Digital Foundry explores the pros and cons of unlocked fps vs 30fps gaming.
All in all it depends on the game itself. Some games actually feel weird with 60fps, some games are horrible at 30fps. Developers should know exactly what they're trying to achieve and make the best decisions for their own game instead of following the shouts of "1080p/60fps !!!" and then using these numbers as a marketing tool. I think it's great when developers are listening to their community but when it comes to the actual technology behind the curtains, they should know it much better than us.
I agree 100%
and what would be these games that weird at 60fps, game that was design around being 30fps. there is no game that doesnt benefit from having a higher frame rate. imagine uncharted if it was 60fps the animation will be more fluid. smoother gfx, gameplay mechanics, animation, etc. keep on believe that pace of the game does have anything to do with the frame rate. if the want your character to move as slow as a tank they can do so at 60fps also. i do agree all these 1080p/60fps headlines are marketing tools to increase hype and generate hits. the bad thing is fanboys fall for it everytime. you point it out, they ignore it and continue arguing over it. i would like for every game to push each platform to the limit, but i really dont care in the end as long as the games are good and fun. most of the time they( and devs even stated, but people try to ignore) lower the resolution and frame rate for gfx effects.
No game feels weird with 60 Fps. Stop.
Cinematic games do sometimes, for example Sleeping Dogs plays a bit strange with 60fps ...but the responsiveness is still much better than 30fps of course. It's called soap opera effect and makes the picture look hyperrealistic/ultra smooth http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... The thing is, with sports, racing or fighting games this effect is perfect and complimentary. But with cinematic games it can feel off.
No because if the game is rubbish and boring to you in the first place so you won't enjoy the game.
Here. For those who just don't under stand why 60fps should be a minimum. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Higher frame-rates mean better performance more than better gameplay. Gameplay quality is determined by how creative and talented the dev teams are and how well the mechanics of the game work as a whole. Level of importance for me would be (gameplay=frame rate)>resolution.
Not true. ALL games play better at 60fps. Everything about the gameplay is better at 60FPS than at 30. A game with great gameplay mechanics is funner and better to play at 60FPS than 30FPS and always will be. For some games the difference can be minor, for most games 60FPS is always a decent enhancement and sometimes straight up necessary. This isn't knocking 30FPS btw, i'm saying 60FPS is simply better because it is. Theres no argument to be made against it for gameplay purposes. 30FPS can be fine but 60 is always better
Agreed.. Some games shouldn't waste the resources on hitting 60fps...because it isn't needed and could look prettier But in an ideal world.. If you could keep your graphical fidelity and choose between 30 or 60fps, you'd take 60 every time
Definitely agreed. I don't know why some people on this article are making up examples and comparing a 30fps game to a different 60fps game. If it's any game at all I'd rather have a 60fps version than a 30fps version. Nothing to do with what graphics you might miss out on in order to raise the frame rate. I would just easily prefer higher framerate if possible. My laptop runs League of Legends at 60fps but when the game gets going and people have all of their abilities unlocked and start grouping all the characters on screen with all the graphical effects makes me go down around 30 and sometimes dips below. It's rather annoying. In a game that is single-player framerate isn't as important but in a multiplayer game, it doesn't necessarily need to be 60fps, but it just needs to be stable, and if a console game is at 30fps, like Uncharted and The Last of Us, it better be because it can run stable at 30fps and not because that's the max it can do. Ryse is at 30fps but it has some terrible dips.
"for most games 60FPS is always a decent enhancement and sometimes straight up necessary." I agree I remember when LOL was patched (not sure which patch anymore) and afterwards, my game only ran at 30 FPS. It was ... unplayable and I have played plenty games at 30 fps. LOL is one of the first games i think of that needs 60 FPS also, DJustinUNCHAIND shows that he clearly doesn't know what effects gameplay and what doesn't
@TheGrimReaper0011 LoL is so poorly optimized. Custom clients made it run at least twice as fast but Riot shut them down. The client is so bloated in coding and doesn't need to run so heavy in the background when you're in game.
Need fr speed rivals runs at 30 FPS and that plays amazing.
Need for speed rivals runs at 30 FPS and that plays amazing.
@Matt666 No way man!! Need for speed rivals ran like a$$. I played it for about 1 minute before I took to online to try an patch the 30fps limit.
Except extremely story driven games. You want those to play out like movies and the only movies using 60 fps right now are the hobbit and people have said it looks weird using 60 and takes some people out of the emersion. But anything that needs quick reaction time to anything will require 60fps
I love digital foundry. No biased to be found, clear concise info that anyone can understand. Keep up the good work DF
I'm absolutely okay with 30 FPS in any kind of game.
Then you clearly dont play many 60fps games. Its like saying your okay with watching a movie in a dvd quality over Blu-ray....nothing wrong with DVD quality...but blu-ray is just better.
Then you need to open pandora's box and experience
I'm okay if a games is 30fps. As long as it is locked at 30 with no dips.
A crappy or boring game running at over 9000 frames per second isn't going to magically make it a must own. Nor will it improve plain bad gameplay. It can improve the performance of certain kinds of mechanics though.
Refresh rate has nothing to do with how good or bad a game is. That is a stupid example.
Did you read my entire comment? The headline is a broad statement. I addressed "gameplay" by talking about more than one thing under the umbrella. And yes, refresh rate can play at least a supporting role in how good or bad a game is, depending on the game, or depending on the mechanics used, like I said.
Any game that requires precision yes. Fighting, racing, some fps games.
Bejeweled 18! Now at 300 frames/second and 4k resolution! Bejeweled like you've never seen it before!
More like smoother gameplay.
It depends on the game really but 30fps is absolute minimum and 60fps is optimal.
higher frame rate = better gameplay experience, period. anyone tries to philosophies otherwise is a sack full of s***
Only to fanboys
Agreed, that's why I game at 1 FPS, locked. None of this 2 FPS shit.
Not always but the visual difference between 30fps and 60fps is far more distinct and beneficial to the gameplay/aesthetic than the difference between 720p and 1080p.
Not really. 720p upscaled to a 1080p TV is ugly. Not just because of the missing pixels which is bad enough but also because it doesn't match the native resolution on the TV (720p on a 720p native TV is actually not that bad). When you upscale there is a filter put over the image to try to smooth out the pixellated nature of the scaled pixels. This filter adds a layer of blurr over the screen, making things look fuzzy. Distant objects/details become unrecognizable blurry blobs. 60 FPS is smoother but on many LCD TVs this smoothness can give excessive motion blur. Since the frame only stays in the same position for 1/60th of a second many TVs can't keep up as well. At 30 FPS the frame stays on the screen twice as long allowing the LCD to catch up. 30 FPS has less motion blur but is more juddery, 60 FPS is less juddery but can motion blur more so in reality it is still a tradeoff in many cases.
You lost me when you said that having a higher frame rate ADDS blur. The reason why higher framerates seem unnatural is because it REMOVES the blur that we are used to seeing. 720p on a 1080p television playing at 60fps looks significantly better than a 1080p game playing on a 1080p tv at 30 frames. The smooth motion is more important than slightly higher resolution. If this were an argument between 720p and 4k ultra hd then I could see the positives of having higher res over higher fps.
FPS affects fluidity and control, i'm used to 120fps now and i can feel the difference at 60 (like Linus on YouTube, he did a blind test) so the diference between 30 and 60 can definitely be felt and seen, once you go to 30 and below everything looks choppy. People who say otherwise are likely casual gamers at best who don't game much or aren't shown the difference to see and feel it.
I think you need your eyes checked up. 30 is very acceptable, not even close to "choppy". Oh and no I'm not a casual gamer and I know and have seen the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
It is a developers decision and they know what is best for their game. 60 is not always better as when locked at 30 can lead the game to offer other graphical and mechanical advantages.
And.... it is a limitation of the hardware. No developer in their right mind will lock the frame rate to 30 if they can achieve higher consistently.
Not true. http://www.dsogaming.com/ne... http://n4g.com/news/1395544...
duplissi, he's talking about consoles I'm sure. "60 is not always better as when locked at 30 can lead the game to offer other graphical and mechanical advantages." BitbyDeath: "mechanical advantages." By keeping the frame rate at 30? Nope. None what so ever. Where did you come up with that nonsense?
Oh yes I forgot about the turd that was NFS Rivals. On PC that game had no justification for being frame limited. It is a RACING game, you know one of the genres that especially benefit from higher FPS.
Being to be stuck at 30fps shouldn't be the trade off for graphic fidelity. It point's to one thing - underpowered hardware.
Hardware will always have a limitation even the greatest of PC's. Hence why it is up to devs at to which has the bigger payoff. 30FPS + graphical and mechanical extras or simply upping the frames.
I think it's more important for there to be a STABLE frame rate than a high one. A 30fps game can play just as well as a 60fps one as long as that frame rate doesn't dip. That said, there's certain genres in which the highers frame rate is more essential, like multiplayer-oriented FPSs and fighting games.
Do lower frame rates make for better gameplay? No. Not even a little. Acceptable frame rates are between 30 and 60 frames per second. Generally the closer to 60 you get the smoother and less blurry the animations are. How is that even a question?
Not at all.... If you actually know what you're talking about.... You'd know that.... Movies and tv always use different frame rates and nobody complains about that.... Not to mention graphics Never ever changed how much I enjoyed the gameplay.... And it shouldn't... Unless you're a graphics whore which is completely different from somebody who enjoys video games
I've never found a game that runs at 30fps to be unplayable. You have to go below 20 and especially below 15 before it gets choppy. It's just that some gamers have spoiled themselves at 60fps or more, Now they demand it in everything.
I demand it for racers. 60 fps should be standard. Anything below for racers is bs.
Agree. Was very disappointed to learn that Drive Club traded 60 fps for 1080p and fancier effects
yes, always. edit: even 120 is even better.
Depends on the game. Games that requires quick response time like fighters and twitch shooters 60fps is better. Rpgs, MMOs, 3rd person shooters, platformers are still enjoyable at 30fps.
or freesync Both techs make for a better solution to stuttering. Still, 60fps>30fps always, even if both use Xsync
If Console had gsync then the choice between "60fps and 30fps" would't be needed.. they could use 40fps/50fps"
Very Good article. Been thinking about this myself. I've just started playing KZ SF and I was finding that the visuals didn't seem as impressive and I was feeling slightly disconnected from the game. It's all down to the judder from the unlocked frame rate making it hard to focus on the on screen visuals. Unless the frame rate is between 50-60 and no lower then the devs should lock it at 30. The difference between 30-50 is far too noticeable.
Lock it at 30. If it's 50 fps then all of a sudden all hell breaks loose and it drops to 30, we are going to think it sucks and that the game is broken. If it stays consistent at 30 with all the bells and whistles than I prefer that method.
Interesting stuff. I like how some devs are giving us options on the consoles. A little bit of player options goes along way. A handful of simple put powerful options is nice to have.
Not this again. YES.
Beat me too it LOL.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.