Support NeoGAF

[The artful mincer]

No. The discussion is about framerate and you brought up crossgen games like an idiot. You might as well have been talking about the Cowabunga Collection and how it "doesn't really take advantage of the PS5" for all the relevance it had.

Calls people "so called "gamers""with low standards and zero ambition . Complains about snobbery.

Not the same poster...

 

[Drizzlehell]

It's nice to see that people at least have their priorities straight but there won't be any backlash if all games go 30 FPS because gamers are spineless and will buy that shit anyway.

 

[Naru]

Fate in humanity restored.

 

[BlackTron]

There's no concept of "sacrifice" when a game is designed around 60fps from the start. And the so called "sacrifices" often result in a slight drop in resolution or lod changes which no one notices or gives a fuck about during gameplay.

This is simply nonsense. Any time you put system resources towards one area, they are no longer available somewhere else. In other words, if you are targeting 60FPS, it means you will need to make concessions in either graphics quality, or frame rate.

You aren't going to get 60FPS, 4K, big open world with large draw distance, high polygon models and a lot of effects like lighting, ray tracing, physics etc. On the current hardware, if developers want a lot of things on that list, one of the first things on the chopping block could easily be 60FPS. All other things being equal, going down from 60 to 30 might enable 4k, or RT, or the type and number of polygon counts they want in a large environment...whatever. Actually what I just described is already a thing in graphic preset options on consoles, where sometimes you LITERALLY trade 60FPS for RT lol.

This idea that if they had "designed it that way" from the start isn't really true. It means they can do a much better job than tacking a 60fps option onto a game designed around 30FPS, especially if that game was made with 30 so intimately in mind is has timing and game logic tied to framerate. But that doesn't mean there is no concept of "sacrifice" to push higher FPS.

 

[Klosshufvud]

30 FPS has too many sacrifices. Devs should aim for 15 fps and give me dat fidelity bros!

 

[shiru]

This is simply nonsense. Any time you put system resources towards one area, they are no longer available somewhere else. In other words, if you are targeting 60FPS, it means you will need to make concessions in either graphics quality, or frame rate.

You aren't going to get 60FPS, 4K, big open world with large draw distance, high polygon models and a lot of effects like lighting, ray tracing, physics etc. On the current hardware, if developers want a lot of things on that list, one of the first things on the chopping block could easily be 60FPS. All other things being equal, going down from 60 to 30 might enable 4k, or RT, or the type and number of polygon counts they want in a large environment...whatever. Actually what I just described is already a thing in graphic preset options on consoles, where sometimes you LITERALLY trade 60FPS for RT lol.

This idea that if they had "designed it that way" from the start isn't really true. It means they can do a much better job than tacking a 60fps option onto a game designed around 30FPS, especially if that game was made with 30 so intimately in mind is has timing and game logic tied to framerate. But that doesn't mean there is no concept of "sacrifice" to push higher FPS.

You severely misunderstood me. I didn't say there aren't concessions to be made when targeting higher framerates. I said that "sacrifices" aren't on a developer's mind when developing at 60fps, or 40fps or 30 for that matter when they are already designing around a particular framerate from the start. Just like they aren't thinking what they could have achieved and missed doing at 15fps instead of 30fps or what they had to cut to have stable fps. And players don't think of it either. When playing Doom Eternal they aren't daydreaming about what ID could have done at lower framerates. They are marveling at the incredibly detailed graphics, humongous levels and extremely smooth gameplay.

 

[Edgelord79]

Personally I prefer to play most fast paced games at 60 fps regardless of how great they look in fidelity mode. It’s not so much a visual thing I can see as sounding I can feel greatly.

The type of game matters though. Might switch to 30 fps if it’s a slower game though where frame rate isn’t that important to me.

I’m seeing a lot of interesting posts. The truth is people are not on a 60 fps kick on consoles as if this is a fad. They can actively feel the difference and it is proving difficult to go back now.

Ultimately, having the choice for the player is best regardless if some people feel it will somehow hamper “progress” because it will get more people to play the game,

 

[Cyborg]

I prefer graphics and stable frames. I always play on 30fps to clear the game and then I switch to 60fps (if it's an option) to Platinum it. With GoW;R I will go with the 40fps if it has the same graphics settings and then clear everything with 60fps.

 

[BlackTron]

You severely misunderstood me. I didn't say there aren't concessions to be made when targeting higher framerates. I said that "sacrifices" aren't on a developer's mind when developing at 60fps, or 40fps or 30 for that matter when they are already designing around a particular framerate from the start. Just like they aren't thinking what they could have achieved and missed doing at 15fps instead of 30fps or what they had to cut to have stable fps. And players don't think of it either. When playing Doom Eternal they aren't daydreaming about what ID could have done at lower framerates. They are marveling at the incredibly detailed graphics, humongous levels and extremely smooth gameplay.

Um ok.

 

[The_Mike]

I prefer graphics and stable frames. I always play on 30fps to clear the game and then I switch to 60fps (if it's an option) to Platinum it. With GoW;R I will go with the 40fps if it has the same graphics settings and then clear everything with 60fps.

Why would you choose graphics over how responsive the game is?

I am starting to believe come people simply dont care because they aren't as good to play games or the game carries them too much in regards of aim assist, because aiming in 30 FPS is absolutely hideous. Theres too much lag and smoothness to be pretty good at it without decent fps.

Besides, stable is a poor choice of word, because any framerate can be stable. I mean, I understand what you mean, but its poor worded.

 

[shiru]

Um ok.

 

[Soodanim]

Why would you choose graphics over how responsive the game is?

People are allowed to prefer that. Some people just prefer the visuals and the perfect gameplay isn't quite as high a priority for whatever reason. I don't agree with it, but that's just how some people are.

 

[STARSBarry]

I wonder if anyone has set it so that the game sends feedback over what graphics options people prefer for a game, visuals or preformance. This would set to rest what people are arguing about in this forum that "consumers" don't care about frame rates and its just elitests like myself who give a shit.

Plenty of games get you to sign an agreement essentially saying that they are going to monitor and send back information to improve the gameplay experience before your allowed to even play, so would be intresting to see the likes of Ubisoft weigh in with what they have gathered in regards to this.

 

[BlackTron]

Well so does resolution and graphics, asshat. And no one is mandating anything. People just have a natural preference for smooth and stable motion.

This was preordained to happen with the new members.

I agree with your preference for 60FPS, I disagree with your shitty attitude.

 

[The_Mike]

People are allowed to prefer that. Some people just prefer the visuals and the perfect gameplay isn't quite as high a priority for whatever reason. I don't agree with it, but that's just how some people are.

Of course they are, I just wonder why graphics are more important than responsive controls and a much prettier picture in motion. I use more time moving my view in a game than standing stil, at no 30 fps game can beat that fluidness.

 

[Klosshufvud]

Of course they are, I just wonder why graphics are more important than responsive controls and a much prettier picture in motion. I use more time moving my view in a game than standing stil, at no 30 fps game can beat that fluidness.

The funniest part to me are people saying they prefer nice visuals over higher frame rate. As if 30 fps isn't jarring as fuck when the game has everything else cranked up to maximum. That frame rate boost becomes one of the greatest visual gains to a game when the game is already running at 1080p+ with high-quality assets. By butchering a moving picture into half the frame rate so "it becomes nicer to look at" is just mind boggling to me. 30 fps games are awful to look at.

 

[rofif]

The funniest part to me are people saying they prefer nice visuals over higher frame rate. As if 30 fps isn't jarring as fuck when the game has everything else cranked up to maximum. That frame rate boost becomes one of the greatest visual gains to a game when the game is already running at 1080p+ with high-quality assets. By butchering a moving picture into half the frame rate so "it becomes nicer to look at" is just mind boggling to me. 30 fps games are awful to look at.

it really isn't depending on the game input delay and motion blur implementation.
If your bar for graphics is that the game has to run at 1080p? That is 2008 levels of trash. 1080p looks like fucking ass. It bothers me way more than 30fps
ho is this bad?

 

[Cyborg]

Why would you choose graphics over how responsive the game is?

I am starting to believe come people simply dont care because they aren't as good to play games or the game carries them too much in regards of aim assist, because aiming in 30 FPS is absolutely hideous. Theres too much lag and smoothness to be pretty good at it without decent fps.

Besides, stable is a poor choice of word, because any framerate can be stable. I mean, I understand what you mean, but its poor worded.

I have zero issues with 30 fps! I'm playing games since Nintendo NES and I just enjoy them regardless if it's 30 or 60. Games were 60 matters (race/shooters) are often 60 and there is no 30 option so I have no issues with aiming or how responsive it is.

 

[Klosshufvud]

it really isn't depending on the game input delay and motion blur implementation.
If your bar for graphics is that the game has to run at 1080p? That is 2008 levels of trash. 1080p looks like fucking ass. It bothers me way more than 30fps
ho is this bad?

This game really represents to me everything that's bad about modern games. Brain dead gameplay with zero interactivity in favor of graphics shoved down our throats in super linear fashion. I don't know why the devs thought the million rats excuse was valid considering how a hundred or a million makes absolutely zero difference to gameplay. This is actually a really good example of the point I wanted to make. The games choked to 30 fps this gen aren't so because they are making some huge advances in gameplay or scope that's never been seen before. They're just pushing more shit on to the camera for no good reason while the gameplay suffers.

However, the gameplay in Plague Tale is so barebones and nonexistant, I guess for that particular game, frame rate doesn't really matter. Even if it is 15 fps.

 

[balls of snow]

This game really represents to me everything that's bad about modern games. Brain dead gameplay with zero interactivity in favor of graphics shoved down our throats in super linear fashion. I don't know why the devs thought the million rats excuse was valid considering how a hundred or a million makes absolutely zero difference to gameplay. This is actually a really good example of the point I wanted to make. The games choked to 30 fps this gen aren't so because they are making some huge advances in gameplay or scope that's never been seen before. They're just pushing more shit on to the camera for no good reason while the gameplay suffers.

However, the gameplay in Plague Tale is so barebones and nonexistant, I guess for that particular game, frame rate doesn't really matter. Even if it is 15 fps.

We get it you dont like adventure games.

 

[rofif]

This game really represents to me everything that's bad about modern games. Brain dead gameplay with zero interactivity in favor of graphics shoved down our throats in super linear fashion. I don't know why the devs thought the million rats excuse was valid considering how a hundred or a million makes absolutely zero difference to gameplay. This is actually a really good example of the point I wanted to make. The games choked to 30 fps this gen aren't so because they are making some huge advances in gameplay or scope that's never been seen before. They're just pushing more shit on to the camera for no good reason while the gameplay suffers.

However, the gameplay in Plague Tale is so barebones and nonexistant, I guess for that particular game, frame rate doesn't really matter. Even if it is 15 fps.

good. nobody is forcing you to play it.
I've not played it myself either. I am just watching twitch playthrough and it looks perfectly fine for a 30fps game.
maybe the gameplay I posted is not very representative but you get the point.

What I am saying - this game would not be ANY better if it was 60 or even 1000fps. For this game, graphics is what matters as long as it's reasonably smooth looking which it is.
I am not playing games always for a challenge or to punish myself. I like to relax with a controller in hand, get the story, the atmosphere and so on

 

[CJ_75]

PS4 was a 1080p console. With PS5, why not go for 1440p60 with Raytracing lite?
4K60 with full fat Raytracing is just out of reach and probably still will be for PS5 Pro.

 

[Klosshufvud]

We get it you dont like adventure games.

It's not an adventure game. It's a push stick forward and watch a glorified Netflix show.

good. nobody is forcing you to play it.
I've not played it myself either. I am just watching twitch playthrough and it looks perfectly fine for a 30fps game.
maybe the gameplay I posted is not very representative but you get the point.

What I am saying - this game would not be ANY better if it was 60 or even 1000fps. For this game, graphics is what matters as long as it's reasonably smooth looking which it is.
I am not playing games always for a challenge or to punish myself. I like to relax with a controller in hand, get the story, the atmosphere and so on

30 or 60 fps makes no difference for a game that's hardly even a game. But I'd argue 60 fps would be easier on the eyes than 30 fps + the million rats.

 

[The artful mincer]

Going back to the old PS2 titles, I definitely have more issues going back to the 30hz over the 60hz ones. Despite its age, PS2 had an obscene amount of 60 fps games that look and play great to this day. Of course 60 fps comes at a cost but we've reached a point where devs really need to justify that 30 fps lock. Because these new consoles are actually well-constructed beefy machines. The 30 fps locked games this gen have not been due to ambition.

Likewise, would you justify a game running at 240p today because it was "perfectly fine" back in the days and devs said they wanted to prioritize enemy count instead? You wouldn't. You would consider it unplayable. Which is why this argument falls apart so easily. With time, standards increase. And now standards have increased to a 60 frame rate minimum. We've already seen this gen that devs are capable of making extremely impressive open world games run just fine at 60 fps. And I'm honestly more willing to take an open-world game running at 60 fps with some limitations than some crazy "everything is rendered everywhere at once" thing that runs at 30 fps. Because my experience playing older games is that the 30hz games are just extremely tough to go back to, despite the greater scale. 60 fps is the better future proofing of a game.

Well sure gamers are greedy we want it all! We want high resolution, high framerate, bigger worlds, more enemies, better physics etc etc etc. If ones of those is missing we are sure as hell gonna are complain about it.

It's great that such a high standard can be achieved with 60fps but we're still in the early stages of these consoles with not many fully next gen game released yet Which some people are really pissed about despite having nearly every game have 60fps mode at this point. Can't it be argued that plague tale was ambitious with its rat tech?

You raise an interesting point about older ps2 games. I would argue to you that alot of classics from that era m have since been updated to 60fps e.g mgs3, re4 and shadow of the Coloussus. Designing them around 30fps allowed them to be more ambitious and now they stand up even better now they have been updated to 60 than games that were designed around 60.

The best example is MGS2 to MGS3. MGS3 had far better more expansive level design than 2 and is now even better now you can play it at 60.

 

[Radical_3d]

I always preferred fidelity over framerate in non fast paced games but, sincerely, since the PS4 is getting harder and harder to distinguish the improvements without a DF video, so I’m not bothering with visuals anymore and I choose smoothness.

 

[qthaumaturge]

Theres too much lag and smoothness to be pretty good at it without decent fps.

Have you ever tried to aim in Quake 1 on 486 without a 3D card?

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

People are not going to miss what was never intended.

This is entirely my point. People cannot miss what they cannot know. Gamers, you included, have no concept of what would have to be cut from a game to achieve a 60fps update.

Which is really not that much. 30fps is not some "secret sauce" that unlocks the "full potential" of a console.

You have no idea. You literally have no idea.

As it pertains to the performance of a game, it IS a zero-sum game. If you half the time the processors are afforded to complete their workloads, with finite hardware performance, it means they can only do half of the work.

It's THAT simple.

So conversely, if you double the frame time, you can throw roughly double the amount of work at your processing cores. So there is more scope to push the boat out on visual effects and game simulation complexity.

If they cared that much about graphics, ai, npcs and other shit they would demand 10fps to "get the most out of a console", playability be damned. After all, people played Doom "just fine" on the snes.

Again, your reasoning is circular.

Gamers cannot care about what they don't know. They have no idea what is cut in development to achieve 60fps, so they cannot form an informed opinion.

And devs certainly know what they can do with double the frame time, since we've had 30fps for the better part of almost 3 decades now as the dominant framerate on consoles.

And no, going lower would just ruin the play experience, because a) it looks like a slideshow (30fps is comfortably above the minimum perceptible of a human eye) and b) the control input would be arse. But you knew this already, so your silly hyperbole was unwarranted.

 

[The artful mincer]

What's with all these silly strawman arguments about 15fps now. Nobody's asking for that!

We're asking for a happy compromise between everything resolution, framerate, scale, physics, AI etc., etc.

Believe it or not a huge amount of people are ok with 30 while being aware 60fps feels better. So many of the most beloved and best selling games were designed around 30.

Christ I've flat out said I prefer 60 for some games but I'm less fussed about it for others especially if the resources go into something more interesting

Also something not mentioned much is Framerate is an easy thing to fix with better tech overtime. We have seen that this generation with huge the amount of last gen games now running at 60 on the new consoles.

Stuff like Level Design, amount of enemies, physics AI take far work.

What do you think took more resource's Last of remaster or Last of Us remake?

 

[shiru]

This is entirely my point. People cannot miss what they cannot know. Gamers, you included, have no concept of what would have to be cut from a game to achieve a 60fps update.

And we don't care.

You have no idea. You literally have no idea.

As it pertains to the performance of a game, it IS a zero-sum game. If you half the time the processors are afforded to complete their workloads, with finite hardware performance, it means they can only do half of the work.

It's THAT simple.

So conversely, if you double the frame time, you can throw roughly double the amount of work at your processing cores. So there is more scope to push the boat out on visual effects and game simulation complexity.

What the hell? You are not teaching me anything. You and the other dude have seriously poor reading comprehension. This is so laughable.

Again, your reasoning is circular.

Gamers cannot care about what they don't know. They have no idea what is cut in development to achieve 60fps, so they cannot form an informed opinion.

And devs certainly know what they can do with double the frame time, since we've had 30fps for the better part of almost 3 decades now as the dominant framerate on consoles.

More reading comprehension issues. Firstly, the vast majority of gamers don't obsess over what could have been if developers did this instead of that, so it doesn't matter. They only care about what they have on their hands. And they are happy with whatever had to be cut to achieve smooth gameplay. Second, yes, devs know and are conscious about what higher framerate entails. No, they aren't actively thinking of the "cuts" during the design phase.

And no, going lower would just ruin the play experience

For you. For others it would mean a richer gameplay experience. Who are you to dictate their preferences? Maybe they just have higher standards for physics, ai, npcs and stuff than you and aren't willing to compromise.

 

[The_Mike]

Have you ever tried to aim in Quake 1 on 486 without a 3D card?

No and I could only imagine it was hideous.

Also could be great if we could make some progression instead of saying it was also shit back in the day with shit hardware.

Next gen consoles shouldn't be shit hardware. Get some standards.

 

[shiru]

And no, going lower would just ruin the play experience

Also, how can you be so sure? You cannot make an informed opinion without knowing what had to be cut in development to achieve 30fps

 

[The artful mincer]

And we don't care.

Good for you.

What the hell? You are not teaching me anything. You and the other dude have seriously poor reading comprehension. This is so laughable.


More reading comprehension issues. Firstly, the vast majority of gamers don't obsess over what could have been if developers did this instead of that, so it doesn't matter.

Yes they do. People go mad when cross gen games are announced because they understand the game could be better if developed exclusively for next gen systems

They only care about what they have on their hands. And they are happy with whatever had to be cut to achieve smooth gameplay.

Who the hell cares if the Framerate is smooth but the rest of game is average dross?! Call of Duty has been rock solid 60 for years but 90% of this Forum don't give a Flying hoot about it.

Second, yes, devs know and are conscious about what higher framerate entails. No, they aren't actively thinking of the "cuts" during the design phase.


For you. For others it would mean a richer gameplay experience. Who are you to dictate their preferences? Maybe they just have higher standards for physics, ai, npcs and stuff than you and aren't willing to compromise.

Well if these people exist then good for them. The same way it's fine for you to prefer 60fps over graphics or other things. But they don't exist at least not in large numbers because it's a silly strawman you created to win argument.

 

[Psychostar]

Man this is always a complicated choice for me to take.

When I played Ratchet and clank on launch, the options were fps or graphics, and I went graphics because the fps just didn't look like an issue to me - and I enjoyed that! Of course going back after they released the updates and new balance modes I have to agree that the game plays better now and I wouldn't have chosen fidelity if these options were there at launch, but it never felt like a problem while I played that game on launch. Maybe I was blinded by " Yay I just got a ps5" vibes.

Then there's games like Demon souls. Now this game just looked so fucking incredible on fidelity but the game was truly, truly unplayable. I genuinely believe they threw both modes in so players could gawk at the graphics and take screenshots then swap to performance mode for the actual game.

When Spider-man:MM came out, I chose fidelity over performance and I don't regret it. For me personally, whilst I could see a small difference between the two modes, the difference never felt significant enough for me to drop the visuals for more performance. That game felt more cinematic however and I didn't mind playing it at 30fps for that reason anyway. I'm glad we get performance modes however as it does make a difference when handling certain challenges where the gameplay becomes the more important aspect over the atmosphere.

I played most of horizon: forbidden west on fidelity but when they fixed all the issues and released the improved performance mode, I swapped to that and never looked back. I enjoyed playing it both ways but admittedly prefer performance - it makes more sense for this game, and the loss in visuals looks so little that there's no point not to play with better frames.


I dunno neogaf. Give me more games like Returnal, which just scream ' Here's a nextgen game. Go have some fun and stop looking for tweaks because it's perfect already'. ( Yes, Returnal is amazing and you should play it if you haven't.)
The end...?

 

[Benniewise de Clown]

I stand by what I've always said: locked 30fps is bare minimum and perfectly fine.

But given the option, I'd take 60fps if visuals don't take too much of a hit.

Better would be 40fps/120hz mode, as I happen to have a capable tv (A90J).
I don't mind the drop in res for MW2, for example, game looks clean enough for me.

 

[JeloSWE]

it really isn't depending on the game input delay and motion blur implementation.
If your bar for graphics is that the game has to run at 1080p? That is 2008 levels of trash. 1080p looks like fucking ass. It bothers me way more than 30fps
ho is this bad?

I personally HATE camera motion blur (I don't mind object), it's physically nauseating to me, I can't see anything in the environment until I stop the camera movement and while it's bad at 60fps it's out right horrible at 30 fps. You are forced to do a pan camera, stop camera, look at the environment for clues, pan, stop, look... and so on. If the game runs without camera blur at 60 fps it's not as good as 120+ but perfectly good to pick out useful information while on the move.

 

[The artful mincer]

Man this is always a complicated choice for me to take.

When I played Ratchet and clank on launch, the options were fps or graphics, and I went graphics because the fps just didn't look like an issue to me - and I enjoyed that! Of course going back after they released the updates and new balance modes I have to agree that the game plays better now and I wouldn't have chosen fidelity if these options were there at launch, but it never felt like a problem while I played that game on launch. Maybe I was blinded by " Yay I just got a ps5" vibes.

Then there's games like Demon souls. Now this game just looked so fucking incredible on fidelity but the game was truly, truly unplayable. I genuinely believe they threw both modes in so players could gawk at the graphics and take screenshots then swap to performance mode for the actual game.

When Spider-man:MM came out, I chose fidelity over performance and I don't regret it. For me personally, whilst I could see a small difference between the two modes, the difference never felt significant enough for me to drop the visuals for more performance. That game felt more cinematic however and I didn't mind playing it at 30fps for that reason anyway. I'm glad we get performance modes however as it does make a difference when handling certain challenges where the gameplay becomes the more important aspect over the atmosphere.

I played most of horizon: forbidden west on fidelity but when they fixed all the issues and released the improved performance mode, I swapped to that and never looked back. I enjoyed playing it both ways but admittedly prefer performance - it makes more sense for this game, and the loss in visuals looks so little that there's no point not to play with better frames.


I dunno neogaf. Give me more games like Returnal, which just scream ' Here's a nextgen game. Go have some fun and stop looking for tweaks because it's perfect already'. ( Yes, Returnal is amazing and you should play it if you haven't.)
The end...?

A fair and balanced post how dare you!

The most important take away from this thread Is that everyone should play Returnal

 

[shiru]

Yes they do. People go mad when cross gen

Bringing up crossgen again... absolutely nothing in this post is worth adressing, but the context of this discussion is framerate.

 

[qthaumaturge]

shit back in the day with shit hardware

486 was state of the art at some point.
Crysis didn't run at more than 20 fps too back at the day.

 

[Klosshufvud]

Well sure gamers are greedy we want it all! We want high resolution, high framerate, bigger worlds, more enemies, better physics etc etc etc. If ones of those is missing we are sure as hell gonna are complain about it.

It's great that such a high standard can be achieved with 60fps but we're still in the early stages of these consoles with not many fully next gen game released yet Which some people are really pissed about despite having nearly every game have 60fps mode at this point. Can't it be argued that plague tale was ambitious with its rat tech?

You raise an interesting point about older ps2 games. I would argue to you that alot of classics from that era m have since been updated to 60fps e.g mgs3, re4 and shadow of the Coloussus. Designing them around 30fps allowed them to be more ambitious and now they stand up even better now they have been updated to 60 than games that were designed around 60.

The best example is MGS2 to MGS3. MGS3 had far better more expansive level design than 2 and is now even better now you can play it at 60.

I wouldn't say Plague Tale is particularly ambitious with its rat tech. More like wasteful of precious horse power that could've gone into a more fluid performance. I personally can't see how the million rats impact the gameplay in a meaningful way and isn't just there as a spectacle.

Regarding those games that got boosted to 60 fps I get your point. It's a nice compromise to work yourself around the limitations of a console. However, if I know that a 60 fps version was coming down the line, I'd probably just wait. I did just that for Ghost of Tsushima and don't regret a thing. I regret not doing it for GoW aswell. In 2004, I could tolerate playing games in 480i and 30 fps. Neither of those are preferrable in 2022. It's a damn shame that frame rate has had to lag behind due to the push for higher and higher resolutions. I'd even argue that 7th gen should've been yet another 480p generation since many of those games had unacceptable performance on those consoles.

 

[The artful mincer]

I wouldn't say Plague Tale is particularly ambitious with its rat tech. More like wasteful of precious horse power that could've gone into a more fluid performance. I personally can't see how the million rats impact the gameplay in a meaningful way and isn't just there as a spectacle.

I see what you mean personally the game doesn't Interest in the slightest and going 60fps certainly wouldn't change that .

Regarding those games that got boosted to 60 fps I get your point. It's a nice compromise to work yourself around the limitations of a console. However, if I know that a 60 fps version was coming down the line, I'd probably just wait. I did just that for Ghost of Tsushima and don't regret a thing.

Fair enough I played ghost on PS4 I got big problems with it though unrelated to framerate.

I regret not doing it for GoW aswell.

Okay this is were it's tricky. GOW is a top 3 of last generation for me. Now undeniably its better now on ps5 at 60 but would it have been the same game built to 60fps on PS4? Maybe buts it difficulty to know what would have to be cut or changed to get it to run at 60.

In 2004, I could tolerate playing games in 480i and 30 fps. Neither of those are preferrable in 2022. It's a damn shame that frame rate has had to lag behind due to the push for higher and higher resolutions.

I'am with you here hopefully there's dimishing returns on resolution so we can focus on other stuff.

I'd even argue that 7th gen should've been yet another 480p generation since many of those games had unacceptable performance on those consoles.

Interesting 720p was a damn big jump but other stuff could have been brought further along instead Including framerate. I played at 480i for a while on 7th gen and the graphics improvement was really apparent without 720p. I gotta admit it was hard to go back after experiencing 720p though.

 

[Represent.]

because TVs operate at either 60hz or 120hz, all consoles only support 60hz output or 120hz output, many don't have VRR yet and therefore running at 60fps is optimal.

why? because you can run 60fps at a native 60hz.
running at 30fps on 60hz means you get a double image effect which smears your image in fast motion. meaning in motion you lose image clarity and therefore all your glorious pixels that you see standing still will be blurred out, not even considering camera motion blur which is the default for 30fps games (sometimes with no option to turn it off) and which will destroy all detail in motion.

that's why 60fps on the current TV technology and the capabilities of current consoles is the optimal lowest mark developers should aim for.
you output 60hz and the system renders 1 frame for every refresh



ah yes, since the beginning of time... I'm slowly starting to think you're a troll because of this bullshit you're spewing here.

first of all, back in the 2D days 60fps was very much the default, the industry standard, with 30fps being the odd one out.

secondly, why do you not want 15fps? or 20fps? that's absolutely playable. are you saying Perfect Dark was unplayable? or GoldenEye getting top review scores and selling 8 million copies?
is StarFox unplayable? selling 3 million copies and getting a shitton of positive scores....

your absolutely arbitrary number, 30fps, has ZERO logical basis. you just picked that because YOU think anything below is not good... well guess what, most PS5 owners thingk anything below 60fps is no longer good enough

so to them you are the one pushing for 15fps, you are the one posting nonsense, how could you actually propose 30fps? THAT'S UNPLAYABLE! no one wants 30fps! 60fps was the industry standard since.. THE BEGINNING OF TIME

I like how you completely ignored the SpiderMan video. Why?

Because it destroys your entire argument? Literally everything you're saying is a mute point. All you have to do is watch 20 seconds of that gameplay I posted to see 30fps is not a "blurry unplayable mess" like the lie you people spew out there.

And its fast moving combat too. So theres no tHe CaMeRa iSnT MOviNg excuses this time.

Here it is again incase you missed it

 

[rofif]

I like how you completely ignored the SpiderMan video. Why?

Because it destroys your entire argument? Literally everything you're saying is a mute point. All you have to do is watch 20 seconds of that gameplay I posted to see 30fps is not a "blurry unplayable mess" like the lie you people spew out there.

And its fast moving combat too. So theres no tHe CaMeRa iSnT MOviNg excuses this time.

Here it is again incase you missed it

I've tried posting other videos. It doesn't work on these people.
They will say that 30fps is slideshow or blurry mess while it is clearly perfectly fine. Or they will say "but the video is 60fps" while only the yt container is 60fps ....
They do not understand why motion blur exists... and that defeats their 60fps argument too because 60fps is not enough to completely let go of motion blur.

I posted vid from horizon and it didn't work because "cAmERa is moving tooSLOW" . You posted clearly good looking combat and they say it doesn't work.
There is no winning. let it go.

I understand it's slower to control and response but it can be only 16ms slower if done perfectly. not 70ms slower like 4k30 demons souls mode.
edit: don't get me wrong. 60fps is obviously better. Just that 30fps is not a slideshow

 

[Klosshufvud]

I see what you mean personally the game doesn't Interest in the slightest and going 60fps certainly wouldn't change that .

Fair enough I played ghost on PS4 I got big problems with it though unrelated to framerate.

Okay this is were it's tricky. GOW is a top 3 of last generation for me. Now undeniably its better now on ps5 at 60 but would it have been the same game built to 60fps on PS4? Maybe buts it difficulty to know what would have to be cut or changed to get it to run at 60.

I'am with you here hopefully there's dimishing returns on resolution so we can focus on other stuff.

Interesting 720p was a damn big jump but other stuff could have been brought further along instead Including framerate. I played at 480i for a while on 7th gen and the graphics improvement was really apparent without 720p. I gotta admit it was hard to go back after experiencing 720p though.

Yeah it's pretty interesting to discuss what games would've looked like at higher frame rate targets. I know the PS2 GoW games were uncapped (mostly in the 50 range) and still phenomenonal games. I definitely felt like devs suffered going to HD and the price paid was frame rate. I'm amazed how many PS2 games look great today with native resolution upscaling. Those devs were pulling off miracles. Lastly, one game this gen I do feel justifies its 30 fps is of course MSFS.

 

[The artful mincer]

Yeah it's pretty interesting to discuss what games would've looked like at higher frame rate targets. I know the PS2 GoW games were uncapped (mostly in the 50 range) and still phenomenonal games. I definitely felt like devs suffered going to HD and the price paid was frame rate. I'm amazed how many PS2 games look great today with native resolution upscaling. Those devs were pulling off miracles. Lastly, one game this gen I do feel justifies its 30 fps is of course MSFS.

Whats MSFS? Microsoft flight simulator?

Yeah some ps2 games still look great mgs2 and 3 particularly stand up well

 

[Klosshufvud]

Whats MSFS? Microsoft flight simulator?

Yeah some ps2 games still look great mgs2 and 3 particularly stand up well

Yes, one of the few games I can give a pass for its 30 fps this gen. It's heavily demanding on CPU cores due to its nature as a simulator with a million calculations going off everywhere.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

And we don't care.

What arrogance makes you think you're qualified to speak for all gamers?

More reading comprehension issues. Firstly, the vast majority of gamers don't obsess over what could have been if developers did this instead of that, so it doesn't matter. They only care about what they have on their hands. And they are happy with whatever had to be cut to achieve smooth gameplay. Second, yes, devs know and are conscious about what higher framerate entails. No, they aren't actively thinking of the "cuts" during the design phase.

What arrogance makes you think you're qualified to speak for game developers, especially when you're not one?

For you. For others it would mean a richer gameplay experience. Who are you to dictate their preferences? Maybe they just have higher standards for physics, ai, npcs and stuff than you and aren't willing to compromise.

WTF are you talking about? Playing a game at less than 30fps is unplayable. It's not richer for anyone. This is an objective truth, not some subjective opinion.

Sounds like you think I was talking about going lower than 60fps and you have the cheek to criticise my reading comprehension... lol. What a goon!

 

[01011001]

WTF are you talking about? Playing a game at less than 30fps is unplayable. It's not richer for anyone. This is an objective truth, not some subjective opinion.

it's sentences like these why you folk can't be taken seriously.

20fps games exist, they get played, they are beloved.
how many people do you think enjoyed Ocarina of Time on Switch Online? well, that 20fps game sure is unplayable right? absolutely not playable.

and I must have hallucinated playing through Disaser Report and the majority of its sequel Raw Danger just recently via emulation on my Series X... both locked at 20fps with occasional drops.

crazy how I finished this unpalatable game and loved it, crazy how I finished most of its sequel and will soon finish it at unplayable 20fps.

when the SNES mini came out, guess what the first thing I did was!
I played through Star Fox 2, finally released officially and finished... I had a good time with it, and I bet many had fun with it... well... if that game hits 15fps more than 10% of the time I'd be surprised.

anyone who comes with that nonsense already lost the argument.
20fps is playable, 15fps is also playable, plenty of games ran at such framerates and were loved by millions and got raving reviews as well

 

[Edgelord79]

Of course they are, I just wonder why graphics are more important than responsive controls and a much prettier picture in motion. I use more time moving my view in a game than standing stil, at no 30 fps game can beat that fluidness.

There is nothing to wonder about. It just is.

This entire thread argument overall anyhow because it has to do with personal preferences. I prefer 60 fps over anything, but can also acknowledge some folks prefer 30 fps. I’m not going to wrack my head trying to find out why.

 

[rofif]

I just launched plague tale requiem.
3080, 4k, all settings ultra and DLAA (dlss without res dorp).
Game looks amazing with HDR and is a PRIME example how to do 30fps in this type of game.
It runs about 35 fps with rare drops below 30. With gsync it's still very smooth and looks good.
Only playing like that for test. DLSS quality or Balanced brings it to around 60fps with minor IQ hit.
Without Motion blur, oled handles slow panning not the best. You can see some oled stutter. But with motion blur it is gone. Completely clean panning. Of course more blurry but not stuttery which is worst with low fps content.

Sorry for crummy iphone vid. I shot it 4k60, fps was about 34 in-game... and hdr to sdr youtube conversion made colors terrible. ANYWAY.
Look at the tower. I think it looks less flickery with motion blur and that's what it's all about... And no... It's neither is a slide show or blurry mess. The game is slow as fuck. It's ok for 30fps.
hardly visible on yt(watch 4k full screen)... but motion blur while very heavy in this game, does help to make it look more smooth and stable.
For normal 30fps gameplay, you have plenty of that on yt.

LOOK at the tower
Motion blur off:


Motion blur on:


edit: btw I can't find RT option?

 

[Fuz]