60fps. When Final Fantasy 7 released on the PS1 the frame-rate dropped and the result was a choppy, ugly game laced with FMV and static rendered backgrounds. Modern RPGs including ones using turn-based systems use dynamic cameras and many use real-time combat and movement. Action RPGs like Nier sometime move as quickly as straight action games so a faster frame-rate is a no-brainer there.
- Real Time Strategy games - Swinging around a map and navigating to units at 30fps would be headache inducing. At higher levels RTS games are very much based on reaction time.
- Puzzle games - Like RTS games, at higher levels the game comes down to reaction times.
- Platformers - This should be a no brainer, wild camera movements and direction changes, timing jumps. Play Banjo-Kazooie on the N64, then again on the Xbox at 60fps and tell me which was the better experience.
- Fighting games - 100% reaction-based gameplay requiring millisecond precise timing.
- Shmups - Another genre that relies entirely on reaction times.
- Rhythm games - See above?
- Ols school arcade games like Pac-man - These were always fast-moving and always came with higher frame rates. Versions with reduced frame-rates were always poorly received.



I agree.

But I also disagree. 60fps should be the minimum standard going forward, not 30. I understand why consoles started running sub-60 when polygon-based games first came about but by the X360/PS3 era things could, and should have gone back to locked 60fps games. There were a lot of great looking 60fps games dating back to the Gamecube like the Rogue Squadron games and Metroid Prime series. Even before then, DC, PS1 and N64 games that ran at 60fps still hold up well. Going back to older games, it's always the ones that run at higher framerates that hold up better to me. Remasters like Perfect Dark or Banjo-Kazooie (or any Xbox One X enhanced games) are much more fun to play with higher frame rates. Running emulated 30fps games at 60fps shows that a lot of games play much better when the engine isn't chugging. There are your outliers, games that are barely games. "Cinematic" experiences like Detroit, Heavy Rain, and slow paced cinematic adventure games riddled with button press challenges where they slow the gameplay to a crawl in order to jam some more effects in. May as well play those games on YouTube at this point. But even in those situations I would prefer smooth fluid camera movement to motion blur assisted low framerates.

Of all the games I've played since I started on my old Tandy 1000SL, I've always preferred higher framerates to added effects. There aren't many games I can't run 4K/60/extreme on my current PC, but when I do run into something I'll choose framerate every time even if it means a cut in resolution, lowering AA, or disabling effects entirely. Going over to my Xbox and playing 30fps games is almost jarring and takes time to get used to. Luckily most of those old games are available in some manner on PC.

I think future consoles need to offer options similar to PC settings that are accessible in-game. Resolution changes, frame-rates, AA, AF, etc, should all be able to be toggled on or off. Some people will put up with a slide-show or wildly fluctuating frame-rates, but I can't stand it in most games. My prediction is that going forward, developers will continue on their current path, keep cramming particle effects and barely visible tricks into games to make cutscenes look better, and start shipping "8K"/30fps/mid-low setting versions of games with restricted FOVs and deliberately slowed camera movement.
30 FPS is the standard fullstop we can monkey all we can and make a million theories why not 60 why not 120 why not 700 fucking sake, grow up. 30 FPS is as good as it gets anything extra is lotion! Doesn't matter if it's 700 FPS in GTA or metal gear, who gives a flying fuck, the obsession of 60 FPS is just ridiculous, I'm fine with need for speed, burnout, split second, pure, vanquish, ninja gaiden at 60 FPS, but fucking he'll grow some balls not every fucking thing has to be 60 fps, we don't play frame rates or mathematics we play art and games, I played a thousand games that I don't even know the franerate about. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
 

BusierDonkey

Member
Sep 21, 2018
978
1,643
320
30 FPS is the standard fullstop we can monkey all we can and make a million theories why not 60 why not 120 why not 700 fucking sake, grow up. 30 FPS is as good as it gets anything extra is lotion! Doesn't matter if it's 700 FPS in GTA or metal gear, who gives a flying fuck, the obsession of 60 FPS is just ridiculous, I'm fine with need for speed, burnout, split second, pure, vanquish, ninja gaiden at 60 FPS, but fucking he'll grow some balls not every fucking thing has to be 60 fps, we don't play frame rates or mathematics we play art and games, I played a thousand games that I don't even know the franerate about. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
This has to have been a drunken post.
 

FeldMonster

Member
Nov 17, 2018
141
118
210
The current generation already established what we could call a foundation for what's to come. The answer is OPTIONS.

A mode that prioritizes performance over resolution. A cinematic mode that boosts graphics quality and resolution at the cost of 30fps. And the terrible middle ground Variable mode that has dynamic resolution or fps.

I'd rather have a locked 60fps than graphical boost all the way. And let me disabled or tinker motion blur, chromatic aberration, and film grain (Yeah, I know this is basically wanting consoles to go the PC route, but that is inevitable).
What is wrong with dynamic resolution? I thought that many implementations this generation have been quite useful?
 

decisions

Member
Jun 16, 2015
735
406
450
The proposition in the OP is pretty interesting, but I think ultimately unrealistic.

The truth is, I don't think the framerate vs. resolution argument really has a consistent answer throughout all games.

Generally, I prefer framerate yes, but when I say this I think of games that need the framerate, such as character action or fighting games. However, would I have taken an RDR2 that looked worse but ran at 60fps? Probably not. The fact that the game was so visually stunning for its time (and of course still is <1 year later)really pulled me in to the world.

So actually, if one hardware manufacturer forced devs to prioritize one over another I think that would generally be bad. I think devs should be free to prioritize whatever they feel is most significant for a particular game.
 

Dapperk

Member
Jun 15, 2004
10,397
44
1,515
30 FPS is the standard fullstop we can monkey all we can and make a million theories why not 60 why not 120 why not 700 fucking sake, grow up. 30 FPS is as good as it gets anything extra is lotion! Doesn't matter if it's 700 FPS in GTA or metal gear, who gives a flying fuck, the obsession of 60 FPS is just ridiculous, I'm fine with need for speed, burnout, split second, pure, vanquish, ninja gaiden at 60 FPS, but fucking he'll grow some balls not every fucking thing has to be 60 fps, we don't play frame rates or mathematics we play art and games, I played a thousand games that I don't even know the franerate about. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
You settle for less, good for you.
 

ghairat

Member
Jul 1, 2017
200
114
260
Sweden
One thing that really made me disappointed was Oniyaki which runs in 30fps rather than 60fps. I mean why??? I am Setsuna on ps4 runs 60fps. Next-gen should enable developers to run their games 60fps.
 
May 22, 2018
100
107
300
Scotland
60fps minimum, simple as that. 30fps was old news by the end of the PS3 and 360, never mind still being the norm with Xbone and PS4. I personally took the 1080p gsync route on PC, as framerate is far more important than 1440 or 4k. Especially if you have access to Nvidia's DSR settings, to help you squeeze more out of your hardware.
 

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
13,133
2,421
860
30 FPS is the standard fullstop we can monkey all we can and make a million theories why not 60 why not 120 why not 700 fucking sake, grow up. 30 FPS is as good as it gets anything extra is lotion! Doesn't matter if it's 700 FPS in GTA or metal gear, who gives a flying fuck, the obsession of 60 FPS is just ridiculous, I'm fine with need for speed, burnout, split second, pure, vanquish, ninja gaiden at 60 FPS, but fucking he'll grow some balls not every fucking thing has to be 60 fps, we don't play frame rates or mathematics we play art and games, I played a thousand games that I don't even know the franerate about. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
Boy, it's like all the arguments made in this thread don't exist anymore. Or you forgot about them.

Apparently, whoever cares about better response, more precision, lower input lag, less strain in the eyes, etc are idiots.

Also "30 FPS is as good as it gets"? You started with some weak arguments, then when you didn't have any more left you tried insults and personal attacks. And now it seems you completely given up, ignoring everything that being shown to you.
 

Shifty.

Member
Sep 25, 2015
7,042
5,370
685
Somewhere in space
Fixed that for you.

If you don't notice it then fair enough
I wouldn't bother being diplomatic, I doubt he'd extend the same courtesy to you (or anyone else in here that isn't trumpeting the 30FPS horn)

Also "30 FPS is as good as it gets"? You started with some weak arguments, then when you didn't have any more left you tried insults and personal attacks. And now it seems you completely given up, ignoring everything that being shown to you.
And back to square one we go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

30 FPS is the standard fullstop we can monkey all we can and make a million theories why not 60 why not 120 why not 700 fucking sake, grow up. 30 FPS is as good as it gets anything extra is lotion! Doesn't matter if it's 700 FPS in GTA or metal gear, who gives a flying fuck, the obsession of 60 FPS is just ridiculous, I'm fine with need for speed, burnout, split second, pure, vanquish, ninja gaiden at 60 FPS, but fucking he'll grow some balls not every fucking thing has to be 60 fps, we don't play frame rates or mathematics we play art and games, I played a thousand games that I don't even know the franerate about. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
TL;DR "I don't care so am going to continue having meltdowns in the general direction of people that do despite being told to can it by a mod"

Are you actually going to argue your case this time, or are you just going to sit around and incoherently heckle posters you disagree with while the rest of us attempt to have a discussion?
 
Last edited:

GreatnessRD

Member
Jun 30, 2017
192
104
260
Baltimore, MD
It's disgusting that here we are in 2019 and debating if 60 fps should be standard.

Congratulations, gaming community! We played ourselves with such poor standards.

If you would have told me this back in 2005 this is where we'd be, I would have not believed you. Sad times.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: MightySquirrel
Jun 26, 2013
3,441
1,812
680
To those arguing that 30fps is good enough, how come high frame rates, usually 90fps or 120fps, are required for VR games?