Support NeoGAF

[Whitecrow]

Stable 30 fps with good motion blur is perfectly fine.
But as Skyr said, options is the answer.

That's exactly how it looks in games. Play any side scrolling game, say Sonic Generations on a console and then at 60fps on PC. That's exactly the difference.

In 3D games where you move into the center of the screen it may be slightly less noticeable because you focus on the center, where everything moves slower. But you still get the exact same effect around the screen as everything moves faster there.

You don't need to concentrate. If there was a one button toggle between 30 and 60 fps you would feel the massive difference in both visual information and responsiveness as you change it in real time.

The reason you say you can't see the difference is because you don't have a reference and adjust to 30fps faster as your eyes get used to it so it doesn't bother you. I agree that this can change from person to person. I, for instance, don't need a reference and my eyes don't adjust to 30fps as fast because the majority of games i play are 60fps or higher. But everyone can tell the difference in the end.

Please, dont try to sell 30 fps as a responsiveness nightmare.
We are not at fault if you play at more than 60 fps usually, but a normal functioning brain can adjust to 30 fps, both visually and mechanically.
Even is 60 is better, 30 is perfectly playable.

 

[EightBit Man]

Even is 60 is better, 30 is perfectly playable.

Depends on the game, and genre. Fighting games for example are not even worth the consideration at 30fps. Likewise first person shooters. Like it or not, but it does have to do with responsiveness. The more smoother the game is during one second, the better and more natural you can respond. Below 60fps gaming becomes pretty much gambling with the games that require it, as you see less.

I just don't understand why the standards of gamers have fallen so low. Developers since the early days knew about the importance of frame rates. Hell, Pac-Man, and many other early arcade titles ran at 60fps. It always mattered, no matter how much people want to twist the truth.

 

[The_Mike]

30 fps is horrible outdated. I went from pc only to PC / Xbox One this gen, and I doubt I will jump on consoles next gen. We've had some 60 fps games, but lots of 30 fps.

I just got a i7 with GeForce 2070s and other nice parts, and after running games in 1440p with 140 fps, I just really cant see myself going back to consoles.

60 fps doesn't feel smooth anymore either, so 30 fps is truly hideous.

The only reason I would buy a next gen console is if halo is console exclusive, otherwise I think I'm gonna go with pc for now.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

With the next Xbox and PS5 coming in the near future and promising better graphics, 4K, 8K you fucking name it. Would your purchase change if 1 manufacturer made 60FPS mandatory for every game.

Would a 60FPS console in all games vs. slightly better graphics but 30FPS on most games change things for you? Which would you rather choose? Personally I care more about framerate and good game play rather than pretty graphics. Which console would you buy?

There is ALREADY a game console that mandate 60FPS for every game; PSVR.

And PSVR/PSVR2 would be the only thing next gen, that would force developers to offer 60fps minimum. So you better hope VR become more popular, because only in Virtual Reality could high frame rates be mandatory.

 

[nkarafo]

Please, dont try to sell 30 fps as a responsiveness nightmare.
We are not at fault if you play at more than 60 fps usually, but a normal functioning brain can adjust to 30 fps, both visually and mechanically.
Even is 60 is better, 30 is perfectly playable.

"perfectly playable" no. I disagree. There are plenty of instances where 30fps isn't fast/responsive enough. Have you ever played a fighting game at 30fps? How about a competitive FPS shooter? Heck, i remember how even 60fps were barely enough for things like Quake 3. Side scrolling games are also a pain in the eyes at 30fps, One of the reasons 8/16 bit consoles were much better than most home computers was how smooth the scrolling was in side scrolling games (60fps) compared to the jerkiness of most games in the majority of homes except maybe the Amiga. Racing games are also not great at 30fps. Sure, they are "playable" but that's just low standards. Racing games benefit a lot from 60fps because they move fast and constantly. And the faster the pace is the more important 60fps become. Can you imagine how Bad F-Zero X/GX would be at 30fps?

 

[EightBit Man]

 

[Shifty]

It's extra noticeable in side scrolling situations since the speed is constant in all parts of the screen.

What a beautiful gif. We need a bot to paste this into every thread that features the text strings "30FPS" and "60FPS".

And to add to the point about 2D sidescrolling, it's also very noticeable in 3D games with a camera that can be rotated by the player. Perspective can sometimes hide it if you're strafing left and right in a scene with no near-field point of reference, but rotation causes every point in the image to shift.

That’s not how it looks in games though.

Interesting, so can you see the difference in the gif?

There's no technical reason why a game should be any different- it's a series of still frames output at discrete intervals, the same as any other animated medium.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I come to think of it, with what is known of the specs so far there is no reason that many games should not have a 100 / 120fps mode on variable refresh TVs and monitors.

I have a 4k TV, but I'd much rather play games at whatever level of details/resolution is required to have 60+ fps in all of them (I get that dips can happen, but I don't care if the frame rate drops to 45fps for a split second when a big explosion happens by example).

 

[Kagero]

Solid 30 with graphics dialled up to 1000% is a better look when selling a system.

 

[Genx3]

Bullshit. Anyone who says this needs to book an appointment with the eye doctor immediately.

The difference between a game at 4K and 1080p is night and day obvious.

Heck even on a 13.3 display I can tell the difference, although at size I wouldn’t pay the premium over 1080p,

I have no issue with anyone who says they are OK with 1080p, but saying that most can’t tell the difference is not true.

Agreed, especially when you factor in some 4K games have higher quality textures and the fact games at 1080P have tons of jaggies. Imo, there really is no way they can't tell the difference unless they are ignoring all those sharp edges everywhere in 1080P games.

 

[Birdo]

Nothing should be lower than 60fps next gen. NOTHING.

Framerate affects gameplay. Resolution does not.

 

[Whitecrow]

"perfectly playable" no. I disagree. There are plenty of instances where 30fps isn't fast/responsive enough. Have you ever played a fighting game at 30fps? How about a competitive FPS shooter? Heck, i remember how even 60fps were barely enough for things like Quake 3. Side scrolling games are also a pain in the eyes at 30fps, One of the reasons 8/16 bit consoles were much better than most home computers was how smooth the scrolling was in side scrolling games (60fps) compared to the jerkiness of most games in the majority of homes except maybe the Amiga. Racing games are also not great at 30fps. Sure, they are "playable" but that's just low standards. Racing games benefit a lot from 60fps because they move fast and constantly. And the faster the pace is the more important 60fps become. Can you imagine how Bad F-Zero X/GX would be at 30fps?

Do you really need the exact phrase word by word?

Stable 30 fps with no drops is perfectly playable.

If you, and anybody, who thinks otherwise, is objectively wrong.

 

[Silent Viper]

I want dynamic 4k60fps. I accept 30 fps only in games which supports real time ray tracing

 

[nkarafo]

Stable 30 fps with no drops is perfectly playable.

If you, and anybody, who thinks otherwise, is objectively wrong.

If your standards are low and you don't mind getting your ass kicked in competitive games then sure.

 

[bitbydeath]

If your standards are low and you don't mind getting your ass kicked in competitive games then sure.

Your just used to seeing 60FPS.
Most people are not.
There is nothing wrong with stable 30FPS.
You are part of the minority.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Locked 30FPS is all I need.
Most people can’t tell the difference.

Have you talked to most people?

Or even just tried a demo monitor in a computer store... Thinking, oh that's way snoother than at home (even just moving the mouse around, even more when moving a window) just to see that the monitor is 120fps?

Or worse, have you switched back and forth between a quality mode and a performance mode in a game that offers it on the "pro" consoles? Going form 30 to 60 is jarring, the 30fps mode always feel broken, no matter how crisper the performance mode is (hellblade: senua's sacrifice is an example of this)...

But the worse of the worse are those early 4k monitors that are locked at 30hz - even programmers who use mostly the terminal can't stand it!

Now games that offer only the 30fps mode are still playable, but this is not what I choose when I am given a way out, even if the performance mode doesn't quite hold its target of 60fps (like in god of war).

 

[sonomamashine]

Your just used to seeing 60FPS.
Most people are not.
There is nothing wrong with stable 30FPS.
You are part of the minority.

What jes telling you is, once you try 60 fps and get familiar with it its hard to go back, 30fps is garbage.

 

[bitbydeath]

Interesting, so can you see the difference in the gif?

Yes, but as I already mentioned that’s not how it looks in games.

Again compare it to a game. Eg.

 

[Danjin44]

What jes telling you is, once you try 60 fps and get familiar with it its hard to go back, 30fps is garbage.

Not really, I played games like MK8 that run 60FPS and I still fully able to enjoy games in 30FPS, heck I enjoyed the crap out of Bloodborne that had frame pacing issues. Not everyone is overly sensitive to frame rate as you are.

 

[nkarafo]

Your just used to seeing 60FPS.
Most people are not.
There is nothing wrong with stable 30FPS.
You are part of the minority.

Doesn't matter what you are used to or if you don't have a problem with low frame rates.

Fact is that some games benefit more from a high frame rate than others. And some genres need to at least cap the 60hz display rate for you to be able to reach your optimal performance as a player. I'd argue that many players even see their performance improve at 120fps over 60fps but the gains are smaller and the majority of monitors/TVs don't go beyond 60hz anyway. But if the standard in TVs and monitors is 60hz, games should be able to use all of it like they did in the past (from Atari 2600 to 16bit consoles, the vast majority of games run at 60fps). At least this should be a priority for fast paced games. I'm not arguing you need high frame rates in turn based RPGs or games with not much camera movement for instance.

Yes, but as I already mentioned that’s not how it looks in games.

Again compare it to a game. Eg.

Ew.

Moving the camera around at 30fps in any FPS game is... not great. Especially if you are using a keyboard/mouse for optimal controls. I guess it's more acceptable with a controller with all the analog stick smoothing and fixed speed.

Not really, I played games like MK8 that run 60FPS and I still fully able to enjoy games in 30FPS, heck I enjoyed the crap out of Bloodborne that had frame pacing issues. Not everyone is overly sensitive to frame rate as you are.

I did so as well. But it was an eye sore. I enjoyed the game too but all the time i was wishing i could play Bloodborne on PC just like i did with Dark Souls 3 and that was a better experience because of it. Basically, the only reason i played Bloodborne at 30fps was because there was no other way.

 

[bitbydeath]

Ew.

Moving the camera around at 30fps in any FPS game is an eye sore. Especially if you are using a keyboard/mouse for optimal controls. I guess it's more acceptable with a controller with all the analog stick smoothing and fixed speed.

There was nothing ‘ew’ about it.
You’re obviously just extremely sensitive to something which others are not.

 

[xool]

There was nothing ‘ew’ about it.
You’re obviously just extremely sensitive to something which others are not.

I have no problem with 30fps, but rotating camera often needs remedial post-processing at that rate - text-book example would be Witcher3 on PS4 - you can turn off the motion blur on rotating camera in menus if you want .. but it really looks painful.

 

[Danjin44]

I did so as well. But it was an eye sore. All the time i was wishing i could play Bloodborne on PC just i did with Dark Souls 3 and that was a better experience because of it. Basically, the only reason i played Bloodborne at 30fps was because there was no other way.

Look, in a perfect world I wish every game could run in 60FPS but that not possible but you cant expect me to miss out on my favourite games just because it runs at 30FPS, for me 30FPS still very much playable.

 

[IaN_GAF]

Honestly the reason why I am currently not really playing much of anything has nothing to do with games being less than 60fps, but more with themes, narratives and content not being really interesting to me. So I guess I don't really care about them squeezing whatever extra fps out of anything, I just want the games to be more appealing, enticing, interesting.

 

[nkarafo]

There was nothing ‘ew’ about it.
You’re obviously just extremely sensitive to something which others are not.

It doesn't matter if you are sensitive or not. The same player at the same skill level would beat you in that game if you played at 30fps and he played at 60. He has more visual information that you, more precision than you and more responsiveness than you. It means frame rate has a big impact in gameplay in this kind of game (FPS) and better frame rate = better gameplay.

Look, in a perfect world I wish every game could run in 60FPS but that not possible but you cant expect me to miss out on my favourite games just because it runs at 30FPS, for me 30FPS still very much playable.

I disagree, it's perfectly possible. Developers just choose to sacrifice gameplay over graphics/resolution. It's a matter of choice.

There were a few games i missed because they were 30fps (racing mostly, i find 30fps unacceptable there). But otherwise i also don't miss games because they are 30fps. I just enjoy them a bit less.

 

[bumleforce]

It depends on the game. Not every game needs 4 k or 60 fps. I imageine the only games that do 8k are small Indy games racing games and maybe a few others. Same with 120 fps. I think games like halo and god of war will have lots of options. 8k 30 fps 4k 60 etc. Its gonna be nice to have choices. Hellblade on the 1x had 3 graphics options and I would playbon all 3. Same with forza and god of war. Meanwhile switch will still be doing 720 or less sub 30fps. Maybe switch pro does 1080 30 and will recieve all the praise

 

[3March]

60FPS, without a fucking doubt. DMC 5 made sure that there's basically no excuse for Triple-A devs to have their game run at 30fps, when DMC 5 looks as amazing as it does.

 

[V4skunk]

60 fps is a design choice that sacrifices graphical fidelity.
This is why the best looking console games do not run at 60fps. GOW and RDR2 being good examples.

 

[HE1NZ]

I want a 60 fps option for all games no matter the resolution.

Problem is I am afraid 60 fps isnt a huge selling point where as being able to slap that 8K sticker on the box is.

I have a theory that reign of Call of Duty during 7th gen was secretly because all of them targeted 60 on consoles and majority of people were hooked by it, though unaware.

 

[bitbydeath]

60 fps is a design choice that sacrifices graphical fidelity.
This is why the best looking console games do not run at 60fps. GOW and RDR2 being good examples.

And can you even tell that GoW was 30FPS anyway?

 

[Aidah]

30fps, because the game graphics will be heavier as a baseline, making the games look even better when I run them at even heavier graphics and 60fps+ on PC.

If I were playing on console though, then obviously I would want the focus to be on 60fps+, only dropping below that if it's absolutely neccessary to achieve the core vision of the game and its systems.

 

[sonomamashine]

Next gen gonna push for 60 fps and above, consoles wont be labeled as 30 fps anymore.

 

[FeldMonster]

How can one not notice the difference? 60 frames per second means you see twice as much of a game in one second.

These look identical to me. Other than the time it takes for the vase to break, and the frequency of that item blinking in the corner. What am I supposed to be noticing? Are you playing a joke on us?

 

[FeldMonster]

"perfectly playable" no. I disagree. There are plenty of instances where 30fps isn't fast/responsive enough. Have you ever played a fighting game at 30fps? How about a competitive FPS shooter? Heck, i remember how even 60fps were barely enough for things like Quake 3. Side scrolling games are also a pain in the eyes at 30fps, One of the reasons 8/16 bit consoles were much better than most home computers was how smooth the scrolling was in side scrolling games (60fps) compared to the jerkiness of most games in the majority of homes except maybe the Amiga. Racing games are also not great at 30fps. Sure, they are "playable" but that's just low standards. Racing games benefit a lot from 60fps because they move fast and constantly. And the faster the pace is the more important 60fps become. Can you imagine how Bad F-Zero X/GX would be at 30fps?

I guess that I imagined all of those years playing GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Halo, Gears of War, Destiny, etc. Cleary unplayable.

 

[HE1NZ]

I guess that I imagined all of those years playing GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Halo, Gears of War, Destiny, etc. Cleary unplayable.

Try playing GoldenEye today.

 

[Otterz4Life]

If your standards are low and you don't mind getting your ass kicked in competitive games then sure.

30fps is perfectly playable for single player/open world games.

Most competitive games are 60fps, even on consoles.

 

[V4skunk]

And can you even tell that GoW was 30FPS anyway?

I could easily see that on my base model ps4 it wasn't running at 60fps.

 

[Tygeezy]

Why not go for 120 FPS? There are quite a few TVs out there now that do 1440 p at 120 hz.

 

[bitbydeath]

I could easily see that on my base model ps3 it wasn't running at 60fps.

You mean PS4 right?

 

[Trogdor1123]

It's hard to go back to 30fps after a 60 fps game... Resolution I barely notice

 

[alabtrosMyster]

And can you even tell that GoW was 30FPS anyway?

GoW has a performance mode on the ps4 pro, it doesn't quite lock 30fps, but it's already better than 30 (30 feels broken when you toggle between quality and performance mode).

 

[Dante83]

I can definitely notice the higher frame rate on god of war on ps4 pro when I use the performance mode. It's very smooth. I switched to that mode around 40% through the game, and had zero desire to play on the higher res mode. Everything felt better to me, and the graphics scaled up well on my TV despite being 1080p.

 

[jadefire66]

Haha there are people in this thread saying there isn't much of a difference between 30 and 60 FPS, yet I am annoyed when I get 60 FPS because I am used to 100+ now. 60 feels like a slideshow in a first person shooter in comparison to 100-144. 30 would be completely unplayable. It's obvious that if you don't notice much of a difference between 30 and 60, you are used to playing cinematic experience games on a console. Try playing a shooter on PC and you will notice the difference immediately when you move your mouse around.

At the same time, the less the camera moves, the less lower framerate is a problem. The classic Resident Evil games have 30 FPS but because the camera is locked to specific angles in each room, it never feels choppy.

 

[Weilthain]

Theyll push for the best graphics possible at the cost of frame rate like always.

I like the optimism though, as if they would make all games 60fps for the greater good of humanity. How the world should/could be but isn’t.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I don't think I've every played a PC game at 100 fps+ because I don't think I've ever had a PC or laptop powerful enough to run games that well. Therefore, I can't compare 60 fps to 100+.

But 60 vs 30 is like night and day. I'm amazed some people claim they can't tell the difference. Maybe they are playing slow turn paced games.

Not just in gameplay, but even menu screens.

There should be more games at 60 next gen on consoles, but still comes down to the devs.

Ever since console gaming focused on 3D, the frames have slightly edged up..... 3DO was a mess, PS1/Sat/N64 better........................ right now we get 60 fps for most games except mainly open world games (Rockstar/Bethesda/UBI) or cinematic games (Sony SP games).

Sports, racers and shooters are basically all 60 fps now while last gen during 360/PS3 it was hit and miss. While action games, and less intensive games like puzzlers, indie games and fighters are basically 60 fps too.

The last bastion of console games to go 60 fps are open world and cinematic SP games.

 

[nkarafo]

I guess that I imagined all of those years playing GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Halo, Gears of War, Destiny, etc. Cleary unplayable.

Some levels in Perfect Dark are indeed unplayable by today's standards. Same goes for Goldeneye by some extend. You need to understand that the standards of 3D gaming during 5th gen were low. Just a bit higher than what we could expect from 3D graphics in the Atari ST or the Amiga (around 5-10fps with no textures). Would you defend a broken 10fps game today because you were fine playing Total Eclipse at 5-10fps in 1989? Technology improved a lot by then and so are the standards. We even had a much better ratio of 60fps 3D games during the 6th gen but because gaming became mainstream after that, we went back to 30fps again because it's OK for casual play and nothing more.

I never said the rest of the games you mention are "unplayable" though. But they are still just the bare minimum. The frame rate is not optimal (meaning it doesn't cap the display hz) so everything that has to do with gameplay and control (responsiveness and precision) are not optimal either. They are OK-ish but not as good as they could be, considering a TV is 60hz and those games run at half that rate for what? Better graphics? They literally sacrifice optimal gameplay for optimal graphics. I guess it's about what your priorities are when it comes to video games.

 

[nkarafo]

These look identical to me. Other than the time it takes for the vase to break, and the frequency of that item blinking in the corner. What am I supposed to be noticing? Are you playing a joke on us?

There is a clear difference in smoothness in the movement of everything. Even if you ignore the vase (which isn't a good example because it's in fast forward) you can clearly see the environment around you moving with a smoother motion instead of a noticeable stutter by comparison. If you can't see that there are only three things that can be happening:

- You are lying.

- There is something wrong with your eyes (though i don't know of any condition that has such effects)

- There is something wrong with your monitor/TV. Maybe the gif doesn't sync correctly so 60fps and may still stutter in similar fashion to 30fps.

So here is a better example in video format:



You also need to take into account that screen size also matters. Frame rate differences are more noticeable on a big screen vs a tiny gif. So watch that video at full screen, just like how you would play a game. Also watch the video at HD otherwise it will lock at 30fps which will make it useless.

And can you even tell that GoW was 30FPS anyway?

Yes because they use heavy motion blur to hide the 30fps stutter and i can't see shit. If the game was 60fps, you could see more details during those fast camera movements instead of undefined blurred images. Also, that gif/video is low quality anyway.

 

[Darius87]

stable 30fps with even frametime and motion blur just perfectly fine on most genres, and i play lot of vr games, there's no big deal, when you actually enjoy the game, the bad thing is frame drops.

 

[Hosam6xavi]

I can live with 720p with 60fps

Just Seeing the game run so smooth it give me more joy of playing

 

[Rest]

Couldn't give a shit about 60f/s. There are two situations in which I've noticed something wasn't at 60f/s:

1. A direct, side by side comparison of the exact same footage at 60f/s vs. 30f/s
2. Watching a monitor locked at 60f/s showing video at less than 60f/s

60 frames per second is a waste of hardware resources and development man hours. Skip it until technology is actually there.