Hey hey, folks! Lumpz the Clown here, and as both a console and PC gamer, I have begun to notice both spirited and downright nasty debates online regarding what frame rate looks best and is consistent in certain games.
30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING... Not every artist is as talented....Not every Dev is as talented. Some make it work...others struggle. Eventually though MOST games will be 60 FPS. * This gen was just a Nice boost to fill in all the missing things. It basically just made slight improvements on everything. The NEXt xbox,Nintendo, Sony console....will be a much bigger noticeable upgrade in Frame Rate, Graphics and everything else.
"30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING..." Please god save me from this nightmare.
"30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING.." As a console gamer, sure it's great. as a PC gamer...Not on my PC "snaps fingers".
"30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING" What do you even mean by that? You mean when it never drops below 30? A solid 30 fps with little to no dropping is fine... but amazing? Wat.
30fps is cinematic, god help us if devs use these lines in the future like those order 1886 developers
After playing most of my ps4 at 60fps( or close too 60fps for the frame counters) my eyes can't help but see the choppiness of 30fps now... So No. Games can play good at 30fps but it will never play, look and perform as great as 60fps... Now I'm honestly hoping every game this Gen is 60fps or at least has a frame rate close too it.
"30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING." LMFAO! Clearly, you don't know what your talking about.
I don't find issues with framerate when playing on a TV, but I have a screen sitting on my face it has to be at least 60fps, 120 to actually be comfortable playing that close
translation: 30fps only looks good when sony does it this has a feel of last gen. when the only game that did 60fps was mostly cod. when you cant when its now good. now consoles can do 60fps with decent gfx now they can suddenly see and appreciate high frame rate? it like everything else. they get it late now its good. pc gamers you wasnt right about high frame rate and gfx features. but these new, but old stuff we use to downplay and say we didnt see and people dont notice is the beesknees. i didnt say yall right because i dont know why we dont say yall have an advantage even if yall do. i own stock yeah i OWN STOCK. that my reason for hating.
Plenty of PS2 games ran at 60 fps. Devs are selecting better graphics and higher resolutions over 60fps. It's a dev/pub/console industry problem, not a tech problem and therefore can't be fixed by making the tech better.
The higher the better but really for me as long as it isn't hindering my game play I don't really care. 60 is great but 30 is fine. I get like 150FPS in StarCraft 2 lol and I can tell you it doesn't make it any better than the 30-40FPS I used to get out of it on my previous gaming PC.
I don't know what is more saddening that you think 30 fps looks amazing or that you still see yourself as a console gamer by next gen. Time to climb the latter and eat from the tree of knowledge. PS5 and Xbox2 will be even further behind 2018 PCs than the PS4 and Xbone were behind 2013 PCs.
I use "Motion Plus"(Samsung calls it that) It reduces judders and makes the picture smoother. So 30fps doesn't bother me. It kinda feels like 60fps to be honest.
@3-4-5 With this cost effective/low risk everything wave we currently ride(from all sides), I will be very happy if the next-next gen consoles (4-5 years from now) can do rock solid 1080p/60fps with CURRENT PC 'ultra quality' assets! ...which I doubt and sincerely hope to be proved wrong.
What does that even mean, how can one do worse measurable unit than other (when both are equal) ?
60 fps per second is always preferred however i have had way to much fun with many 30fps titles such that i don't take a high horse and boycott any game that doesn't hit 60. that would be silly cause i would have missed fantastic titles like red dead redemption,mgs4,shadow of the colossus, most of my ps3 library and many more. Just as long as the 30fps are stable
UltraNova- Hate to break it to you, but none of the multiplats released for PS4/Xbone would be considered "ultra quality" when compared to the PC version. They all lack in Ambient Occlusion, shadow filtering, texture filtering, anti-aliasing, lighting effects, etc.
@AndrewLB :) "I will be very happy if the next-next gen consoles (4-5 years from now) " I was referring to the ps5 and xb2... 'next-next gen' Pay a little bit more attention next time ;-)
uhh Stop being "Fake Elitist" Guy...seriously just stop. 30 FPS has been fine forever. Sure I want 60 FPS, and it ALWAYS looks better/plays better. It's just not really worth crabbing about as much as you guys do. * I have a PC and games look much better on it...I have NO problem going and playing an HD game on PC, and going and playing 240p 30FPS on 3DS. Fun is fun...you snobs.
As long as it doesn't fall below 30FPS then I have no problem with it. That's when you really notice it.
try play TLOU Remastered for around 2 hours, then switch to the 30fps mode... Tell me what you think... one of the reasons so many people prefer COD (although I'm a Battlefield guy) for the last gen, was because of the "silky smooth controls" ... well guess what... it was 60fps, that made it felt like "silky smooth controls" ... so, to the people who says they cant see the difference between 30 and 60fps, i have to wonder if you need your eye checked out...
I can one up that, try play TLOU on 1080p and then set your TV to display only 720p.
"30 FPS, when done right, looks AMAZING... " That shit has to be the fking comment of the decade here on n4g. Mods plz give him something. There is no words to describe how bad informed you have to be, to write something like that ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! and people actually agreed LMFAO!!!!!
cant do that most of people on this site said this. they only change their tune because this gen most game is capable of doing it at decent gfx. last gen if someone said they wanted high frame rate or that a game is low and it they bashed them. most people on this site state how 30 fps is what they want and 60 wasnt needed. its only until now (we know why) people see and feel the benefits. if you been on this site for a long time as i did you will remember how long the "30fps is for cinematic reasons" and, "its no benefit to frame rates over 30 in genre thats not racing, fighting, twitch shooter(excuse for cod)"
Thanks, good buddy! But sadly, I can't find the link to your article that you sent earlier! :-/ Think I might have screwed something up when I logged out, then logged back in...If you reply to this comment, I'll give it a look by 5PM MST! Bout to head out the door now! Thanks again and glad you enjoyed it! :-)
Good research, great points...I like it when people actually look into things rather than jump on a catch-phrase bandwagon.
Very good, researched article. Enjoyed reading this. Well done good sir.
Well written and researched article. I'm glad you tried to set people straight on the frame rate cult crap.
Have fun with your controllers deadzones and 33ms of rendering latency at 30 fps http://i.imgur.com/kImtRlS....
I skipped 90% Because on the focus on consoles and the attempt to say we can only see 30 fps. If you have played any shooter with a decent pace at 30/60/120/144+ fps, it's easy to feel the game become more responsive and smoother as you go up in fps. In short higher fps = lower latency and high latency is bad
Any game which requires you to move the camera or any kind of precision will be more enjoyable at a higher framerate, as a primarily PC gamer i always choose slightly lower graphical fidelity to achieve 60 fps locked or close to it, it's not like the graphical difference is that big if you know what you're doing. Many do not understand the benefits because they don't have the option on consoles, i would like to see developers implement this option similar to what ND did for TLOU on the PS4.
Yeah the author only seemed to talk about the visual effect with technical comparisons of the fps not being there, but didn't bother to compare the RESPONSIVENESS of it across different games. It enhances the gameplay quite a bit and he just seems to gloss over it.
A high framerate doesn't just improve latency and controller response, but it actually increases temporal resolution. Games are nearly always in motion, so temporal resolution is important since it dictates how much detail can be resolved during motion.
His opinions fly in the face of my nearly 30 years of gaming experience. I don't care about theories or hypotheticals when I know for a fact how different framerates affect my experience.
Yep the article seems to be written with Blinkers on and a complete lack of understanding. Saying the film industry records film at 24fps then makes it fine for gaming couldn't be further from the truth. Camera's have exposure to blur those 24 frames together to give the illusion of smoothness. Video Game don't have exposure to do that. Apples/Oranges. This video explains it pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/wat... Also telling people no to sweat about Mario Kart dropping "1.67%" frames is fine. I agree but only because Mario Kart already runs at 60fps and isn't easily noticed. A game running 30fps then dropping 1.67% frames is twice as noticeable and will suffer from twice as much input lag.
I couldn't reply to your post but Higher Fps does reduce latency in GPU and CPU rendering. Here is a screenshot from the Unity profiler to give you an idea : http://i.imgur.com/kImtRlS.... You can also use /statfps in most unreal games to show the rendering latency
For 3rd person action games like Assassin's Creed 30 fps is perfectly fine, but yeah when you play a shooter the difference is much more noticeable.
It's noticeable not matter what game you play, try any game on a PC then lock it down to 30 fps using MSI Afterburner ect and you'll see a big difference.
It's definitely noticeable, but I'm just saying it doesn't effect the gameplay on some games like it does others. You can always see a difference in frame rate.
Gamers and developer this gen forget input is sampled and out put faster than 30 fps for games so they can be responsive. Sure you can't see more than 30 frames yet if input lags even one frame we will see it. So frame counting is sort of useless. It is input sampling that matters. We have a divided fanbase where some choose to talk tech but not understand the tech they are even talking about. This is why ignorant acts are used as hype vehicles. Plus video games are about interactive game play. The frame rate debate is only useful to show a game can be played in a skillful manner due to no short coming in hardware or coding. It use to be an artistic debate and a display of talent. Now it is a wasteful exercise in decadence devoid of game play.
Why do so many people insist you can't see more then 30 frames a second? It's pretty easy to see the difference and you can definitely feel it when playing a game.
I'm surprised there's any resistance to the point.
Because they don't understand the eye doesn't see in "frames" All they need to do is literally if they're so blind WATCH the hobbit in 24 fps and 48fps. You can definitely see a difference. Better yet. Play halo/destiny then play COD. One runs much "faster"
I swear it's some kind of conspiracy. Show 30 fps and 60 fps side by side, if someone says they can't tell the difference they honestly just have to be lying. Can't understand it any other way.
It's easy to see the difference in games. Watching movies in 48fps like allsystemgamer said is pretty much pointless. It's true that the human eye can't handle 60 fps. In movies, everything that happens is recorded to happen, it's predefined (sorry, lack of english vocab lol). You notice lower frames in games cause it is tied to lagging in commands you input. It's the interactive nature of games that demands a higher fps count. So yeah, unless it's locked 30 fps, the frame rate needs to be higher. P.s. it's true that he 'your eyes see 24 pics per second' theory isn't used anymore. Still, there's a limit how much info the cells in your eyes can process, and it's far below 60 fps. That's why, when you look at a fast car in motion, you perceive it's tires spinning backwards.
The idea that the human eye can only see up to 40 fps is a myth, heck any pc gamer can argue against that. I can see the difference between 50 and 60 frames, irregardless if I'm playing it. The animations look more smooth.
No you can't.
It's easy to see higher framerates in video too. If you can't tell the difference between 24 and 48 frames a second then get your eyes checked. It's absolutely not true that the human eye can't see above 60 frames a second. At this point you're just willfully ignorant.
Increase in gameplay smoothness at higher frame rates.
What's great is that it lets you make smooth one-liners.
There were times when I had some doubts about the impact 60fps had on gameplay, then I played StarCraft 2, League of Legends and Dota 2 on my two computers, one being a decently powerful desktop, while the other was my laptop, with a dedicated GPU, but still quite inferior to my desktop. One would play all the aforementioned games at 60+, while my laptop would give me a constant and very stable 30 fps. I will say that above 100 fps, even fluctuations between 100 to 130, I wasn't noticing it. Unstable fps under 60 fps are easier to notice, and they are downright hard to miss when under 30 fps. It's also extremely easy to notice the differences between 30 and 60+fps when playing the game, everything is just smoother and it makes the overall experience better. Some say that 60 fps is not needed in some game genres, fine, but to say that 60 fps is nothing more than marketing and isn't noticeable and can't affect gameplay, that I simply cannot agree with.
is your monitor more than 60 hz?
Hit the nail on the head. I'm betting the only reason you couldn't notice more than 60fps STK026 was because your monitor was 60hz.
I wish Destiny was 60fps. But it's not. And you can tell so very easily after playing just one match of Battlefield, which feels so much note responsive and "live." That's what's great about it for me. I play Destiny because it's a fun game. But I'm not going to ever say frame rate doesn't matter either.
We've been conditioned for generations that 24-30fps is enough for video. It is good enough for games, or was, until people started getting accustomed to higher and higher frame rates, and they now claim that 30 is too choppy to be playable. Problem is, if you make it the priority to double the frames, you are doubling the data throughput and you might have to cut visual effects. If I had the choice, I'd go with better visuals at 30 than fewer visuals at 60. If the developer can do both, that's different.
It's not that 30fps is unplayble, it's just that 60fps is better and more "playable".
I know, but there are some who will say anything less than 60 is unplayable, as this article points out.
I've found even 45 fps to be a great benchmark, it's still a remarkable improvement over 30FPS.
I would go with the better framerate since it actually affects gameplay.
I'm not a "60fps or GTFO" type but on quite a few games 30fps is simply not enjoyable. Especially considering mouse control tends to be effected by that. I believe its more noticeable with mouse acceleration. Hate mouse acceleration. In some cases that and low fps can make a game unplayable. Dead Space on PC had horrendous controls.
I always enjoy the smoothness of a game at 60fps no matter what genre.
I have been playing some older PC version games that i had on the PS2 and it's just so much better on the PC. The framerate is noticeable smoother and just much better to play.
There's a thousand examples. But does anyone else have the last of us on ps4. There's an option to turn on 30 fps. Turn it on and play. Then turn it off and go back to 60 and tell me it doesn't matter.
Yes and it doesn't matter enough to noticeably affect the experience. 60 FPS if fine but not that much better than 30 as most ppl make it out to be, it's simply overhyped, because marketeers have to justify a whole lot of HD-ports instead of new games so they focus on the framerate issue. In the end it created this interesting 60fpsisallyouneed cult.
First of all there's a big difference between 60 and 30 FPS. I've seen League players with over 100 FPS and it looks almost like a different game in how it moves and reacts compared to my 30 FPS. 60 FPS helps games retain or even enhance their graphical qualities over time. If you play SSB Melee you notice how smooth everyone moves and it makes the simple realism it went for stay crisp and fluid, it hasn't aged for the worse one bit. 60 FPS more accurately conveys movement, with 30 you're missing out on 30 frames of tiny detail. I'd much rather have a game run at 900p 60 fps than 1080p 30 FPS. Mario Kart 8 is 720p on the game pad and having 60FPS makes it still run amazing even compared to 1080p.
No, just no. Leave the res alone. I game on a 65" TV so 1080p is the #1 priority. Obviously 720p on a small screen is no problem.
this article is pointless, and some of it doesn't even make sense. Go play some n64 games and tell me the framerate is good...
The author of this article is so ignorant he sounds like a religious guy trying to convince us that evolution is a myth. If he truly can not see the difference in frame rate then he either has a sight problem or a brain problem, but I will assume 99.9% of people can and will see the difference. Once you get used to playing games at 60 or more fps, you'll feel very uncomfortable playing at 30fps, you feel eye strain, and maybe even get a headache after an hour or so, but at 60 or above you can play for hours and don't feel your eyes tired at all. Also trying to compare gaming to movies is just plain BS, and it confirms the level of ignorance by the author, he obviously doesn't understand how a camera works and how motion blur affects our perception of movement and smoothnes. And to the guy who said that 30fps, when "done right" is amazing, what the hell does that even mean?