The Importance Of Gameplay Over Frame Rate

Should we be ok with developers cutting features for the sake of a smoother image?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
hello121277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

Gameplay is always first, then frame rate, then graphics, last should be resolution.

MrSwankSinatra1277d ago

Actually frame-rate and gameplay go hand in hand.

Moldiver1277d ago

I agree with MrSwankSinatra. You wont experience much gameplay if it runs like a slideshow. and I agree with the order KNWS put them in.You are both correct in my opinion.

shocked6861277d ago

The question in the article is really: Would you prefer a game that runs at 60 FPS that cuts out features or a game that runs at 30 FPS that has everything.

1277d ago
Army_of_Darkness1277d ago

I have a hard time enjoying the gameplay if the framerate is sh1t,in which I thought they go hand in hand anyway??

tuglu_pati1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

A game could have the best gameplay ever, but if the frame-rate isn't stable/consistent it wont be enjoyable, I mean no one want to their games to play like a slide presentation.

herbs1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

Gameplay feel and response time is tied directly to frame rates in reality although 60fps is not essential for all types of games. For example turn based gameplay from an RPG or cinema movie type games don't require precision timing. That said Racing, Fighting or Action games running at 30fps are laughable by today's standards and devs who choose more effects and higher resolutions over frame rates are generally doing it wrong for those types of games and are focusing more on marketing and screen shots at the cost of worse response and game feel. Unfortunetly most gamers are casual amateurs and care more about the way a game looks over the way a game feels. This can be said for the majority of PS4 gamers, opposite can be said for the majority of Nintendo gamers and it is reflected in the performance of the games made by their respecting 1st party studios.

rainslacker1277d ago

True, but it's not like 30fps would be terrible for game play. You can't have frame rate if the game play doesn't actually exist, so game play is more important.

Everyone here is acting like anything below 60fps is unplayable.

wonderfulmonkeyman1277d ago

Agreed, a smooth frame rate, be it 30 or 60, is pretty crucial to a better experience.
Much moreso than how realistic the aesthetics are, or how many pixels are crammed into every facial wrinkle on a player model.XD

MrSwankSinatra1277d ago

@rainslacker Goes both ways you can't have gameplay if you don't have a framerate. It's like I said Framerate and Gameplay go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

livininsin1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

It's understandable that the author has tried to frame this as a gameplay vs framerate debate, the Halo devs did say that they couldn't deliver splitscreen because they wanted to maintain 60fps after all. But framerate isn't the culprit here, in fact a higher framerate IMPROVES gameplay which is the reason the Halo devs don't want to give it up.

This is actually a gameplay vs graphics discussion. The halo devs could easily deliver a 60fps splitscreen mode but they would have to compromise on graphics to do it. They said they weren't willing to compromise on 60fps to deliver a splitscreen mode but what they were actually saying is that they weren't willing to compromise on graphics in order deliver a 60fps splitscreen mode.

Think about it, the author is saying that the dev could deliver better gameplay if he compromised on framerate, say 30fps. Then the logical extension of this argument is that the dev could deliver even better gameplay if only the framerate was 15fps but then just imagine how good the gameplay would be if only it was 1fps or even better, one frame per minute or heck the ultimate platinum experience, one frame per lifetime. Imagine, you load the game at birth then, just a moment before death, you get your one glorious frame. Oh, the rapture, the nirvana, the unrivaled bliss! Clearly, the premise doesn't hold any merit.

Edit: Having said that, there is a upper limit to framerate aswell, a point where human perception is unable to identify individual frames however that frame rate is above 60fps. I've read studies where fighter pilots were able to identify single frames at rates as high as 240fps. I know that I can personally see flicker on a crt display up to about 80fps.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1277d ago
MPScrimshaw1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

I have a really hard time believing that a game playing at 30, 40, or 50fps instead of 60fps impacts a person's gameplay experience so heavily that it actually takes away from the enjoyment of playing.

Bnet3431277d ago

try playing a fighting game in 30 fps vs 60 fps. you must be out of your mind if you think that doesnt matter.

rainslacker1277d ago

A fighting game at a solid 30fps as opposed to a unlocked 60fps would actually probably play better due to their dependence on frame data for input.

The only difference between 30 and 60fps is how often input is polled. Otherwise, the frame data simply has to be changed.

I've played plenty of fighting games over the years that were 30fps(sometimes not even locked) and never really had a problem. SFII was known for it's slowdown at times, and even emulated in some later releases.

MPScrimshaw1277d ago

Its sad that marketing groups have been able to latch on to random features like "GRAPHICS" and "FRAMES PER SECOND" and use them as buzzwords to sell games to people who don't know any better. I understand that 60fps looks better than 30fps, but the majority of people who see 30fps without a reference of 60fps are not saying "Ugh, this looks terrible, must be 30fps." When you compare them its more obvious, but is it really worth stripping features out of the game?

I feel like its something thats nice to have but not at all necessary, you know? Like, I prefer to watch a video in 1080p, but if its only available in 720p, I'm still going to watch it and probably won't complain.

Spotie1277d ago

Well said.

I prefer the better looking, better performing game. Doesn't matter to me whether it's 60fps or 30fps(unless we're talking different versions of the same game).

Nowadays, everybody wants to make it sound like devs are choosing graphics over 60fps as if they wouldn't have been doing that all along, if they could. Both devs and gamers want beautiful games, and the increase in the power of hardware means games can become even more beautiful. A higher framerate is nice, but it's pretty much never necessary; on the other hand, who wants to play ugly games?

Concertoine1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

Woah, since when are 60 fps games ugly?! TLOU:Remastered, Tomb Raider HD, MGS V, Trine 2, etc. These are among the best looking games out there!

Hell even Mario kart 8, Bayonetta 2, and Splatoon are good looking games on the weakest console this gen running at 60 fps, and benefitting heavily for it.

60 fps is borderline necessary to certain genres that require precise control and reaction reliability. Fighting games, racers, hack and slash games and platformers, specifically.

I will concede that not every game needs 60 fps. Horror games can provide more detailed environments to enhance the mood at the cost of 60 fps, and games like Heavy Rain need maximum visual fidelity to immerse the player in a cinematic experience.

There's other examples too. But, by and large, 60 frames helps games age better, makes them more competitive and enticing to many.

magiciandude1277d ago

"A higher framerate is nice, but it's pretty much never necessary"

Tell that to any developer that aims for 60FPS in any of their games, Hicken...

LamerTamer1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )


At 60 FPS you need to render twice as many frames in a second over 30, that is not free. That is extremely taxing on hardware. It would take more than just going from 1080p to 900p, you would probably need to go down to 720p which is just hideous. To go to 60 you need to sacrifice A LOT of graphical effects and fidelity. TLOU didn't have all that many effects compared to native PS4 games and you had to lower shadow quality to get 60.

Some games I can see sacrificing graphics quality to get 60 like online shooters and fighting games. For immersive type games like Dying light or Bloodborne I prefer better graphics over 60 fps.

That said I think devs should put in options like they do on PC. Allow gamers to tailor FPS resolution and effects to taste. I may want 1080p and 30 FPS with better graphics, others may not mind a graphics and res downgrade to get 60. Put an option in a menu called "advanced options" or something.

Concertoine1277d ago


Where did I say it was free...? Of course it takes a lot of effort. Just like making a graphically intensive, 30 fps game requires trade-offs and effort.

maniacmayhem1277d ago


That is some awesome defense to cover the tracks of why some games on a more powerful system may not achieve the precious 1080p/60fps everyone expected to have.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1277d ago
Big_Game_Hunters1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

And people who know better care about it even more. 60FPS is a lot better than 30. Most of my games run well above 60 frames on my PC, I can feel it when games are 30 frames or lower. my most anticipated game Xenoblade X probably runs at 30 frames, One of its flaws.

Who said anything about sacrificing features? Nintendo gets a lot of their games running at 60, not by stripping features, but by sacrificeing the less important, resolution.

rainslacker1277d ago

Removing features in the name of progress is nothing new. Sucks, but people lap up PR more than they think critically on if the PR is actually justifiable.

Halo2ODST21277d ago

Split-screen is more important than petty 60 fps.

yarbie10001277d ago

I think more people will enjoy 60fps over split-screen. I know I will.

Moldiver1277d ago

"I think more people will enjoy 60fps over split-screen. I know I will."

^^This. generally you will be playing your console by yourself most of the time. I wouldnt want to suffer downgraded visuals for a split screen mode, I hardly use. Give me co op inline, with the best visuals possible on the hardware

Rimeskeem1277d ago

It's pretty simple, gameplay makes a game.

tuglu_pati1277d ago

also, its simple, bad frame-rate brakes a game doesn't matter how good the gameplay is. Both gameplay and frame-rate go hand to hand.

spicelicka1277d ago (Edited 1277d ago )

I think we'll find out at E3 what they're really adding that would be technically not be feasible in split-screen. If the campaign is amazing and innovative it would be totally forgivable.

I don't want to be positive or negative about this until E3. They would never remove split-screen co-op unless it was absolutely necessary for the benefit of the game. For all we know many features were cut down from past halo games because of the inclusion of split-screen! We just never heard about it in the news.

Giant set-pieces, cinematic events in a sand-box environment with 60 fps, 4 player co-op, and split-screen on top is a whole lot of shit to work around. This is why past halo campaigns had certain limitations.

Show all comments (46)
The story is too old to be commented.