• 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.

Next gen is here and so are more games at 60 fps. Now what's your call on performance vs quality?

You've tasted next gen console gaming. Now what's your quality/perf opinion?

  • Frame gamer. I'm a 60 fps (or 120) gamer and willingly accept crappier res, RT or shadows

    Votes: 137 47.9%
  • Quality gamer. I'm picking max res, better textures, lighting, RT etc... even if it's 30 fps

    Votes: 28 9.8%
  • Flip flopper. I have no allegiance. Totally depends on the game/genre

    Votes: 121 42.3%

  • Total voters
    286
don't have a console but i play at 144hz on PC. framerate over everything else. i hate when i need to play a game at 60fps it hurts my eyes :(
 
Last edited:

nkarafo

Member
Depends on the game for me but my minimum acceptable is 40fps. 30fps is unacceptable to me. Thankfully, my 240hz monitor can do 40fps evenly so that's my base for games my PC can't handle at 60fps.

Last gen games are either 60 or 120fps of course. Some rare instances i can also do 240fps (DOOM games via a modern engine).
 
Last edited:

Pidull

Member
For me, 1080p30 is the first standard. Does the game have 1080p30 with a solid AA solution in place? Good. If it is a stable framerate, even better.

Beyond that, I prefer framerate. With viewing distance and TV size, I have to look closely to notice resolution increases (50 inch TV at 15 feet), but framerate boosts are immediately noticeable.
 

BlackTron

Member
TBH I am actually happy that we are getting so many cross-gen games, because it ensures that we will get a good selection of games that run with great performance on next-gen. For example if GoT had been a PS5 game, there is a good chance that it would look even better and have less graphical compromises, maxed out to what it can do at 30FPS, just like the PS4 version we have. And there would be no 60FPS option, until PS5 Pro or PS6, if ever.

Cross-gen games almost certainly will all be playable on next-gen with outstanding performance because they will all be just boosted last-gen games.

I like graphics too, but all too often they forget it's a game first and a CGI movie second. And all the visuals tank the gameplay experience. I recently hooked up my PS3 again to replay SotN and gave the system a stress test with Sonic Generations. I laughed (as I did when it came out) that the game has like 17 background layers of insane graphics but the framerate is too crappy for the fast paced nature of Sonic. Better off playing the first Sonic on DC at 60FPS. I'm sure they could have made Sonic look even better on DC, but they put gameplay first. Today's devs are terrible at remembering this stuff that I once considered basic.

It's a game by game basis though. I am not usually that bothered by a lower framerate in a game like Zelda. I might even choose better graphic fidelity there. But a fast-paced action game, platformer, racer or shooter -it's not even a contest. Performance comes first there.
 

Duchess

Member
Performance RT, if possible.

For those who have played Spider-Man with performance RT? Is it noticeable? I heard some of the pedestrian and traffic density takes a hit?
 

Razvedka

Member
I don't think this is going to hold. Two years or so into this generation and I'll bet most titles are 30fps. Maybe some will offer 60fps by leveraging whatever image reconstruction is trending at that point.

And honestly, I'm cool with that. The ability to "fake" higher resolutions has become pretty impressive to me. So who knows.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
I don't think this is going to hold. Two years or so into this generation and I'll bet most titles are 30fps. Maybe some will offer 60fps by leveraging whatever image reconstruction is trending at that point.

And honestly, I'm cool with that. The ability to "fake" higher resolutions has become pretty impressive to me. So who knows.
Your pretty much right. These consoles are not shit upgrades like last generation so can brute force crossgen games properly. Once real next-gen games hit we will see the over use of RT and a few other items that tank frame rate
 

Loope

Member
Usually prefer 60fps, but in some games (like walking simulators and such) i have no problems raising up some setting and have lower framerate.
 
I still have yet to see something that blows me away on next gen. Ray tracing is cool, but it's such a small part of the game if it's only used for reflections. I wanna see some realistic lighting and detail that seems to go on into the distance forever and no more pop-in.

Ratchet and Clank seems to be headed in the right direction, but I'm sure even better things are coming.

Truth is, 60fps development limits what's possible because everything has to fit in a 16.6ms frame time. With double that time, you can do so much more.
 

mcjmetroid

Member
Like I'm just not getting the whole ray tracing thing like at all.

Does it look better? Yes
Enough to sarcafice even 1 frame of performance? Not to me from what I've seen.

120Hz all the if my card can handle it.
The game has to feel great and then it can look great.
 

kyussman

Member
Ok,this is a good chance for me to ask this because I'm still on a 1080p TV.....when I do eventually get my hands on a next gen console and have these options is there still benefit to picking a quality mode....I know I will be locked when it comes to resolution,but I would still get any other graphical benefits that a quality mode would deliver....right?
All everyone talks about is resolutions and 4K/true 4K/pretend 4K....I don't care about any of this right now on 1080p,but I'm still down for getting the best looking image I can over framerates,30fps is fine for me tbh.
 
I generally select the performance modes so long as the cutbacks aren't too noticeable. I'm not gonna pass up on an interesting game either that has a 30fps lock.

flip flop I guess
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
1st person view = Always 60fps.
3rd person view = depends on the game and how pacey and what are the tradeoffs.
 

T-Cake

Member
I did originally vote for all the eye candy at 30fps but having just played Gears of War 2 at 1440p30, it's horrendous with the low frame rate. Really needs FPS Boost on Xbox 360 titles as well.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Game at 60+ fps with N64 graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game with Avatar graphics at 30- fps.
120 fps mode (for you gamers lucky enough with a 120 fps tv).
120 fps is not only worthy on 120hz screens. We still benefit from better input lag on 60hz screens.
 

Alpha Male

Member
Add another for frame rate gamer since I can't vote yet.

I have been spoiled by having both Series X and PS5 since launch and it's very difficult to go back to 30... although I will do it when I have no choice.
 

Chytin

Member
I am fine with checkerboard 4K or Dynamic 4K at 60 fps. Only Digital Foundry can see the minor differences with native 4K.
Insomniac has pulled off dynamic 4K at 60fps including Raytracing with Spiderman Remastered and Miles Morales. That's the sweet spot in my opion and hope all games will have this as option.
 

Mithos

Member
My display is only 1080 @ 60fps (and will be for years, Sony 50" KDL-50w805b).

So gamedevs please add options to PICK resolution and settings on consoles.
I'd play 1080p higher/ulta settings and RT at 60fps, over 4K lower settings and 30fps, every day and twice on Sundays.
 
Add another for frame rate gamer since I can't vote yet.

I have been spoiled by having both Series X and PS5 since launch and it's very difficult to go back to 30... although I will do it when I have no choice.
I think when people see a true generational leap that just isn't possible at 60fps, they'll be fine with 30fps. We're in a weird time right now where most games are built for last gen first and foremost, so getting those games to run on very fast hardware, it's no sweat to run it at 60fps.
 

Dodkrake

Member
Historically, consoles run at 30 fps to maintain a certain level of quality but for some games the past few gens 60 fps might be standard (sports and shooters).

But for the real eye candy it's usually 30 fps. With PS4 Pro and One X, you got some games with two options. And the choices were sometimes the same 30 fps, but one has better eye candy or res.

But with PS5/Series X (and even Series S if it can handle it), more games seem to trend to 60 fps, more games have options, and even some games have 120 fps mode (for you gamers lucky enough with a 120 fps tv).

Now with what you've seen or played, are you a max res/30/highest quality gamer? Or has the 60 fps norm on next gen changed your mind and now you're all-in loving 60 fps (or 120 fps) gamer even if a dev says there's an ultra quality mode at 30 fps?

I'm all for choice. 60fps is not a dealbreaker (except in driving, fighting and shooting games), so I'd go with bells and whistles. However, I understand a lot of gamers prefer FPS over Image fidelity / eye candy, so having a choice is always good). If a game can have both 30fps and 60fps, with the later having compromises that don't impact the former, it would be great,
 
I'm all for choice. 60fps is not a dealbreaker (except in driving, fighting and shooting games), so I'd go with bells and whistles. However, I understand a lot of gamers prefer FPS over Image fidelity / eye candy, so having a choice is always good). If a game can have both 30fps and 60fps, with the later having compromises that don't impact the former, it would be great,
I get that choice is good, but when games have multiple modes, they have to optimize for each mode which takes extra time and effort. Some studios won't give you a choice at all like Naughty Dog.
 

Dodkrake

Member
I get that choice is good, but when games have multiple modes, they have to optimize for each mode which takes extra time and effort. Some studios won't give you a choice at all like Naughty Dog.

Agree, and it's on the people buying those games to either accept or move on.
 

93xfan

Member
I remember when I played on consoles one of the biggest pros was the luxury of never having to download patches, oh wait...

Patches are great, when they’re automatic.

PC trolls don’t need to be here, unless they want to state which is more important to them- frame rate or performance
 

NickFire

Member
At this point I was eye-popping visuals. Few months from now, after my PS5 and 4k TV have been with me for more than a couple weeks, might not care so much.
 
It never plays well when compared to 60. Going from TLOU Remastered to UC4 made me want to die. It can feel okay but when you change you never want to go back
That's the way you feel. I had no issues going from 144Hz PC, to 60Hz 4K and 30fps for PlayStation exclusives. I do wish PS5 had VRR though 😕
 

Hezekiah

Member
Always performance.

Look at it this way, would you buy a car that looks nice on the outside, but has a mediocre engine and performance?
 
Look at it this way, would you buy a car that looks nice on the outside, but has a mediocre engine and performance?
Yes because I don't care about how powerful the engine is if I have to drive around in one of those Nissan Cubes.

Some people prefer quality over quantity you know.
 

Magik85

Member
Ofc 60 FPS is always better to play but not always worth the downgrade.
For me, the most important thing about FPS is to reach the target framerate.
Unstable framerate is really the thing that destroys experience, regardless the target framerate.
 
But quality the pixels or quality of frames/input lag/gameplay?
Pixels.

30fps input lag isn't much of a problem anymore because devs can easily get around that.

I have no problem with 30fps gameplay. Did it all last gen and when I think back on games I had a blast with, I don't think about frame rates, I think about the game.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Pixels.

30fps input lag isn't much of a problem anymore because devs can easily get around that.

I have no problem with 30fps gameplay. Did it all last gen and when I think back on games I had a blast with, I don't think about frame rates, I think about the game.
How devs can get around the minimum 33ms of lag from 30fps?
 
Top Bottom