-
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.
The artful mincer
Member
Christ I really hate the way this argument is always framed!
Lowering framrate isn’t just about graphics it's about gameplay.
Stuff like level design size and scale, physics, amount of enemies, amount of npcs, scale of enemies ( Could the colossi be as big as they were on the ps2 at 60fps?)
60fps is obviously better all things equal but they never are I would take 30fps in a heartbeat for meaningful increases in the all of the above
Lowering framrate isn’t just about graphics it's about gameplay.
Stuff like level design size and scale, physics, amount of enemies, amount of npcs, scale of enemies ( Could the colossi be as big as they were on the ps2 at 60fps?)
60fps is obviously better all things equal but they never are I would take 30fps in a heartbeat for meaningful increases in the all of the above
Last edited:
qthaumaturge
Banned
I've never said I don't agree.
60 fps is always better than 30 fps and 240 fps is always better than 60 fps.
8k is always better than 720p too.
If only we could make all these games 8K@240fps!
But there's some catch...
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
You would take 30 fps over 60 fps for shooters, sports, racing games, fast paced action games and fighting games?
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
For certain genres it really is not important to have 60 fps. Sorry but that’s just the way it is. And you wouldn’t even care/notice after 10 minutes of play.
The artful mincer
Member
No.... I obviously didn't say that but to answer to question.
Sports game, racing games and fighting games. Don't play them don't care.
Shooters I assume you mean fps and tps. Fast pace precise ones like doom eternal, returnal or Horizon I would prefer 60fps. However if 60 fps limited the scope of certain things like size of machines in Horizon I would accept 30fps for them to achieve real time titan class machines as example. Slower paced easier shooters like ratchet was fine in 30fps. I breezed through the hardest difficult and enjoyed all the extra effects, 60fps looked sterile in comparison.
Fast paced action games like God of war or devil may cry 60fps obviously. Slower pace ones like dark souls.... Well will I get grander level design, bigger enemies, more enemies or next gen dismemberment? I would happily accept 30fps for that. Obviously if they could do all that at 60 then great but they might not be able to.
Also framerate can eventually be solved with better hardware we are seeing that now the ps4 to ps5 backwards compatibility. Stuff like bad level design remains bad forever
Shh
Member
The artful mincer
Member
Shh
Member
Thank you.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
It's a bit of a worthless poll since the question is devoid of all context.
The average gamer is ignorant of game development and therefore doesn't understand that designing a game for 60fps on a fixed hardware configuration means compromises have had to have been made to achieve that. Even providing a 60 fps option is no different, because devs will design for 60fps and then provide a "graphics mode" where they just bump the resolution and/or quality of select lighting/shadowing effects.
The compromises devs have to make to achieve a 16.7ms frame time are not just about graphics either. The CPU also has half the time to compute all the game logic and simulation data. So there are compromises in gameplay, game mechanics, and game systems that would get dropped at the development stage because devs can't fit them within the performance budget needed to achieve 60fps.
Asking whether gamers prefer 30fps vs 60fps is just a dumb question because those gamers have no concept of what would have been sacrificed by the developer to achieve 60fps. So you're essentially asking gamers which is better between a "thing" and an "objectively better thing" because you provide no content and so all else is assumed to be equal; whereas in reality is almost certainly not.
I would much rather leave it to the devs to choose whether their vision for their game is ambitious enough to compromise framerate down to 30fps or not. They're much better informed about what they would have to leave out of their vision to make 60fps a priority.
I genuinely don't have any issue playing 30fps games, and in many cases, I find it more than an acceptable compromise.
The average gamer is ignorant of game development and therefore doesn't understand that designing a game for 60fps on a fixed hardware configuration means compromises have had to have been made to achieve that. Even providing a 60 fps option is no different, because devs will design for 60fps and then provide a "graphics mode" where they just bump the resolution and/or quality of select lighting/shadowing effects.
The compromises devs have to make to achieve a 16.7ms frame time are not just about graphics either. The CPU also has half the time to compute all the game logic and simulation data. So there are compromises in gameplay, game mechanics, and game systems that would get dropped at the development stage because devs can't fit them within the performance budget needed to achieve 60fps.
Asking whether gamers prefer 30fps vs 60fps is just a dumb question because those gamers have no concept of what would have been sacrificed by the developer to achieve 60fps. So you're essentially asking gamers which is better between a "thing" and an "objectively better thing" because you provide no content and so all else is assumed to be equal; whereas in reality is almost certainly not.
I would much rather leave it to the devs to choose whether their vision for their game is ambitious enough to compromise framerate down to 30fps or not. They're much better informed about what they would have to leave out of their vision to make 60fps a priority.
I genuinely don't have any issue playing 30fps games, and in many cases, I find it more than an acceptable compromise.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I think gamers have an idea between 30 and 60 based on all the games that give options.
And right now both modes basically have the same AI and feature set. The difference is one mode is smoother but has shittier res, visuals, and zero RT, while the other is half the frames at better res, visuals and possibly RT.
The poll has nothing to do with considering development issues. It's simply a poll on what a gamer prefers context or not.
8BiTw0LF
Consoomer
lostinblue
Member
more is more, news at eleven.
All this said, I would really prefer next gen experiences to have new gameplay and new gameplay situations, new simulations, more complexity not possible on previous hardware. And if 60 fps is out of the window for that then fuck 60 fps.
I don't care at all if I want to play the game and it's considered playable. BUT, I prefer 60 fps because if it's free then of course, dah.
All this said, I would really prefer next gen experiences to have new gameplay and new gameplay situations, new simulations, more complexity not possible on previous hardware. And if 60 fps is out of the window for that then fuck 60 fps.
Ocarina of Time PC port has it
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
I have to admit that playing Uncharted 4 on PS5 in the 40fps mode is truly something. Excellent fidelity with the responsiveness I expect from an action game.
If developers can nail 40fps on 120Hz screens then I’ll take that for single player games.
If developers can nail 40fps on 120Hz screens then I’ll take that for single player games.
BlackTron
Member
Ocarina of Time PC port has it
I know, so does BOTW on PC, I mean for N to put a game out that way...
qthaumaturge
Banned
No shit, Sherlock. Because the game targeted 16ms.
There's no concept of "sacrifice" when a game is designed around 60fps from the start. And the so called "sacrifices" often result in a slight drop in resolution or lod changes which no one notices or gives a fuck about during gameplay.
This is so disingenuous. It's obvious 30fps proponets only have graphic presets in mind. Framerate barely affects level size or scale, and these current gen machines should have no problem handling hundreds if not thousands of npcs at 60fps.
Enemy size has exactly zero impact on performance, and that's not the reason SOTC ran so poorly. (was more in the sub-20fps most of the time. Which people at the time complained about.)
poppabk
Member
No your post is disingenuous. So all the anti cross-gen talk is about graphical presets and not about the scope and scale of games? People are worried the PS4 (for example) will hold back graphics, no worries that its mediocre CPU will prevent devs from expanding the scope of games, doing things that just weren't possible on last gen hardware?
Last edited:
blah blah blah, don't know what this has to do with framerate.
Last edited:
The artful mincer
Member
No it fucking isn't I am only speaking for myself and those things I mentioned obviously affect framerate to some degree or another.
If you're familiar game development by all means correct me. But why else did it take 2 generations for shadow of the Coloussus to get to 60 fps? If scale doesn't matter why was there almost zero open world games last gen at 60fps?
If I am technically wrong fine correct me but don't frigging tell me what I care about.
poppabk
Member
Ok, but most other people understand that if your game has to work on the PS4 CPU, there is a limit to the complexity you can achieve no matter how much you reduce the graphics effects. This is called being CPU bound. If your game only has to work on the PS5 CPU then you can do a lot more.
Understanding that, as most people do (not you though), you can understand that if a game is pushing the CPU then hitting 60fps may only be possible if you reduce the complexity of the game.
That's great. A PS4 game is not going to look or feel like a current gen game regardless of framerate yet the 30fps crowd will always choose the 30fps option because graphics settings > framerate/gameplay. Anything else?
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
This is the simple concept these so called "gamers" fail to grasp. Its fucking Mind boggling.
The artful mincer
Member
The poll wasn't asking on a game by game basis I.e. if given the choice do you choose to play in 30 or 60.( And before you call me a graphics whore I ve only chosen to play ratchet at 30fps every other game I ve chosen 60).
Its asking should all games have 60fps option. So no the context of game development sacrifices and balances should be taken into account when making this choice
The artful mincer
Member
Yes it's very frustrating. I don't like the underlying snobbery either.
I.e if you enjoy 30fps games you don't care about important stuff like gameplay and smoothness
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
The thing is with you people is you're just fine with PS4 looking/playing games as long as it runs at 60. You have low standards and zero ambition.
Looks and plays like a PS4 game? Runs at 60? Next gen!
Last edited:
Balducci30
Member
This is my issue, I’d rather they push other tech forward than mandate 60 fps, it’s nice but I don’t need it
No. The discussion is about framerate and you brought up crossgen games like an idiot. You might as well have been talking about the Cowabunga Collection and how it "doesn't really take advantage of the PS5" for all the relevance it had.
Calls people "so called "gamers""with low standards and zero ambition . Complains about snobbery.Yes it's very frustrating. I don't like the underlying snobbery either.
I.e if you enjoy 30fps games you don't care about important stuff like gameplay and smoothness
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
The reason we are discussing framerate in the first place is because of the fact that 60 being mandated limits all other areas of the game. You clearly don't give a shit about anything else but framerate, as you're will to sacrifice literally fucking everything else in order to hit that number. Go away, or just buy a PC. Console gaming is not for you.
TheUndeadGamer
Member
30, 40 (w/ 120 Hz display), and 60 should all be options for people. And 120 if at all possible I suppose.
Last edited:
Well so does resolution and graphics, asshat. And no one is mandating anything. People just have a natural preference for smooth and stable motion.
sachos
Member
The only possible reason i see is that they push the CPU so hard by the end of the generation that 60fps becomes impossible, like increasing physics simulation or AI complexity. Maybe open world logic and systems. Or if they move to a RT only engine, like Metro Exodus.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
Sony almost certainly has telemetry on which modes players use the most. The problem is reaching the wrong conclusions.
Right now, I don't think there is that much of a visual boost running 30 fps. I don't think games are really pushing the envelope there at all.
When they do and they should, I think the mid gen consoles should be the ones delivering 60 fps not the base units.
Right now, I don't think there is that much of a visual boost running 30 fps. I don't think games are really pushing the envelope there at all.
When they do and they should, I think the mid gen consoles should be the ones delivering 60 fps not the base units.
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Sacrificing 60fps for the potential to have destructible environments, more enemies on screen, more NPC's on screen, larger scale level design, higher resolution, better textures, more effects, ray tracing, and higher overall fidelity is worth it. That is a FACT.
Im done pretending this should even be argued anymore. You people dont want to see games advance. Just forever satisfied with the status quo. Enjoy your PS4 esque games for the rest of eternity, fine by me.
Man, do you think 60fps turns the PS5 into an atari or something? You know what else affects all of those things you listed? Resolution. Running your game at 32k (as an absurd example to drive the point home) is going to limit what developers can do elsewhere. Graphics. Having high density meshes and 1 million polygon character models is going to limit what the cpu can do in other areas. So does RT and other effects.
Last edited:
JeloSWE
Member
Admittedly, going 60 has limits on crowd density, physics and RT, and you could often double the amount/fidelity at 30. However if the goal is to increase fidelity and complexity over fluidity, motion clarity and input-lag then why not aim for 20 or 15 fps, it's not like games are entirely unplayable at those frames and just imagine having even more impressive looking games than those limiting and shitty looking 30 fps ones.
This issue will never be settled. Because no matter how powerful a console, going 30/20/15 fps would keep netting you you higher fidelity the lower you go. Having the option to chose is what is best for all sides.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
You neither properly read nor understood my post.
The point is that the context does matter, as without it the poll is simply asking which is better between "good" and "great". It's a completely worthless, meaningless question to ask because the answer is obvous.
Errrr... yes. That's what I said. If a game is designed around 60fps then a 30fps mode is just a cheap option that is in no way equivalent to what the game could have been, had it been designed around 30fps. So asking gamers this question when they have no concept of the latter is meaningless since you're only canvassing the ignorance of a group who have no knowledge of what the same game could have been had it actually been designed for the ground up for 30fps.
01011001
Gold Member
not it's not. also:
this
right here is why your reasoning is nonsense, because he is right, why do you draw the line at 30fps? why not 20fps? why not freeing up an additional 50% of frametime budget over 30fps... so all those shitty looking 30fps games would look so much better having 33.3% less frames to render each frame!and indeed 15fps is also playable, there have been plenty of beloved games in the past that ran at or even under 15fps at times. absolutely playable.
and 15fps would mean 100% more frametime budget than 30fps! IMAGINE THE GRAPHICS! THE RAYTRACING!
and it's perfectly playable as well! the beloved games GoldenEye and Perfect Dark on N64 regularly dropped to ~15fps for prolonged periods of time, and that's without even starting to talk about splitscreen performance!
imagine how shitty Perfect Dark would have looked at a locked 30fps! now imagine how shitty Spider-Man on PS5 looks being constrained by that push for 30fps! all our games look like shit because people like you
Represent.
want that useless 30fps nonsense!
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
yes. it is.
this
and indeed 15fps is also playable, there have been plenty of beloved games in the past that ran at or even under 15fps at times. absolutely playable.
and 15fps would mean 100% more frametime budget than 30fps! IMAGINE THE GRAPHICS! THE RAYTRACING!
and it's perfectly playable as well! the beloved games GoldenEye and Perfect Dark on N64 regularly dropped to ~15fps for prolonged periods of time, and that's without even starting to talk about splitscreen performance!
imagine how shitty Perfect Dark would have looked at a locked 30fps! now imagine how shitty Spider-Man on PS5 looks being constrained by that push for 30fps! all our games look like shit because people like you
More nonsensical posts from this group.
No one wants 15fps. We want 30. Nothing less. You know, the industry standard since.. the beginning of time.
And oh yea, how horrible SpiderMan PS5 looks at 30fps. It looks so bad that Insomniac uses the 30fps fidelity mode to MARKET THE GAME.
Lmao.
Last edited:
poppabk
Member
It's the same reason that you consider 60 fps reasonable, the consoles can output more than that why arent you demanding 120 fps mode? 30fps for games is pretty much the lowest you can go while maintaining the illusion of motion. 60 fps is the lowest you can go while maintaining fluid motion and input responsiveness.not it's not. also:
this
and indeed 15fps is also playable, there have been plenty of beloved games in the past that ran at or even under 15fps at times. absolutely playable.
and 15fps would mean 100% more frametime budget than 30fps! IMAGINE THE GRAPHICS! THE RAYTRACING!
and it's perfectly playable as well! the beloved games GoldenEye and Perfect Dark on N64 regularly dropped to ~15fps for prolonged periods of time, and that's without even starting to talk about splitscreen performance!
imagine how shitty Perfect Dark would have looked at a locked 30fps! now imagine how shitty Spider-Man on PS5 looks being constrained by that push for 30fps! all our games look like shit because people like you
People are not going to miss what was never intended. Which is really not that much. 30fps is not some "secret sauce" that unlocks the "full potential" of a console. If they cared that much about graphics, ai, npcs and other shit they would demand 10fps to "get the most out of a console", playability be damned. After all, people played Doom "just fine" on the snes.
The industry standard was 60fps since the start. During the 5th gen of consoles, the industry standard changed to 10-20fps. Everyone rejoiced when 60fps games became attainable on the ps2. Once upon a time 240p/480p was the industry standard as well. It doesn't matter.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Yup.
That's how you can tell who grew up playing games during the 32-bit era when even getting a stable 30 fps for a 3D game was an achievement itself. And any games running at 60 fps was like hitting the lottery.
Thankfully since then, more and more games seem to be hitting 60 fps where almost all games now run at 60 fps on next gen consoles (at least with a 60 fps option).
The only genres left that haven't fully embraced 60 fps as a standard are some SP narratives or giant open world games. The rest of the genres made the transition.
Last edited:
jigglet
Banned
I'd like to think 40 PHD students and millions of dollars worth of research went into unearthing this incredible information.
01011001
Gold Member
because TVs operate at either 60hz or 120hz, all consoles only support 60hz output or 120hz output, many don't have VRR yet and therefore running at 60fps is optimal.
why? because you can run 60fps at a native 60hz.
running at 30fps on 60hz means you get a double image effect which smears your image in fast motion. meaning in motion you lose image clarity and therefore all your glorious pixels that you see standing still will be blurred out, not even considering camera motion blur which is the default for 30fps games (sometimes with no option to turn it off) and which will destroy all detail in motion.
that's why 60fps on the current TV technology and the capabilities of current consoles is the optimal lowest mark developers should aim for.
you output 60hz and the system renders 1 frame for every refresh
ah yes, since the beginning of time... I'm slowly starting to think you're a troll because of this bullshit you're spewing here.
first of all, back in the 2D days 60fps was very much the default, the industry standard, with 30fps being the odd one out.
secondly, why do you not want 15fps? or 20fps? that's absolutely playable. are you saying Perfect Dark was unplayable? or GoldenEye getting top review scores and selling 8 million copies?
is StarFox unplayable? selling 3 million copies and getting a shitton of positive scores....
without targeting 15 fps or lower games like Doom on SNES would have been impossible, yet they released and people loved playing them on SNES
your absolutely arbitrary number, 30fps, has ZERO logical basis. you just picked that because YOU think anything below is not good... well guess what, most PS5 owners think anything below 60fps is no longer good enough
so to them you are the one pushing for 15fps, you are the one posting nonsense, how could you actually propose 30fps? THAT'S UNPLAYABLE! no one wants 30fps! 60fps was the industry standard since.. THE BEGINNING OF TIME
Last edited:
Klosshufvud
Member
Going back to the old PS2 titles, I definitely have more issues going back to the 30hz over the 60hz ones. Despite its age, PS2 had an obscene amount of 60 fps games that look and play great to this day. Of course 60 fps comes at a cost but we've reached a point where devs really need to justify that 30 fps lock. Because these new consoles are actually well-constructed beefy machines. The 30 fps locked games this gen have not been due to ambition.
Likewise, would you justify a game running at 240p today because it was "perfectly fine" back in the days and devs said they wanted to prioritize enemy count instead? You wouldn't. You would consider it unplayable. Which is why this argument falls apart so easily. With time, standards increase. And now standards have increased to a 60 frame rate minimum. We've already seen this gen that devs are capable of making extremely impressive open world games run just fine at 60 fps. And I'm honestly more willing to take an open-world game running at 60 fps with some limitations than some crazy "everything is rendered everywhere at once" thing that runs at 30 fps. Because my experience playing older games is that the 30hz games are just extremely tough to go back to, despite the greater scale. 60 fps is the better future proofing of a game.