60fps? Don’t Believe the Hype

One should expect a game like Madden Football to play at 60fps because it’s simulating a live sporting event while a game such as HALO or Killzone on the other hand, is better presented as 30fps which is closer to 24fps resulting in a cinematic look.

Of course this is all subject to artistic interpretation, vision, and the imagination of the developers. They ultimately choose how to make their respective games, all I ask is for developers not to take advantage of the ignorant gamers who fall for the ‘big number’ marketing and also not to give into fanboys who constantly fan the flames of this ignorant 60fps type of thinking.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ShinMaster1716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

I see the author's point and I agree that 60 or 30fps does not determine the game's quality, worth or validity.

When it comes down to it, I prefer solid 30fps in games like Uncharted or Last Of Us which run pretty smoothly instead of pushing for 60fps with physics and lighting taking a hit.

What matters most to me is frame rate consistency.
For example, Ryse runs at 30fps but it tends to have drops and people say it looks the best of all E3 games.

WrAiTh Sp3cTr31716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

"30 is enough"
Oh really?


Be sure to use Google Chrome.

Kietz1716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

I read that as "graphic over gameplay" which, in every other conversation on this site, as far as I have seen, should apparently not be the case.
It was like how I felt about the majority of console games at the end of this gen, where I was seeing sub-hd resolutions and sluggish framerates.
I would have largely preferred proper clarity and overall smoothness over pushing consoles beyond their limits engine-wise and hitting them in the areas mentioned.
Games feel better around 60 frames. 30 is simply passable and anyone who plays at those speeds regularly know there is a huge difference.
Where are all the DmC whiners that were complaining that it only ran at 30?

JokesOnYou1716d ago

While I love Halo I dont think its genuine to say 30fps is a artistic choice for a more cinematic look. NO, system limitations and game design are why its 30fps and its a good choice rather than cutbacks in other areas to make it 60fps. Bottom line is 30fps is fine but 60fps is better, at this point I think 60fps should be the target fps for all shooters, racers, sports and of course fighting games.

1716d ago
ShinMaster1715d ago

@ disagrees

60fps is obviously better than 30fps. We know that.
But my point point is, if 60fps comes at the cost of physics, lighting, etc taking a hit, then I'd rather the game be in 30fps. In which case, it better be a pretty consistent 30 frames with virtually no drops or stutters.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1715d ago
HammadTheBeast1716d ago

Only when the graphics look damn amazing and can rival high-end PC's.

AngelicIceDiamond1716d ago

30 is enough but if 60 is achievable, then you can do no wrong.

logan_izer101716d ago

As the article touches on. It's a preference. Not all games should be aiming for 60. Killzone:SF will be just fine at 30/1080p. But sometimes... 60fps looks so dang smooth.

SlapHappyJesus1716d ago

FPS is THE genre, if any, that should be pushing for 60 frames.

Pandamobile1716d ago

"HALO or Killzone on the other hand, is better presented as 30fps which is closer to 24fps resulting in a cinematic look."


Choosing to target 30 FPS is not an "artistic" choice. Games don't look more cinematic by having lower framerates - that's absurd. Every time console game production is started, developers will sit down and discuss what their goals for this game are.

Last generation, you couldn't make a game look very pretty and run at 60 FPS, so cutbacks were made. COD is the best example of that; targeting 60 FPS on consoles at the cost of graphics.

Now that the new generation has arrived, console game developers suddenly have a lot more room to add pretty graphics AND target 60 FPS. I can pretty much gurarantee that Guerrilla Games didn't want KZ:SF to run at 30 FPS. Their initial target was certainly 60 FPS, but had to drop that when they realized that they couldn't achieve the level of graphical fidelity they had intended.

There's never been a single moment in my 15+ years of gaming that I've ever thought to myself: "Damn, this game would be SO much better if it was running at a slower framerate".

Shadowolf1716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

Then you may have never played COD. Ultimately, I believe what the author is getting at is the balancing act of framerate and overall performance.

Since you've been gaming for 15 years I would assume with your experience you understand that a higher framerate doesn't make for a better game, and that is the point being made.

In COD's defense, running at 60fps is perfect for what the game does however, as we can clearly understand, the game offers a shooting gallery affair with dumbed down enemy A.I. for it campaigns while offering a more intimate MP encounters mainly played on smaller maps - All at the expense of 60fps.

There is a trade-off. On the other hand, games like Killzone and HALO can afford to offer larger more cinematic eye-candy b/c of a solid framerate and 30fps has been that mark this gen. Next-gen due to the CPU and GPU horsepower we should begin to see more games at the 60fps mark. Yet, I would always take quality over quantity any day of the week.

Pandamobile1716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

"higher framerate doesn't make for a better game"

It doesn't make the game better, but it does make the overall experience better. You have faster response times and smoother motion. Obviously, trade-offs have to be made in order to achieve higher frame rates on consoles, but 99% of those trade-offs are visuals. You don't have to dumb down your AI in order to up the frame rate.

Shadowolf1716d ago

"It doesn't make the game better, but it does make the overall experience better."

Not necessarily - Sure smoother motion and quicker responses are direct result of a faster frame rate but is that always the best results? I have to say no. Oh and yes a faster rate because of the added CPU stress does subtract from other gameplay influences which are depending on the resources at the devs disposal.

However, as I mentioned before this may more than likely change for the better beginning with large scale MP battles presented in BF4 which is running at 60fps. You're right, it is a trade-off.

Pandamobile1716d ago (Edited 1716d ago )

You have no idea what you're talking about. When you're dealing with ANYTHING interactive, you always want to minimize the time it takes between a user action and a program's response.

60 FPS > 30 FPS. It's as simple as that. There is no other scenario where a developer would choose 30 over 60 other than to maximize graphical fidelity.

AI computations are generally asynchronous, which means they can be updated at a lower rate than the rendering output. Physics are also asynchronous, and are often updated at a higher rate than rendering output.

30 FPS is not an artistic choice, it's a technical limitation.

Shadowolf1716d ago

I actually do - You're correct in stating that 30fps is a technical limitation however, it isn't a bad limitation. It is a tradeoff.

While a faster response time is accompanied with a higher framerate oftentimes it is at he expense of adding multi-layered shadows, wind and particle effects, and levels that changed in real time.

Check out what 343 Industries had to say about being locked 30fps.

Kiki Wolfkill, Halo 4’s executive producer explains - “We are full 720p this time around; we are 30fps, which we have always been. For us, making sure we are locked at 30fps is the priority and that those large-scale encounters feel good.”

She goes on to say “This version of the engine is based off the Halo: Reach engine but we’ve done ton of work on it and in some cases rebuilt whole parts of it from scratch. That was driven early on by the parts of the game we really wanted to invest in.”

“Lighting, is certainly one of them, AI is another and audio, too. Areas where we really wanted to push beyond what had been done before and some of those systems have been extensively rebuilt.”

Apparently at 60fps their vision of HALO 4 would not have been possible on a current gen console of course.

Pandamobile1716d ago

Yeah, it's a trade-off due to technical limitations.

Your quotes from 343 don't mean anything. We already know that you can't do Halo 4 at 60 FPS on an Xbox 360. The hardware is not fast enough. One might say it's a (wait for it) "limitation".

Hicken1716d ago

Lower framerate will ALWAYS be an artistic choice, because you can ALWAYS cut framerate for improved graphical fidelity. Doesn't matter if we're talking about dropping to 30fps, or dropping to 200fps; if you want more graphical fidelity, you will cut framerate to achieve that.

There's no scenario where you can have ALL the graphical fidelity you want AND ALL the framerate you want. To make no sacrifices would require technology without limitations. And since that doesn't exist, there's no point in trying to state it as a technical limitation.

30fps IS an artistic choice, and only that.

Pandamobile1716d ago

The argument was that 30 FPS is the artistic choice, because some people believe that a frame rate closer to that of film is somehow more cinematic.

Aiming for 30 FPS is a compromise of game play in exchange for increased visuals.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1716d ago
Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.