• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why do we still care about 60FPS?

No Way Reaction GIF
 
Personally, I never cared but I understand -and respect- why people does.
I'm lucky enough to not be bothered I guess and, yes, I clearly see the difference but 30fps correctly executed is enough for me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I don't necessarily care about a 60 fps or nothing, although i can tell the difference between a locked 30 fps and 60 easily, i'm a PC gamer who has played most games higher than 60fps over the years if the engine allows that, Bethesda's didn't,

i want a smooth gameplay experience whatever the fps, that's why i bought a G Sync monitor, although you have to go back a long way for a game i played at 30fps, ohh yeah it was Crysis on release, it didn't even hit 30 fps with AA on lol.
 
I have to agree. People cannot see the difference past 24fps as our eyes are not developed enough. I myself aim for 175fps but that is just for the street cred and for being part of the pc master race.
 
Danjin44 said:
60FPS is better in every way no one can deny that, would I skip good game because it runs at 30 FPS?....absolutely fucking not.
Click to expand...
Hahaha of course we can. It depends in so many different aspects.....60 is better for most games? Sure. But play ocarina of time with 60 instead of the original 20fps....It destroys the game. Frame rate in games is usually funcional, so 60 and even 120 is better but there are cases that aesthetics comes first
 
I'm at a point where even 60fps already sometimes feels a bit sluggish. It usually happens to me after playing any game with an unlocked framerate that stays semi-consistently above 90-100fps. Which sucks because I'm a poor console peasant and don't even want to think about trying to invest in a gaming PC.
 
Last edited:
Most vrr displays have issues with lower black levels because they can't be turn completely off. They have to be charged and ready.
 
PianistaMacabro said:
Hahaha of course we can. It depends in so many different aspects.....60 is better for most games? Sure. But play ocarina of time with 60 instead of the original 20fps....It destroys the game. Frame rate in games is usually funcional, so 60 and even 120 is better but there are cases that aesthetics comes first
Click to expand...
Only type of game i know that higher frame makes it worse is when game's animation and logic tied to its 30 FPS, if you tried to increase its FPS then game starts acting weird.
 
poppabk said:
70% on this forum have an OLED TV, I have a QLED because I am a dirty poor. I'm not even in the bubble.
Click to expand...
And this board represents exactly nothing. The enthusiast niche is meaningless. VRR displays are still the exception in average consumer homes, not the norm.
 
Last edited:
because some devs dont even bother to put motion blur in their games and they have horrible 30fps games that look worse than some ps2 games in motion... \
 
cireza said:
My game runs at 2 fps, but it is fine, I have VRR.

There was a time when developers were competent and games were locked at 60fps all the time. People forgot that such a thing existed though.
Click to expand...
If a game is locked at 60 fps. It doesnt look as good as it could look, or isn't pushing itself as far as it could.

For the noobs, 30 fps is the minimun standard of playability if a dev wants to push hardware and tech to the absolute limit.

If its running at 60 fps. Its not pushing it. It looks a bit worse, or is rendering less than what it could.

Hence why naughty dog typically doesnt go for 60. They wanna push
 
Last edited:
Bakkus said:
Are picture qualities like 4K/HD/SD just arbritary figures to you as well? If not, why?
Click to expand...
60 fps isn't an advancement though, its a graphical sacrifice for frames....

For example, 30 to 60 fps can be the difference between having 200 npcs on a screen or 100 npc's.

Depending on what the game is...i may wanna see that metroplolis city with filled sidewalks like NYC.
 
Last edited:
kingyala said:
because some devs dont even bother to put motion blur in their games and they have horrible 30fps games that look worse than some ps2 games in motion... \
Click to expand...
Uncharted 2 was 30 fps...looks pretty consistent to this day. Same with uncharted 4
 
Last edited:
Goon_Bong said:
People who don't want 60fps as an absolute minimum are part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Because its a sacrifice. 30 to 60 fps cab be the difference between that AAA single player game having 200 npc's on screen or 100 NPC's on screen.

2k textures or 4k textures, high end shadows or mid end etc.

Minimum level of playability to push things to the absolute limit. Are you born after the year 2000 or something? This seems like a new gamer take...
 
Last edited:
HazukiSensei said:
Because its a sacrifice. 30 to 60 fps cab be the difference between that AAA single player game having 200 npc's on screen or 100 NPC's on screen.

2k textures or 4k textures, high end shadows or mid end etc.

Minimum level of playability to push things to the absolute limit. Are you born after the year 2000 or something? This seems like a new gamer take...
Click to expand...
Born in the 80's actually and games were 60fps well before 3D entered the fray.

The benefits of 60fps go beyond smoothness, and as someone who plays games and not screenshots I find the notion of sacrificing those benefits for a bit of extra detail that often isn't even appreciable in motion to be unacceptable.
 
Before VRR dropping below 60 was noticeable, but now I'm good with anything over 55. That being said nothing really drops my FPS below that 60 number anyway.
 
Games play better at 60fps.

Animations looks smoother and controls feel more responsive at 60fps.


Animations looking better at 60fps also aid in making games look better at 60fps.
 
HazukiSensei said:
Because its a sacrifice. 30 to 60 fps cab be the difference between that AAA single player game having 200 npc's on screen or 100 NPC's on screen.

2k textures or 4k textures, high end shadows or mid end etc.

Minimum level of playability to push things to the absolute limit. Are you born after the year 2000 or something? This seems like a new gamer take...
Click to expand...

A new gamer take? Visuals vs frame rate has been debated for many many years. Most who would rather have 60 fps understand quite well what the sacrifices are and don't care because, to them, the overall experience is better with a crisper, smoother game.
 
120 hz + 40 fps or 144 hz + 48 fps are best combos for me

i couldnt give a shit about having 60 or 60+ fps. no need to push lower visuals cpu or gpu wise to attain that


I wish youube supported 120 / 40 FPS
 
I do care about 60fps because it's the minimum I'm willing to go in a game. I like to play at 140fps in my games but I understand it's not always possible so the lowest I'm willing to go is 60fps. If a game can't do that then I ain't playing it. Well, since I have a VRR monitor I suppose I can deal with a 60fps cap and drops to 50-55fps but any lower is an awful experience.
 
I played Shadow Warrior 3 on Xbox Series S the other day. I somehow managed to finish it, but I absolutely hated aiming with that 30/45fps or whatever it runs at. But I was lazy and knew game wouldn't last that long. If I installed it on the pc it would of felt so much better, it feels like your crosshair skips around the screen at that low fps.
 
yamaci17 said:
i couldnt give a shit about having 60 or 60+ fps. no need to push lower visuals cpu or gpu wise to attain that
Click to expand...
What GPU do you have?

I can play Cyberpunk 2077 at Ultra settings with Overdrive RTX and get 80-110fps. Some people will be like "but it's fake frames!!" but it doesn't make any difference. There is no artifacting or noticeable lag.

Fortnite (don't laugh) is one of the most demanding games out right now since the UE5 update and I can play that at 80-100fps with max settings and RTX.

and that was with a 5 year old CPU lol. I will need to test the games again now I have a better CPU. I don't need to turn anything down to get beyond 60fps in the most demanding games out at the moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DonkeyPunchJr said:
A lot of games don't support VRR even though the hardware does. Switch doesn't support VRR at all. Same with Steam Deck.

But yeah ideally we should be pushing for unlocked 60-ish framerates with VRR
Click to expand...
Not on Xbox, it's at the system level. If the game has 40 fps+ vrr kicks in.
 
People act like VRR is magic around here.

Can still easily feel the difference of 50fps and 60fps with VRR.

Even on handhelds such as the steam deck where you can set your own refresh rate, if you set your refresh rate to 45 and play a game locked at 45, it still feels like shit.
 
Last edited:
60 is the bare minimum for me, I'm happy to play at 60fps with a gamepad, but for mouse it has to be higher.
 
Because folks just enjoy 60fps, especially with it basically being the standard nowadays. I think it's more fair to expect it rather than not to.

I definitely prefer it, honestly I always have ever since I first saw it.
 
Last edited:
bbeach123 said:
A game that run at 1080p 60-70fps could run at 4k 30fps .

So pick your poison .
Click to expand...

There are more choices than that. A native 4k isn't necessary when DRS and the various upscaling options that can achieve nearly the same result without dropping frame rate to 30fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eurogamer gives Arc Raiders a 2/5. Concord received a 3/5. Why do we care about game journalists again?
2 3
111
2K
MMaRsu replied
Nvidia really doesn't seem to care about gaming GPUs anymore - Gaming GPU sales no longer reported
News  2 3
105
322
Dirk Benedict replied
Digital Foundry: Assassin's Creed Unity: 4K 60FPS Upgrade Isn't 4K - But Still A Great Way To Play
49
884
kevboard replied
  • Poll
Are people still excited about big Sony games in 2026?
2 3 4 5 6
286
857
Jacob4815 replied
[MLiD] Why XBOX Helix is Still (Kinda) a Console
2 3 4 5 6
265
2K
Proelite replied
Top Bottom