Gamespot investigates frame rates and wonders if the next generation truly needs 60 fps.
Need? No. Some games will benefit from it (shooters/fighters/racers). Others aren't as important, it becomes more of an unnecessary luxury in my opinion. I'm fine with a solid 30fps and 1080p for most games.
I honestly dont think games like Uncharted and Kingdom Hearts on PS4 need 60fps,the idea of playing it at that frame rate is pretty weird to me. But other games like Sonic, Tekken, Gran Turismo, etc. should really be 60fps. Basically if the series has been 60fps in the past that's only when it's necessary, no need to try to sacrifice visuals and other areas just to make it hit 60fps
Traditional Cinematic Experience is 24 fps. I prefer the hardware power spend more on Physics, lots of Physics, open world physics and detail Character Physics.
I totally agree. But the point is, that even a 30 hertz is good (at the moment that is locked and it doesn't drop ).
I know for a fact that Kingdom Hearts 3 will be 1080p 60FPS, but I'm not so sure about Uncharted since they go for graphics and gameplay over framerate.
@M-M, framerate is gameplay.
Good video from G.S. Personally I want them as close to 60 FPS as possible.
I need high definition smooth content for my TV. I was looking into getting another TV. One has a refresh of 480Hz. I'm like, whats the point if games are still running 30FPS and less than 1080p in other cases.
@eonjay a tv with a higher refresh rate is its ability to refresh the image quicker in turn deleting the old image quicker to reduce blur. It is handy for a plasma tv for watching football or tennis as the ball wont leave a trail. I have a plasma at 600hz and movies at 24fps appear more sharp
Agreed but i wouldnt mind if Uncharted was 60 frames, but its mostly sp game and it run solid 30 fps so i didnt mind so much. Still felt maybe a bit sluggish, but not nearly as sluggish as BF3 does on consoles. I just dont get that everything should be full hd 1080p, you really wont notice the differences unless you have crazy big led tv or if you sit 0,5m away from your tv/screen. I would rather take 60fps 720p or 900p than 30fps 1080p (ofc depends on the game type tough, for example mp Shooter i would prefer this).
If for example uncharted 2 got an enhanced version of 1080p, 60fps on the ps4, do you know how even more amazing it will look and play in motion??! Omg. 60fps @1080p will definitely show visual progress for next gen.
I had heard years ago that some developer was looking at creating an engine that simulated motion blur properly. If that were the case, we could have fluid motion as we see in film and TV without having to tax the graphical processors by "needing" to churn out anything higher than 24 fps or so. Obviously we never saw this become a reality. I wonder what happened?
helpfulgamer...the 24fps film thing doesn't directly apply, because you don't have any input on it...plus, even just watching 24fps, you notice the 'judder'...however, that is something a lot of people prefer about film...as it gives a particular 'feel'... just saying...play any game at a locked 24fps...and it won't feel particularly awesome, and the input latency associated with it will just be a headache... in either case...objectively in video game rendering...60fps is ALWAYS superior to 30fps...if two games are otherwise equal, there is absolutely no objective reason to prefer the lower frame rate version...input latency and rendered frame rate are married to one another for the most part...taking a 60fps game, and changing only the framerate to 30fps, will not feel the same way as it did before...no way around that... however...if the sacrifice from 60fps involves additional effects being added, and other stuff like that which take advantage of the free'd up resources...then you're getting into a subjective discussion...which, we all know, should be avoided at all costs within the gaming community...
If we can see past 60FPS (and beyond) Shouldn't we strive to create the most REALISTIC experience by making games capable of rendering at AT LEAST 60FPS? I think people should get used to the idea. 60FPS isn't a BAD thing.
^ No. Who said all games had to be realistic? Mostly faster paced and competitive games like FPS, racing and fighting games benefit from 60fps. What developers need to focus on, is consistent frame rate. @Pandamobile No it's not. Choose your words better.
For me it depends if the developers can pull off 30fps in there game. Horizon for me worked very well in 30fps considering Forza is a 60fps game. Some games should have it thought and some games don't need it. I think we will see alot more fps games running at 60fps this new gen though.
The problem what we are having right now is, that high profile games on current consoles dip below 30fps quite often. This will not be the case on the PS4. Now, sure, CoD and friends need the higher refresh rate, I can see that. But an UC like game, which at a minimum (!) drops to 30 is just fine - as long as it never drops a single frame below. We'll see. I don't want to see 18 or 24 or even 28 next gen, so much I agree and if possible 60. But if this is only achievable by lowering resolution and detail, I rather prefer a solid 30+.
A buddy of mine has Far Cry 3 on 360, I played it after beating it on my PC. The difference was noticeable. On the other hand, GTA V was no problem to me, as I had no outside context reference. I don't think it's necessary, but it's nice.
Well look at nvidias g sync tech where everything is buttery smooth but at lower frames. Quite alot of console devs have frame syncing down. To me resolution is a bigger concern i want everything in 1080p and older games(ps3/360 gen and before) ported over but well.
I'll take a constant 1080/30fps with higher quality graphics/settings and motion blur, over 1080/60fps with lower quality graphics/settings. Although some games will be better off with 1080/60fps lower quality settings (like cartoony looking games)
"NEED"? more like "WANT" 60fps!
I'm fine with 30FPS in games that don't really benefit from it. However in games that do(as you say Shooters, fighters, racers etc), it's kinda disgraceful not to have it at this point. For those games, 720p and 60FPS > 1080p and 30FPS. Unless you are a graphics whore and don't care much about gameplay. Anyone who has been regularly gaming in 60FPS knows exactly what i'm talking about, as soon as you go back to 30FPS the drop in quality is just astonishing. It's the same as playing FPS's with a Mouse and Keypad and then going back to a joypad, the loss of control with the aiming is just harsh. I would prefer devs to either aim for 1080p and 60fps with some graphical options turned down than 30FPS or 720p myself. Some Devs just NEED to make there game as good looking as possible over gameplay experience. Again, it depends on the genre. edit- @ Abash, TPS's DO benefit from 60FPS, I learned this with Mass effect(This actually amazed me and thought me how much better the FPS is, and how much better a mouse is for TPS) and Tomb Raider. It's almost equal to the change FPS gets from the FPS jump to 60. I think all shooters should aim for 60 on PS4. Shadowfall is doing it for multi so I don't mind it not doing for single player. What console devs now have is the option to make good looking games AND have the 60FPS. Imo they should take that option over pushing how the game looks. I think anyone that has been sticking to console is in for a shocker when so many games shooters start coming out at 60FPS and then this one game that went for graphics over Frame rate comes along and you'll notice immediately something is fundamentally wrong with it.
Most console gamers only play games at 30fps so only PC gamers making the transition to consoles really care. BTW you pretty much said every genre needs it.
I've been a pc gamer since the early 90's, I quite like 30 fps on certain games. 60FPS can look too smooth sometimes, it's like the "sitcom" effect. Resolution is more important, no doubt.
Like many I have a powerful pc and the play difference between a console and pc is night and day. The buttery smoothness impacts your sensors in a good way. At first it may almost feel "too fast" but it's simply your perception from coming from something that played the content back "too slow". High fps is always preferable. I think many of you consol only gamers will understand why this generation. Your actions will directly translate into virtual space much quicker making it almost near seamless.
Platformers should also be 60fps. 60FPS will always be before 1080p for me
60fps is what 99% of Nintendo games run at since way bk,Sony has historically aimed at 25/30fps to be honest if ur using insane physics then a locked 30fps is good....
1080p yes, but 60fps?.. i don't think it's necessary unless the game is fast paced
BF4 and COD do need 60 FPS. It gives that buttery smooth feeling that is needed in those genres.
No we don't. And frankly, we don't deserve it either if we act like children and bitch about everything. But yes i wan't it.
Movies only run at 24 FPS. We seem to be fine with that year after year.
You don't play/control things inside movies though. If a game dips below 30 FPS you start to feel it in the controls.
Movies have natural motion blur due to being filmed with a camera. Or in the case of rendered movies, high quality motion blur which no computer yet is even close to do in real time. 24 fps without motion blur makes my eyes bleed. The crappy "motion blur" you see in some games is not a good approximation to natural motion blur and does next to nothing to create the illusion of a smooth video.
But that's the thing. Input != refresh rate. Why this is, is because of various synchronization issues on current machines which goes into thread switching and spin lock latency. That's why input often runs synchronous to the render system to avoid those things. Lately this is more and more decoupled and in fact response time can be measured in ms and not fps/Hz. As long as a modern engine can react to input with lets say below 100ms (which is quite fast today) and it does not impact refresh rate - that is, 30fps can really react on a per frame basis to that input, you cannot feel the difference between 30 and 60fps. Next gen consoles have a massive parallel architecture. With that said, it should be possible to solve these problems which will result in a steady and fluid animation and fast response times. Locks in parallel systems are and will remain a problem, but in the long run, there is no way around finding solutions to it.
30fps on 120hz TV is not that good
You never want you fps to exceed your hz otherwise the extra frames are lost. The higher the hz the smoother the image will be. So 30fps on a 120hz tv is fine you have 4x the refresh rate of bare minimum.
What stupid question... Do I NEED to upgrade to a PS4/Xbox One? No, but I WANT to.
I say we do.
yes we do. /thread
"it becomes more of an unnecessary luxury in my opinion. I'm fine with a solid 30fps and 1080p for most games." Luxury is 120FPS. Mandatory should be 60FPS. Just look at PC gaming, look at how crazy some people went when some games were locked at 30FPS. The notice is huge, believe me.
it's too difficult to run high demanding ps4/X1 games at 60FPS/1080p
Really Ape. When I've been doing it for years on my PC. This is what I was expecting from Consoles in this day and age. We got some pretty amazing things on the PS3 end -- in my opinion it had some amazing looking games. To this date, I don't think anything can touch how awed I was with Heavenly Sword, Lair, and Uncharted. I was expecting a lot more with this new gen consoles. But, seriously they can't even maintain 60FPS, 1080p. Maybe if they went the nVidia route, who knows. But then again lets wait a year or two, and it will probably be the standard with more experience.
I agree. It would be nice but I would rather have a game that plays and runs great.
To have a game that runs and plays great requires a good frame rate. Believe when I was younger I didn't have the luxury of upgrading my equipment. Even on lowest settings a lot of my games ran around 30FPS and it is very noticeable. Especially with shooters how the video states. For example Dark Souls was locked at 30FPS the hack to run it at 60FPS made it tons better, it looked and ran a lot smoother. Also, any game you take, bring it up to 60+ FPS and you will notice better visual fidelity.
They should focus on gameplay more than anything is what I meant. 60 fps will be standard soon enough.
Once you've experienced 60fps and high detail, it's hard to go back to playing games that perform below that level. A consistently high framerate is definitely less fatiguing to the eyes over time, for me anyhow. A game with no framerate dips and responsive, lag free controls is a better experience IMO.
BTW, Gamespot's video player is one of the few that can handle 60fps perfectly but you still need a decent PC for it to run it smoothly at HD.
and a decent internet connection other wise the cloud will cach/buffer you to death.
Yes we should have it for all games. 30fps is blurry, the higher frame rate the crisper the image the smoother game play. in 8 years time we will read articles saying do we really need 120fps. I don't know how many times this subject is brought up and it's all just damage control incase a game can't hit 60fps. Smooth image vs blurry image compare 60 to 30 http://frames-per-second.ap...
"I don't know how many times this subject is brought up and it's all just damage control incase a game can't hit 60fps." Typical PC elitist way of looking at things. This article asks if we NEED it, nothing about damage control. Get off your high horse.
I've been seeing you around N4G and I've noticed a pattern with your comments, being that you seem to like calling people out on being "PC Elitists" or implying that they are one, which often times doesn't really add up when looking into their comment history, for me at least. What's your deal? I mean I agree the damage control thing is irrelevant but it doesn't really mean he has anything to do with being a PC Elitist of any sort. He could be, he couldn't be, but you seem pretty darn sure he is.
I said nothing about PC.
ITT: Consoles are buthurt they won't be getting 60 fps yet another gen because of the shitty hardware they play on. LOL, suck to be stuck in 1995 really.
one issue with that, it has added motion blur, which most games do not have, and none have it to that extent. turn it off in the little settings and both provide clear images one is just not as smooth. Things do not move that fast across the screen in games unless it is an action game, which supports what everyone's saying here, for fast paced action games yes, but for something more slow paced no. Something like Ninja Gaiden NEEDS it, something like The Witness or RIME DOES NOT NEED IT, but of course it would be a plus, just not at a sacrifice of the games visual style/design
It's still blurry and jittery without motion blur it's just a different effect. Without motion blur you can literally see the frames skip. I do agree with you some games benefit more than other with a higher frame rate but as you say all games benefit so it would be nice for 60fps to be the standard.
Some games would get more benefit from NOT having 60fps though. Some slow paces puzzle adventure game or point and click adventure game should have great visuals to keep the player enthralled with the world, i would rather the game focus on that and not have to sacrifice things to get it to 60fps.
@Stsonic I get what you are saying. but if you watch the video the guy said that movies have blur due to the nature of cameras. So wouldnt games like TLOU look more like a game than a film at 60fps? The complete oposite effect they are going for. Yeah you could add motion blur but why bother when you can have better textures/effects and motion blur by default at 30fps
I never understood why people think FPS has anything to do with image clarity. You get the same textures at 2 FPS as you do at 60 FPS don't you? FPS just dictates how smooth the game controls not how good it looks.
people only want to argue because now that neither "next gen" consoles are capable of 1080p 60fps for all games it's only a year ago on n4g people here want to argue they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p .
Yes we do need it.
No we don't need 60 frames the Killzone and Ryse campaigns are 30 frames and they are fine
so youre saying no because games you want is 30 fps instead of better performance at 60 fps
I'm saying it's not a necessity
Console only gamer mentality sigh.
PSSH there are many things in our CONSUMING market we dont need but it is desired, and basically a need when you've experienced the difference. It is part of the experience as a consumer! do we really need a high dpi mouse when PC gaming? do we needle rumble in our joypads? do we need surround sound in a theatre? do we need cars above 200 HP? do we need blu-ray vs VHS? The list keeps going on! I moved my xbox away from my living room and started playing gears of war judgement on the same monitor on my PC 27 inch. Even at that size I cringe when i switch back and forth in real time between PC output and xbox output. The FPS and resolution HURTS but still maneagble to play.
ones you go 60fps you never go back.
not really, i go 60fps all the time, i still fail to see how it's needed on EVERY game. just seems like a luxury people got spoiled by and refuse to go without even though it's unnecessary in anything but an action game.
i can't believe people are actually debating this 60 FPS should be standard going into next gen i am lost for words.
I agree. Do you want something better? Oh no don't worry, average will be just fine! The reason it's not a standard is that they know the typical console player mentality "mine has to be better than yours, well, because I spent money on it, so..."