180°
Submitted by arandajose20 46d ago | opinion piece

The Framerate Debate

Thirty frames per second; that is the the framerate per second (FPS) that console gamers are accustomed to. On the PC on the other hand, framerates that dip to or below 30 are deemed unacceptable. Having a 30 FPS on the previous generation was something that most people were ok with. However, now with the release of the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One, many gamers are feeling a bit disappointed that games on the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One hardware are running at 30 FPS. (Microsoft, PC, PS3, PS4, Sony, Xbox 360, Xbox One)

JBSleek  +   46d ago
60 fps is a better gameplay experience than 30fps period.

/thread
MysticStrummer  +   46d ago
Not really. Depends on the game.
JBSleek  +   46d ago
What?? Name a game that doesn't benefit from a higher frame rate?
Dudebro90  +   46d ago
Every play Gears of War in 60 FPS on PC. Its far too fast.
Agreed. A good example is Dark Souls 2. Because of the way the engine works 60fps actually increases weapon degradation and hitboxes suffer as well. This is why weapons such as ultragreat swords degrade much faster on PC because technically the weapon is spending twice as much time colliding with objects causing it to degrade twice as fast. So lock fps to 30 to fix this
Spotie  +   46d ago
Candy Crush.

What do I win?

Seriously, for some games, it just doesn't matter.
clouds5  +   46d ago
60fps is always the better experience. It's just way smoother. Look for 30 vs 60fps comparison on google...

For me there are certain games that require 60fps, like first person shooters or side scrollers - everything based on reflexes. And other games where it's nice to have but not required. Like slower paced adventure games, strategy games and stuff like that. RPGs.

What I find extremely funny as a PC gamer, for years consoleros told me that high quality textures and 1080p/60fps is just nice to have and not required to have fun etc etc. And now EVERY game needs to be 1080p/60fps or its crap. People are even hyped for rereleases of games like TLOU just because of higher fps/resolution! What I'm trying to say: on PC this stuff is included in EVERY game since 10 years. We always have high resolution and up to 120fps and YOU choose if you want it or not or if you're happy with medium textures and high fps or rather have 30 fps but ultra textures.
What you guys are hyping atm is stuff that is a standard for gamers since a looong time. So chill, it's not that big a deal.
clouds5  +   46d ago
@dudebro/Lance lionheart: that is just lazy programming/lack of optimisation. If they would have targeted 60fps this wouldn't be an issue.
MysticStrummer  +   46d ago
@JBSleek - Chess.

I win.

; )

Like cloud said, slower paced adventure games, at least some strategy games.
Vegamyster  +   46d ago
The only games you could possibly argue are ones like Hard Rain or Beyond which are quick time event based gameplay, any game which requires you to move the camera around will indefinitely benefit from a higher framerate. The only person who would argue against this hasn't benefited from trying multiple genres of games with it, many games prior to the PS/N64 era were 60 fps.
memots  +   46d ago
60 fps is a better gameplay experience than 30fps period. < --- that is a fact but if the game is built and locked at 30fps and there is no detriment to the controls/gameplay then 30 is fine , Always
ABizzel1  +   46d ago
@JBSleek

A cinematic Adventure games like Heavy Rain, The Walking Dead, and others IMO. I hate watching movies outside of their native 24fps, and for games similar to that I don't think having 60fps is a worthwhile improvement on something that's suppose to be "filmic".

Now I agree with you on just about any other genre.
BX81  +   46d ago
@clouds5
Why would they need to target 60fps if it's not needed for that game?
Volkama  +   46d ago
@Abizzle it isn't the same as watching movies outside of native 24p at all. In that case you are watching a film with interpolated "made up" frames, and it is bad.

A game's native framerate is whatever it is running at, and 60fps is always absolutely better than 30fps (a bug in Dark Souls 2 doesn't change that).

Hving said that, 60fps still needs to be weighed up against the other things that could be achieved instead. There are definitely times where the resource is better spent elsewhere.
BitbyDeath  +   45d ago
COD: Ghosts.
If you do not remember PC and PS4 had over 60FPS when it had launched and this caused all sorts of frame issues with the game.

Honestly though the benefits of 60FPS are greatly exaggerated. Sure it may provide a slighlty smoother experience but nothing overly game changing.
Whatever4Ever  +   46d ago
100% agree with you on that.
Silly gameAr  +   46d ago
@JB sleek

No offense,but are you the new Sasuke? Have to be first on every article? No offense but not the route you should go.

Anyway, the framerate and resolution bs feels like when xbox 360 only owners ragged on ps3 owners about this last gen.
#1.3 (Edited 46d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
JBSleek  +   46d ago
It's not hard to be first you just look on the pending stories.

Also I am very careful what stories I comment on due to this site being very volatile to certain viewpoints.
combatcash  +   46d ago
A locked 60 fps frame rate is better than a locked 30 fps frame rate. However 30 locked vs 60 variable imo in most cases is better.
d3nworth1  +   46d ago
Basically any game that doesn't require quick response time. Devil may cry vs Demon Souls. DMC is a much faster game so you would need a quick response time to react. Demon Souls is a slow paced game, both your character and the enemies are slow moving. So 60 fps wouldn't do anything to the gameplay. I played Assassin's Creed 2 on Ps3 30fps and PC 60fps. At 60fps the gameplay didn't feel any different. All it had was smoother looking animation.
MasterCornholio  +   46d ago
Pretty much. But in no way is a rock solid 30FPS a bad experience.
tee_bag242  +   46d ago
Agreed. Under 60fps is always better than 30fps. In 2014 every game should be this standard. To my surprise and disappointment with the new consoles, that's not the case.
PurpHerbison  +   46d ago
How many of those games actually ran at 30FPS? Yes 60FPS is better but 30FPS isn't that bad if it is actually locked at 30. I can't tell you how many consoles games I played that were supposed to be 30FPS but averaged much lower than 30.
Ghost_Nappa  +   46d ago
Far cry 3, so.....much......tearing
Vegamyster  +   46d ago
Before i bought the PC version i picked up the 360 version during Boxing day, i don't recall a single reviewer mentioning how bad the framerate was on the console versions.
Ghost_Nappa  +   46d ago
@vegamyster reviews are idiots not to
cpayne93  +   46d ago
Screen tearing on fc3 is awful. Had to trade it in, will get it on pc at some point.
Master-H  +   46d ago
Dragon Age Origins ps3, made me quit the game actually.
SilentNegotiator  +   46d ago
For the graphics and what went on, DA:O ran like crap on Ps3. Awful, awful optimization.
Master-H  +   46d ago
@SilentNegotiator i know right, the graphics looked straight up like ps2 era, but it wasn't a deal breaker, and i liked the game's story , dialogue system and everything but just couldn't stand the damn framerate fluctuations and screen tearing anymore, so i sold it after about 2 hours in.
memots  +   46d ago
i would say about 95% of game last gen were 30fps and people were not so L33t about it.

Its a combination of the entitle syndrome and the all or nothing mentality. Why was i fine to game at 30 fps for almost 8 full gen ( yes yes i am old and started on console on atari 2600 )
wtopez  +   46d ago
What's there to debate?
BattleAxe  +   46d ago
Exactly, just buy a PC or forever hold your peace.
PrinceOfAllSaiyans  +   46d ago
I really don't care about framerate at all. What I hate is people who say they aren't buying a ge just because it isn't 60fps. Me personally I still can't tell a difference.
Vegamyster  +   46d ago
Are you using a old 30 HZ TV/Monitor lol?

https://frames-per-second.a...
dumahim  +   46d ago
Watch this. It's full 1080p/60fps and minimal compression.
Heed the warning below the video though, you need a fairly strong PC to run it flawlessly.

http://www.naughtydog.com/s...

You can watch that and say you don't see a difference?
Fluchtpunkt  +   46d ago
its funny...because i bet most of the ppl on here cant tell the difference in movies shot on 24 fps / progressive vs. 50i (interlaced).... ;)

but all the 15yo say of course: 1080p is better....without knowing what the p realliy means haha
PurpHerbison  +   45d ago
Gump.
AussieBadger  +   46d ago
30-60 fps. As long as frame rate is consistant it makes no difference to me.
D3ATH_DRIV3R_777  +   46d ago
This is a stupid debate!
ReBurn  +   46d ago
Most of the debates are.
SpinalRemains138  +   46d ago
60 is butter and very nice, but its not like a solid 30 is bad.

30 fps is actually fine. 30 fps only becomes a lesser standard once you become accustomed to playing at 60.

Like someone above said though, it does depend on the game.
Fluchtpunkt  +   46d ago
Theres a reason movies are shot in 2k/4k/24fps and tv news are mostly shot interlaced on 1080i...just think about it...
FlyingFoxy  +   46d ago
I'd say more size and other constraints rather than saying "it's shot in 24fps because our eyes can't see much higher" think about it, that's why games ARE smoother at 60fps and people can see a difference in motion smoothness even at 120fps and 144fps.

If movies were shot at higher frame rates it would increase the size a lot, plus i imagine increase editing time for films with a lot of CGI, taking a lot longer to complete the film.

I recently read someone here complain about the Hobbit filmed at 48fps and people apparently didn't like it because it didn't feel cinematic. I personally think it's more the fact that it was smoother (more detail per second) and people aren't used to it. There's a comment above that says Gears of War felt too fast at 60fps on PC, i think that pretty much proves my thinking on it.
dumahim  +   46d ago
Nothing is shot interlaced. TV is sometimes 1080i (it's usually 720p) because of bandwidth limitations for broadcast. Even then it's heavily compressed.
Fluchtpunkt  +   41d ago
omg...u do know what the "i" means instead of "p" right?
JBSleek  +   46d ago
1. Movies aren't adopting 48 fps quicker because they would have to update all the equipment in most theaters.

2. Nothing is shot interlaced. If it is interlaced that has to do with broadcast limitations.
zerog  +   46d ago
The reason movies are shot in 24fps is because its been the standard since 1926 when sound was first introduced to films. Hearing is sensitive to changes in fequancy so they needed a standard and since most silent films of the day ran between 22-26fps they chose 24 which allowed them to use double shutter projectors to double render each fram actually giving 48fps of double images meeting thomas edisons theory that anything less then 46fps stresses the visual cortex causing eye strain. Tv today is mostly 30fps or higher, movies alone are lower. The truth is that the more fps you have the sharper and more life like and smoother your video will be. The eye is very complex and I personally chalk up people liking a lower fps as an artistic choice but would rather have it the highest possible myself because I feel it gives video a more life like quality.
sk8ofmnd  +   46d ago
Compared to first second and third gen ps3 games and the xbox one and ps4 comparisons its so minute. I agree 60 fps is better but im more than ok with a game that can reach 1080p @ 30 fps. Anybody remember the comparison between third party games on the 360 and ps3 in the beg of the consoles life? Holy crap it was a noticable difference. And im more of a sony fan. But I can admit the truth. One would think with having a new gen of consoles they would easily be able to do so. Heck im even ok with 720p and 30 fps. But wasnt that the target of most games last gen. I know im a gamer and if a good game is good with great gameplay these debates are null and void. Like my fav zelda oot looks meh but thr gameplay was great.
GusBricker  +   46d ago
framerate>>>>>r esolution

Every-Freaking-Time.
#11 (Edited 46d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
LAWSON72  +   46d ago
I agree however, IMO consoles should stick with 30 fps or else they will be quite handicapped. Well it really depends for example IMO SP based games can be 30 fps but MP games should be 60 fps depending on the genre of course.

Console gamers for the most part do not know what 60 fps is and it is not something that persuades the market towards the product. Right now visuals are the big seller and pushing for 60 fps is not going to impress the average joe.

I just personally would much prefer these consoles be pushed to their limits and that can not be done at 60 fps. It is not just the visuals that can be pushed further but so many other things that can enhance a gaming experience that just was not possible last gen. Look at the Witcher 3 that game will be 30 fps and I guarantee no 60 fps game will compare visually and odds are it will be a much better experience do to that target fps.

Remember there is always PC if you require 60 FPS and that is why I own one, but as a console gamer aswell I don't want 60 fps to become some sort of standard for all games because it will put a huge limitation on this generation.

Competitive shooters and racers IMO are the only games that should strive for 60 fps. I would not mind Halo, BF, and CoD rolling with 60 fps all gen because they are not about the graphics. They just need to lay a solid foundation on the graphics front and just do touchups along the way while actually polishing and improving upon everything else that matters.
#11.1 (Edited 46d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Arkamenitas  +   46d ago
The Great Framerate Non-Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Thank you and good night.
typittt69  +   46d ago
I started a new Killzone Shadowfall campaign last night and was thinking about that.
I would have taken a slightly lower resolution like 900p if that would have meant 60fps.
RAAMzilla  +   46d ago
I would like a tally of how many times "1080p/60fps?" has been said so far this generation.
LAWSON72  +   46d ago
Meanwhile hardly any games run 1080p/60 fps, lol.
tee_bag242  +   46d ago
That's why alot of people play games on PC
KRUSSIDULL  +   46d ago
Trust me when you play TLoU or MCC in 60 FPS this year you gonna want every game to be 60 FPS.
uth11  +   46d ago
many of my games are already in 60fps. But when I switch to a 30fps one, it still feels adequate
stefan771  +   46d ago
All 8th gen games should be 1080p 60fps without downgrades
LAWSON72  +   46d ago
Yeah... no. If you think we are going to get crazy new next gen experiences on such weak systems always running at 1080p/60 fps you are mistaken.
kingduqc  +   46d ago
what debate. One is just better in every way, no debate.

only peasant who can't play 60 fps in all their games will argue otherwise.
d3nworth1  +   46d ago
Only real gamers argue otherwise. If you played anything other than shooter all day you would know what there is to debate
GlassMufasa  +   46d ago
And here I am playing the majority of my Wii U exclusives at 60fps. PS4 and Xbox ONE are more than capable of producing next-gen looking graphics at 60fps. I think the devs need to learn how to optimize their games better. For example, MGSV: Ground Zeroes is a much more impressive looking game than Assassin's Creed IV and yet the former is running at native 1080p at 60fps and the latter at 30fps. I think we need to teach these third party devs a thing or two about normal mapping, cache dumping and occlusion. That and 900p isn't the end of the world. I'd rather have a slightly sub HD picture running at 60fps. The motion alone adds clarity.
king_ps4  +   46d ago
Xbox one cant hold a steady frame rate
tee_bag242  +   46d ago
Neither can the PS4
king_ps4  +   45d ago
Ps4 holds a steady frame rate better than Xbox One.
mcarsehat   46d ago | Offensive
lfc_4eva  +   46d ago
Games play better at higher frame rates. No question. Games were people are arguing that 30fps is ok, are stuff like rts. Nah! Higher frame rate in any game is always better. The silky smoothness is what makes it more responsive to the eye.

I saw someone post earlier that watching a cinematic movie, in its 24fps is the only way to go. However since upgrading to a higher spec tv, which kind of repeats frames many times a second to give the illusion of a higher frame rate, I can honestly say it improves the experience vastly. It takes a little getting used to at first, but I love it now.
turdburgler1080  +   45d ago
Game devs and publishers just need to all sit down and say we're not going to discuss or list resolution or frames per second. They obviously hate talking about it. Just make an industry effort to ban conversations about it. When some journalist asks about it just say no.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
40°

SCE Talks Project Morpheus Design, Development Community and Software

5m ago - VRFocus - Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) have been rather coy about Project Morpheus since it'... | PS4

The Dilemma of Difficulty and Its Latest Contender: Smash Bros.

5m ago - We endeavor in an exercise of struggle, dare to engross ourselves in unrelenting challenge, and r... | Wii U
10°

WWE SuperCard: Five New Features We'd Like To See In 2K's Mobile Card Game

9m ago - iDigitalTimes - "With more than 1.5 million wrestling fans currently playing WWE SuperCard, it pr... | iPhone
10°

The Sims 4 interview: Talking emotional, intelligent Sims

32m ago - MMGN writes: The Sims 4 makes its long-awaited debut on PC on September 4. MMGN had a chance to s... | PC
Ad

The Walking Dead Meets Spider-Man

Now - Come join us on Filmwatch this month as we give you a chance to win the Electro Collector's Edition of Amazing Spider-Man 2 or the Limited Edition... | Promoted post
20°

Mistwalker RPG Terra Battle Gets Its First Gameplay Trailer

33m ago - Mistwalker have shared a gameplay trailer for their upcoming smartphone RPG, Terra Battle. | iPhone