• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Devs forgot how to do proper 30fps.

winjer

Member
I was responding to your "30 fps needs to die" comment, which has nothing to do with reviewers looking at frame-timing.

Frame timing is a valid topic for you to read about (IMO) but not a priority while you hold that view of 30 fps IMO without having a understanding of the founding principles of computer graphics - a book that's first edition was from 1982 (commissioned by IBM) before ATI or Nvidia were even formed, although I didn't view a copy until about 1999.

Also, even if we were talking about frame-timing(also) why would you put reviewers at the same importance as creatives ?

You didn't understand my posts.
I´m talking about how game analysts changed the way they benchmark games.
Not that a tech journalist invented the concept of frame times.
But he did have a strong impact in how companies like NVidia and AMD deal with their drivers.

About the 30 fps, when everything is equal, a game at 30 fps will always be smoother and better to play than a game at 30 fps.
Take a game with the same render queue, in 30 fps it will have higher frame time, than one with 60 fps.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Interesting video that I think many people missed last month from DF.
It shows what I felt since getting a ps5. Some 30fps games are TERRIBLY LAGGY. More than 30fps really should be and it gives even worse impression about 30fps.
I remember comparing Demons Souls 30fps mode to Bloodborne and bloodborne felt so much much more responsive in comparison.
And I was right. DeS 30fps mode is 75ms slower than bloodborne. DF talks about this near the end of the video.


Seems that devs got lazy because they can now include 17 different modes in their games, that they forgot all about good 30fps lock.... and good 60fps lock for that matter. It is more laggy than it should too.
They are most likely falling on slow system level vsynced cap or something similar.

Sure, bloodborne was a little bit stuttery because of all this framepacing but this never bothered me and I now think it was a very fair trade of for very fast input response.
Not every game from last gen does 30fps well though. Final Fantasy XV fidelity mode has so much extreme frame pacing, it is unplayable.... but 1080p30 and 1080p60 modes are perfect, so not sure why 1800p30 is broken like hell.

And no. I will not "just play at performance mode man". Those who say that are ignorant fools.
All the modes are just BS. Make a game and make it properly. And only after that include downgraded performance mode or only fps cap off for vrr users.
When you play a game with good 30fps like uncharted 4 remaster, the trade off is not that bad.
I like best possible graphics and I play on 4k oled on my desk. 1440p can look like crap
I feel there is a bit of irony in this video from Richard when he is talking about the amount of lag being added to DeS remake. or the patched PS4 games.

In Richard's efforts to dismantle any advantages the PS3 had back in the day against the 360, he made such a song and dance about a measly 2nd frame delay(33ms) when the PS3 used triple buffering in games - a feature that couldn't be used on the 360 at HD-ready res s, to avoid tearing, and giving maximum CPU and GPU utilisation and best image quality.

The reason we are seeing such lag in those patched games, is because a hard vsych stops both the CPU and GPU workloads at the sync, meaning the main CPU thread takes a multi frame hit in efficiency for h/w double buffering, that far exceeds teh 33ms lag he said was unacceptable back in ~2007. which stopped games being released in triple buffer mode..
 

PaintTinJr

Member
You didn't understand my posts.
I´m talking about how game analysts changed the way they benchmark games.
Not that a tech journalist invented the concept of frame times.
But he did have a strong impact in how companies like NVidia and AMD deal with their drivers.

About the 30 fps, when everything is equal, a game at 60 fps will always be smoother and better to play than a game at 30 fps.
Take a game with the same render queue, in 30 fps it will have higher frame time, than one with 60 fps.
I would go back to Ueda (SotC creators interview about the PS3 3D remake with 60fps mode), he said the animations were designed to be weighty and the gameplay was no different, other than being 16.6ms closer to the game reading the input, because the animations were tied to a time duration, not the number of frames. So I would still argue a game designed to target 30fps, will never truly escape that playability, whether rendered at 240fps on a PC emulator.

Spiderman on PS5's 60fps mode differs in gameplay very little from the 30fps mode because it is a 30fps. Only how quick and smooth you can move spidey's web targeting is really gaining anything from the added frame-rate. It isn't like comparing Rage on PS3 (60fps) to Destiny at 30fps where the difference is huge,.
 

Hunnybun

Member
To me, releasing best possible graphics at 30fps is the higher standard.
Of course this gen we have vrr, so it would be perfect if ANY game had fps cap off/vrr mode.
This way, we get more fps on PRO consoles automatically

If you want the best possible graphics at 30fps you should buy a PC. Consoles are the preserve of those who like 60fps at merely very decent graphics.
 

rofif

Member
If you want the best possible graphics at 30fps you should buy a PC. Consoles are the preserve of those who like 60fps at merely very decent graphics.
There are other reasons to own a console anyway.
Yeah I have a good gaming pc too
 

PaintTinJr

Member
If you want the best possible graphics at 30fps you should buy a PC. Consoles are the preserve of those who like 60fps at merely very decent graphics.
You might want to inform every marketing department in the industry about that, if you really think that is true.

Better graphics on the box or in promo trailers sell games, not gameplay. 60fps is mostly a fake after thought because the gameplay is designed around 30fps on nearly every big AAA game - outside of simulators or fighting games or 60fps only 1st person shooters - and so are fundamentally 30ffps at their core, even when played on PC at higher fps.
 

winjer

Member
I would go back to Ueda (SotC creators interview about the PS3 3D remake with 60fps mode), he said the animations were designed to be weighty and the gameplay was no different, other than being 16.6ms closer to the game reading the input, because the animations were tied to a time duration, not the number of frames. So I would still argue a game designed to target 30fps, will never truly escape that playability, whether rendered at 240fps on a PC emulator.

Spiderman on PS5's 60fps mode differs in gameplay very little from the 30fps mode because it is a 30fps. Only how quick and smooth you can move spidey's web targeting is really gaining anything from the added frame-rate. It isn't like comparing Rage on PS3 (60fps) to Destiny at 30fps where the difference is huge,.

You are placing all kinds of conundrums to falsify the fact that 60 fps will always be better than 30 fps.
Have your animations rendered at a higher rate, or have interpolation that can scale with frame rate, and it will be better as the frame rate increases.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
You are placing all kinds of conundrums to falsify the fact that 60 fps will always be better than 30 fps.
Have your animations rendered at a higher rate, or have interpolation that can scale with frame rate, and it will be better as the frame rate increases.
Not at all, the intended creative vision of the game director is the intention, so adding in a soap opera effect with more frames can't automatically be argued as better for all gamers,, can it?

Do you prefer the original six SW 24fps films look - as :Lucas intended - or Disney's 60fps TV soap opera Mandalorian look? As it is SW, I prefer what Lucas intended and find all the space scenes in the Mandalorian to look like garbage, despite the higher fps.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
You might want to inform every marketing department in the industry about that, if you really think that is true.

Better graphics on the box or in promo trailers sell games, not gameplay. 60fps is mostly a fake after thought because the gameplay is designed around 30fps on nearly every big AAA game - outside of simulators or fighting games or 60fps only 1st person shooters - and so are fundamentally 30ffps at their core, even when played on PC at higher fps.
Then explain how the vast majority of games have no problems with bugs going 60 or 120+fps.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Then explain how the vast majority of games have no problems with bugs going 60 or 120+fps.
Where did I say they would have bugs? The gameplay timings are just that, timings, not tied to frames. But they are fundamentally chosen around the lowest common denominator which is usually consoles at 30fps.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I've seen some very far reaching weird hot takes from painttinjr, but this one takes the cake, really.
Ueda made this very point 15years ago and as DF didn't like it, it gained no traction at all, so not a hot take, unless you think Ueda doesn't know his stuff about SotC.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Where did I say they would have bugs? The gameplay timings are just that, timings, not tied to frames. But they are fundamentally chosen around the lowest common denominator which is usually consoles at 30fps.
Chosen how? What shooters like Doom Eternal with native mouse+kb support have anything to do with consoles being "targeted" first?
 

winjer

Member
Not at all, the intended creative vision of the game director is the intention, so adding in a soap opera effect with more frames can't automatically be argued as better for all gamers,, can it?

Do you prefer the original six SW 24fps films look - as :Lucas intended - or Disney's 60fps TV soap opera Mandalorian look? As it is SW, I prefer what Lucas intended and find all the space scenes in the Mandalorian to look like garbage, despite the higher fps.

Games have been using frame interpolation for many years now, with no issue.

That comparison to video frame interpolation is nonsense.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Where did I say they would have bugs? The gameplay timings are just that, timings, not tied to frames. But they are fundamentally chosen around the lowest common denominator which is usually consoles at 30fps.
Read this phrase if you wanna know what it feels like to have a stroke
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Games have been using frame interpolation for many years now, with no issue.

That comparison to video frame interpolation is nonsense.
Only to people that place no value on the creative vision aspect of game development and think playing a game at higher frame-rate is always the gold standard.

That's your choice, and I'm not telling you that I haven't been that way in my PC elite gamer days too. I'm taking issue with you automatically saying it is always true, and for all gamers. It isn't IMO, especially if the interpolation distorts the artistic merit of the game.
 

winjer

Member
Only to people that place no value on the creative vision aspect of game development and think playing a game at higher frame-rate is always the gold standard.

That's your choice, and I'm not telling you that I haven't been that way in my PC elite gamer days too. I'm taking issue with you automatically saying it is always true, and for all gamers. It isn't IMO, especially if the interpolation distorts the artistic merit of the game.

So now you claim that 30fps is an artistic choice?
Sorry, but that just sounds like nonsense.
 

rofif

Member
Why do you feel the need of repetating you have a gaming PC in every two thirds of your posts?
At this point mods should add a text below your username that reads: "I've a high-end gaming PC FYI"
Because new person told me to get a gaming pc.
I don't expect he is reading entire thread
 
30 fps is dead to me. Never playing 30 again. Except for Starfield, I have to play that asap. Although I’m sure it’ll be running sub 30 the whole time so technically I can still say I’m never playing 30 fps again.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
No. It is designed with whatever framerate the dev whats/you can get (on PC), just like almost every game out there.
I'm not familiar with the Doom/Quake/Rage design intentions after 60fps focused Carmack exited idsoftware, so I'll take your word for it that 60fps or better isn't the intended target, but as I don't know if it is an arena shooter or single player campaign, what is acceptable on PC changes depending on what the game is.

In a game like Quake3 the animations can be tied to frames if needed, because the artistic intent is in the arena multiplayer gameplay, not the animation,, whereas in a single player game like Rage, the animation timings are all set around the observer (on 360/ps3) seeing the animation smoothly at 60fps.
 

Hunnybun

Member
You might want to inform every marketing department in the industry about that, if you really think that is true.

Better graphics on the box or in promo trailers sell games, not gameplay. 60fps is mostly a fake after thought because the gameplay is designed around 30fps on nearly every big AAA game - outside of simulators or fighting games or 60fps only 1st person shooters - and so are fundamentally 30ffps at their core, even when played on PC at higher fps.

Yes but none of that contradicts what I said.

And: "better graphics on the box"?!?!

What is this, 1997?! Who the fuck looks at screenshots on boxes these days?
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
So now you claim that 30fps is an artistic choice?
Sorry, but that just sounds like nonsense.
Why stop at 144fps to satisfy your setup then? Why don't you want 144M fps if all aspects of the game aren't designed around artistic choices within engineer realities?

Of course 30fps is a artistic choice compared to doing 60fps as the target, it impacts production time, because a game designed specifically around 60fps can have different animations at 60fp compared to 30->60fps interpolations, and can have different gameplay, where you can break animations on 16.6ms boundaries, rather than 33.3ms boundaries,

To simplify, a 60fps design is not automatically equal to a 30fps design running on PC at 60fps. One is a true 60fps game, and other is a 30fps game showing at 60fps.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Yes but none of that contradicts what I said.

And: "better graphics on the box"?!?!

What is this, 1997?! Who the fuck looks at screenshots on boxes these days?
Well that's assuming you think the top production quality of PC games with all things turned up is going to be better than consoles(PlayStation 5) exclusives that don't get a PC release in the next few years. You could be right with console exclusive games becoming a thing of the past.
 

winjer

Member
Why stop at 144fps to satisfy your setup then? Why don't you want 144M fps if all aspects of the game aren't designed around artistic choices within engineer realities?

Of course 30fps is a artistic choice compared to doing 60fps as the target, it impacts production time, because a game designed specifically around 60fps can have different animations at 60fp compared to 30->60fps interpolations, and can have different gameplay, where you can break animations on 16.6ms boundaries, rather than 33.3ms boundaries,

To simplify, a 60fps design is not automatically equal to a 30fps design running on PC at 60fps. One is a true 60fps game, and other is a 30fps game showing at 60fps.

So many games with unlocked frame rates, that can scale as far as the hardware can go.
 

Hoddi

Member
I don’t particularly mind 30fps. But I will absolutely 100% take 1080p60 over 4k30 any day of the week.

It might take twice as much CPU perfomance but it would also only need half the GPU performance of 4k30. That leaves a brickton of GPU performance on the table and I’d much rather have that.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
I'm all for 60fps but I think 1080p is rather ugly on a big 4k display tbh.

1440p or thereabouts is surely the sweet spot this generation.

Although I don't see why there can't be a 1080p at high settings for those who really want it.
 
Yeah, as long as 30 fps is consistent without pacing issue, combined with motion blur and console style of camera control (with a controller instead of mouse, mouse's instant pinpoint movement could break solutions such as Temporal/Checkerboard etc) its good enough, at least for certain types of games

For people who don't like 30 fps there are always performance mode which should be mandatory in every console game
This is correct. 🤌
 
But that is a choice driven by technological factors.
A very bad choice, to sacrifice gameplay for graphics.
Yep, it's really hard to imagine a 30fps game justifying a choice like that these days. It's graphics would have to be insane to make up for rendering half the frames.
 
Last edited:
guys guys - RESET. CUT OFF. STOP

I don't want to be an ass here. Let's just discuss on topic please.

The topic is "30fps can be better than it is in some games".
And that's it. Play 60fps modes. But I just wanted people to know that laggy 30fps mode in DeS is not normal.
And yes. I played that game in 60fps mode of course. I am not that crazy.
Okay, I'll bite. And I've been a PC gamer for OVER 30 years. Not 'nearly' 30 years. And I have a 270hz monitor, which is of course also a larger number than the mere 240hz you experienced, so I have defeated your qualifications to speak on the topic and thusly provide the canonical answer:

If you're happily playing cinematic AAA whatever-games that focus on 30 fps, you don't care about input lag in the first place. So, you should accept more lag in order to fix the frame pacing. Umm, give your brain 5 minutes and it will adjust to the lag.

Not at all, the intended creative vision of the game director is the intention, so adding in a soap opera effect with more frames can't automatically be argued as better for all gamers,, can it?

Do you prefer the original six SW 24fps films look - as :Lucas intended - or Disney's 60fps TV soap opera Mandalorian look? As it is SW, I prefer what Lucas intended and find all the space scenes in the Mandalorian to look like garbage, despite the higher fps.
Was that a thing? I don't recall Mandalorian looking particularly funny. The copy of Obi-Wan I still have sitting around is 24fps at least. But games render an instant, which is one reason higher frames are so important. A camera frame is capturing a period of time, so they are fundamentally different.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Yep, it's really hard to imagine a 30fps game justifying a choice like that these days. It's graphics would have to be insane to make up for rendering half the frames.
Why? The risks of targeting 60fps have to be for gameplay reasons on a console (like GT7, Rage or Wipeout or Virtua Fighter/Tennis, etc) where it is a constraint of what you are creating, that everything is secondary to. Games like HFW, Spiderman, Uncharted, Last of Us, AC, GTA, Barman, RDR, GoT, Death Stranding, etc have to entice as many gamers as possible to buy and play, and also provide a path to cheese seeing the ending of the game - a skill tree typically - to provide a hook to sell the next game.

Gameplay is secondary to presentation because gamers in general are a much bigger demographic with less capable players. Hitting 30fps is orders easier than 60fps while maintaining fidelity because of techniques like deferred rendering -that makes it easier to better utilise more system performance. Going 60fps is harder, will make your game look worse, place more restrictions on artists and if you miss by even a small amount, you still have to lock at 30fps and have a poorer looking game.

Risk versus reward, 30fps is the safe bet and less likely to put a dev out if business by being unable to deliver the intended product or having a game that looks too poor to impress.
 
Why? The risks of targeting 60fps have to be for gameplay reasons on a console (like GT7, Rage or Wipeout or Virtua Fighter/Tennis, etc) where it is a constraint of what you are creating, that everything is secondary to. Games like HFW, Spiderman, Uncharted, Last of Us, AC, GTA, Barman, RDR, GoT, Death Stranding, etc have to entice as many gamers as possible to buy and play, and also provide a path to cheese seeing the ending of the game - a skill tree typically - to provide a hook to sell the next game.

Gameplay is secondary to presentation because gamers in general are a much bigger demographic with less capable players. Hitting 30fps is orders easier than 60fps while maintaining fidelity because of techniques like deferred rendering -that makes it easier to better utilise more system performance. Going 60fps is harder, will make your game look worse, place more restrictions on artists and if you miss by even a small amount, you still have to lock at 30fps and have a poorer looking game.

Risk versus reward, 30fps is the safe bet and less likely to put a dev out if business by being unable to deliver the intended product or having a game that looks too poor to impress.
I don't think you understand, unless your 30fps game ends up looking miles better than what the competition has they'll just show up with 60fps games that look close enough to what you achieved and have all the advantages of that. Targeting 30fps will also likely imply in a much higher production value if you are really going to push the hardware.

If a dev is targeting 30fps over 60fps just because of something stupid like native 4K then they are out of their minds. The justification for 30fps has to be that the game you wanted to create simply wouldn't be possibly at 60fps without massive compromises.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
I don't think you understand, unless your 30fps game ends up looking miles better than what the competition has they'll just show up with 60fps games that look close enough to what you achieved and have all the advantages of that. Targeting 30fps will also likely imply in a much higher production value if you are really going to push the hardware.

If a dev is targeting 30fps over 60fps just because of something stupid like native 4K then they are out of their minds. The justification for 30fps has to be that the game you wanted to create simply wouldn't be possibly at 60fps without massive compromises.
No, you've got that completely back-to-front. Unless you can guarantee your game can sell at 60fps with the visual cutbacks that entails on console hardware, and that you have the technical expertise to optimise to 60fps, like a Carmack on staff, or can still get sales with even bigger downgrades you can only aim for 30fps.

The pressure on CPU and GPU caches and resource check-in time at 30fps isn't a linear increase for 60fps, but significantly more. The window is so small that you need to leave more headroom to render in the 16.6ms time frame - as a miss costs a tear or a drop to 30fps -, and then because you are rendering at twice the frame-rate(60fps) you are more than doubling the waste(of underutilised render time) giving you even less rendering resources per second than just the linear half you would expect from sharing your polygon count, shader/pixel rate, texture rate etc across twice as many frames.

Deferred rendering also doesn't fit really well with 60fps frame-times, so the advantage of deferred tightly packing lots of work and gathering every 33.3ms isn't possible at 16.6ms, producing even bigger gaps in rendering utilisation per frame and further cutting back the visual options for lighting in your game.

Optimising a 20fps game that missed the 30fps target is also significantly easier, than optimising a 50fps game that missed its 60fps target.

The majority of games are all using middleware engines, so unlike in Rage's case where at 60fps it still looked decent in comparison to third party 30fps games, 60fps target with middleware will make your game look a lot worse than 30fps middleware games.
 
Last edited:
Another pathetic thing about modern developers. They will take the easiest, laziest, path of least resistance when trying to squeeze out their games for their next deadline. Cyberpunk 2077 and Ghostwore Tokyo's 30 fps modes are unplayable. The big ray tracing mode for Control Ultimate is also unplayable due to input lag.

The only games that feel really responsive at 30 fps have been Spiderman, Horizon FW, and Forza Horizon 5 (though still less responsive than 60 fps by a lot). I'm sure there are some other good ones.

But this is especially bad with games that are 30 fps with Ray Tracing because it tends to add extra lag if not optimized properly, yet here these devs are hyping up these modes because of RT being the hot new thing and gamers who bought a next gen system are rightly excited to see some RT goodness. Control Ultimate is a really ugly example because they had the nerve to charge a lot of money for the "Ultimate" even for people who had recently already spent $60-$80 on Control.
 
yep. You clearly have not experienced it.
It matters to some like me.
It matters to me too on a game by game basis. Spiderman, Ratchet, and Forbidden West look A LOT BETTER at 30 fps, and are all extremely responsive in fidelity mode. I spend the majority of time playing those at 30.

It's nice to have the choice on console. The brain does adapt to 30 despite 60 being smoother. Forza Horizon 5 at 30 fps looks like a true next gen game while at 60 it just looks average. It's nice to at least be able to play it looking the way it did in the initial trailers even though I have to sacrifice some responsiveness. Not everyone can afford a 3080 rtx
 
This, a 1080p60fps mode with all visual bells and whistles would be my go to. Chasing 4k is such a waste
It's a waste ONLY if the devs implement some high quality upscaling to raise that 1080p to something resembling 4k. Otherwise, 1080p really sucks on a good 4k tv! I often wonder if the people who say what you said about chasing 4k being a waste, are talking about 1080p in conjunction with upscaling in mind ...were you? Because Returnal and CoD Vanguard only have 1080p as their base and then use some amazing temporal upscaing to improve their IQ. The end result is a game that looks like it could be "4k" and is vastly better looking than say Guardians of the Galaxiy's 1080p/60 mode (which i refuse to play because it looks like shit compared to the 1800p/30 mode ...same deal with Dying Light 2 on ps5)
 
No, you've got that completely back-to-front. Unless you can guarantee your game can sell at 60fps with the visual cutbacks that entails on console hardware, and that you have the technical expertise to optimise to 60fps, like a Carmack on staff, or can still get sales with even bigger downgrades you can only aim for 30fps.

The pressure on CPU and GPU caches and resource check-in time at 30fps isn't a linear increase for 60fps, but significantly more. The window is so small that you need to leave more headroom to render in the 16.6ms time frame - as a miss costs a tear or a drop to 30fps -, and then because you are rendering at twice the frame-rate(60fps) you are more than doubling the waste(of underutilised render time) giving you even less rendering resources per second than just the linear half you would expect from sharing your polygon count, shader/pixel rate, texture rate etc across twice as many frames.

Deferred rendering also doesn't fit really well with 60fps frame-times, so the advantage of deferred tightly packing lots of work and gathering every 33.3ms isn't possible at 16.6ms, producing even bigger gaps in rendering utilisation per frame and further cutting back the visual options for lighting in your game.

Optimising a 20fps game that missed the 30fps target is also significantly easier, than optimising a 50fps game that missed its 60fps target.

The majority of games are all using middleware engines, so unlike in Rage's case where at 60fps it still looked decent in comparison to third party 30fps games, 60fps target with middleware will make your game look a lot worse than 30fps middleware games.
Any devs trying to do the bare minimum will end up making some garbage game. I'm obviously assuming we are talking about a competent AAA developer here. If your game looks like shit and is 30fps that's even worse. It's a lot harder and more expensive to make a game that the hardware would only be able to run at 30fps than to make a game that would run at 60fps, that's basic.

If a dev makes a game that is ugly as fuck and runs at 20fps they are not getting anywhere close to getting the most out of the hardware.
 
Last edited:

Pimpbaa

Member
Even without the lag, in motion 4K 30fps is pointless because you lose so much detail due to the nature of sample and hold displays (unless you are playing on a CRT or use BFI). Something like 1440p 60fps ends up looking more detailed (in motion) most of the time due to less perceived blur.
 

Three

Member
Have you ever played a 60 fps game? It's is much smoother to play than 30 fps.
I play at 144hz. I can't even conceive the notion of paying at 30 fps in 2022.
Sacrificing gameplay to get better graphics or raw pixel count is compete non-sense.
And I play at 240hz. Doesn't mean 144hz should have 75ms input lag though. I think people are missing the point here. Nobody is arguing whether 60fps is better than 30fps. They are making a point that some 30fps games have added input lag and that even some 60fps games can have added latency.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom