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.
