Poll: 60fps vs 30fps? opinions?

[MysticSlayer]

Apparently, not overwhelming enough, because I can't find whatever source you're using anywhere.

All the way back in 2002 this was already over and done with http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Humans can and do see the difference in framerate and the ONLY way to not do so is if there is something wrong with your perception.

Thanks for the article. That's more than I generally get.

However, I'm not trying to make the claim that the human eye is incapable of seeing beyond 30 FPS (I think currently, the consensus is that we max out around 140-150 "frames"). I'm saying that you can have a smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames, and that article doesn't do a great job at disproving that.

(And just for clarification, I can pick up to the jump between 30 FPS and 60 FPS if I spend long enough looking at one before switching to the other. However, in the moment of playing a 30 FPS game that stays stable around 30 FPS, I find the experience as enjoyable as a stable 60 FPS game to the point where I'd need an FPS counter to determine which of the two it is at.)

Actually i learnt about Akinetopsia last year. What you descibe is acute cases, however there are also less acute cases that often goes undiagnozed for years because people think that is normal way things look and if the case is as mild as to only become visible when needing to see objects change position over 30 times per second one could easily live his life fully without realizing he has a problem. Its like most nearsighted people dont actually know they are nearsighted because they never saw the difference and just think this is how it normally looks. We are getting better with nearsighted people thanks to mandatory vision tests, testing movement perception is much harder though. To add to that we dont really know what exactly causes that so no known cure exists.

I'm aware of the difference between more extreme cases and less extreme cases. However, my understanding is that it ranged from annoying to prohibitive. You use nearsightedness as an example, but as someone who is nearsighted, I can say that you do eventually realize that something is wrong. The only real reason you wouldn't is if only one eye is nearsighted, which may be masked by the good eye making up (this is what caused my brother's problem to go undetected for so long).

Edit: I guess people with very minor nearsightedness might not realize something is wrong until they reach certain situations, but again, I believe motion blindness generally presents itself more extreme than that.

No, but when you start citing science you can't explain and medical conditions that you clearly have little to no understanding of, it does become severely hyperbolic.

I can explain the science, but i didnt think writing a thesis on human vision is necessary for you to understand my point.

I wanted at least a link to a study, which thanks again for providing.

I've cared enough about it to read on the subject, which is one reason I'm seriously doubting your claims to science and medicine. I've heard plenty of people make similar claims, but all my reading indicates that any perceptible differences are nowhere near as extreme as you're claiming them to be. In that regard, I do care, because I'm wondering where in the world you and others are getting your information from.

Have you ever though that if everyone but you sees the difference maybe you are not seeing it because of a problem rather than the entire world is lieing?

While I'll admit that differences exist so that the 60 FPS looks smoother when put side-by-side (or if a major switch is made), they look marginally smoother, and the 30 FPS one still looks smooth enough for an enjoyable experience. But without a point of comparison, I'm not sure such a marginal difference is as easy to discern as you're making it out to be.

I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?

 

[SycoMantis91]

My vote, as a PC and Console gamer: WHO CARES

 

[SquallTheBlade]

I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?

I have. I played both Dark Souls on PC and the first one ran at 30fps with heavy motion blur. I played it just fine and thought that DS2 would be 30fps too. Little did I know that DS2: Scholar of the First Sin ran at 60fps. My mind was blown away when I moved the camera in the starting area. The game felt so much better. The difference is HUGE and you can feel it right away.

Other example is Tales of Zestiria. Graces and Xillias ran, or at least tried to, at 60fps in battles. Zestiria doesn't. It's locked 30fps and I noticed that right away too. The game feels clunky because of this.

Third example is FF13 for PC. The game runs at 60fps most of the time but drops to 30 fairly often. It's noticeable.

And no, I don't need frame counters for that.

Why 60fps feels better is that there is only 16,7ms of delay between frames opposed to 33,3ms. So if you input a command, you will see the result much faster. That's why it feels more responsive.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?

Snip

As I've already mentioned, I understand seeing a difference on the same game when it fluctuates between the two and/or when you play it once at one framerate and another at a different one. At that point, a change would be noticeable because it goes against what you normally have been seeing/feeling.

My point is with regards to games running at 30 FPS and the user experiences that game at approximately 30 FPS the whole time. At the very least, this definitely removes FF13 from the games you've cited, and my experience with at least the Tales games is that they change very little visually or in handling from game-to-game, to the point where you might as well be playing the same game at different framerates. And while I haven't played Scholar of the First Sin myself, from what I've seen of it, it looks to be in the same situation.

Why 60fps feels better is that there is only 16,7ms of delay between frames opposed to 33,3ms. So if you input a command, you will see the result much faster. That's why it feels more responsive.

Showing a 16.7ms delay vs. a 33.3ms delay doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. If the average person can't discern input delay at 33.3ms, then the only difference between 16.7ms and 33.3ms is how much padding there is between the input delay and the threshold of where you start feeling it.

In other words, your numbers don't mean anything. You'll also have to show that humans are capable of perceiving the higher input delay.

 

[Strazdas]

However, I'm not trying to make the claim that the human eye is incapable of seeing beyond 30 FPS (I think currently, the consensus is that we max out around 140-150 "frames"). I'm saying that you can have a smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames, and that article doesn't do a great job at disproving that.

(And just for clarification, I can pick up to the jump between 30 FPS and 60 FPS if I spend long enough looking at one before switching to the other. However, in the moment of playing a 30 FPS game that stays stable around 30 FPS, I find the experience as enjoyable as a stable 60 FPS game to the point where I'd need an FPS counter to determine which of the two it is at.)

You claimed that you couldnt see beyond 30 fps and that everyone that claimed they could suffered from placebo effect. thats pretty much claiming that humans cannot see beyond 30 fps. And no, had you read my link you would realize that the tests done at 210 fps still showed effects and the only reason they didnt test higher is because they didnt have the tech to project at shorter timeframes.

No, you cannot have smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames per second because having still images for 33.3ms and input lag increased by the same amount is by definition not smooth or responsive. Im not saying you cannot still enjoy the game in this case, you can. Its just that its mot being enjoyed for being smooth because thats not what it is. Since you find both experiences as enjoyable then responsiveness and smoothness are not what you measure the games with.

I'm aware of the difference between more extreme cases and less extreme cases. However, my understanding is that it ranged from annoying to prohibitive. You use nearsightedness as an example, but as someone who is nearsighted, I can say that you do eventually realize that something is wrong. The only real reason you wouldn't is if only one eye is nearsighted, which may be masked by the good eye making up (this is what caused my brother's problem to go undetected for so long).

Edit: I guess people with very minor nearsightedness might not realize something is wrong until they reach certain situations, but again, I believe motion blindness generally presents itself more extreme than that.

i guess we will just have to disagree here on what severity Akinetopsia can take then.

While I'll admit that differences exist so that the 60 FPS looks smoother when put side-by-side (or if a major switch is made), they look marginally smoother, and the 30 FPS one still looks smooth enough for an enjoyable experience. But without a point of comparison, I'm not sure such a marginal difference is as easy to discern as you're making it out to be.

I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?

Yes, i run fraps for screenshots and it has a frame counter. since im using fraps for over 10 years now usually my mind just filters out the frame counter, but when i find something fishy with how the game looks i glance at it and like clockwork fishy is always when the game is limited to lower framerate for whatever reason.

Here is a study that goes even further - it blind tests people with 60fps versus 120 fps (supposedly the difference is even smaller)
http://techreport.com/news/25051/blind-test-suggests-gamers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates

"The results were pretty conclusive: 86% preferred the 120Hz setup. Impressively, 88% of the subjects were able to correctly identify whether the monitor was refreshing at 60 or 120Hz." So assuming the difference between 30 and 60 is even larger, then yes, people can blindly identify the framerate without any information about it beforehand.

My vote, as a PC and Console gamer: WHO CARES

People who read and debated the topic for 4 pages? people who care about thier gaming experience?

 

[Creator002]

I don't care. As long as there's no comparison for me in a short amount of time (like playing Battlefield on Xbox then PC or having a 60FPS game dropping to 30FPS), I won't even notice a game running at 30.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?

Snip

As I've already mentioned, I understand seeing a difference on the same game when it fluctuates between the two and/or when you play it once at one framerate and another at a different one. At that point, a change would be noticeable because it goes against what you normally have been seeing/feeling.

So what exactly would you want that proved that people can see that a game runs at 30 or 60 fps? A game series that the player has never played before and has no earlier experience with it so there is nothing he can compare it to? You asked if someone has noticed that the game runs at specific framerates without any information of it except just experiencing it. And yes, that's exactly what I did.

My point is with regards to games running at 30 FPS and the user experiences that game at approximately 30 FPS the whole time. At the very least, this definitely removes FF13 from the games you've cited, and my experience with at least the Tales games is that they change very little visually or in handling from game-to-game, to the point where you might as well be playing the same game at different framerates. And while I haven't played Scholar of the First Sin myself, from what I've seen of it, it looks to be in the same situation.

I'm not sure what you mean. That the different fps doesn't make a difference in how the games handle? I disagree. 60fps feels better and makes the experience better.

Showing a 16.7ms delay vs. a 33.3ms delay doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. If the average person can't discern input delay at 33.3ms, then the only difference between 16.7ms and 33.3ms is how much padding there is between the input delay and the threshold of where you start feeling it.

In other words, your numbers don't mean anything. You'll also have to show that humans are capable of perceiving the higher input delay.

So how do you explain the fact that people can FEEL the difference? You can even try it yourself in some fast paced games. Like Osu! a rythm game which becomes impossible if the framerate isn't 60fps. You will perform worse at 30fps.

 

[MysticSlayer]

You claimed that you couldnt see beyond 30 fps and that everyone that claimed they could suffered from placebo effect. thats pretty much claiming that humans cannot see beyond 30 fps.

As I've stated in an attempt to clarify a couple times already, I find 30 FPS and 60 FPS equally enjoyable when the game remains consistent. I've even brought up a couple cases where I do find a difference, just not enough to indicate that 30 FPS is objectively bad.

Comments about placebos were with regards to you assertions that 30 FPS can't offer a smooth or responsive experience. If it came across as anything else, I'm sorry for the confusion (and for typing a lot of these while tired).

No, you cannot have smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames per second because having still images for 33.3ms and input lag increased by the same amount is by definition not smooth or responsive.

As I've already mentioned to someone else, you'll need to show that 33.3ms is above the threshold of what humans can perceive before that becomes a relevant number to this discussion.

Since you find both experiences as enjoyable then responsiveness and smoothness are not what you measure the games with.

If you knew me, you wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Here is a study that goes even further - it blind tests people with 60fps versus 120 fps (supposedly the difference is even smaller)
http://techreport.com/news/25051/blind-test-suggests-gamers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates

"The results were pretty conclusive: 86% preferred the 120Hz setup. Impressively, 88% of the subjects were able to correctly identify whether the monitor was refreshing at 60 or 120Hz." So assuming the difference between 30 and 60 is even larger, then yes, people can blindly identify the framerate without any information about it beforehand.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't indicate that 30 FPS isn't smooth or is unresponsive.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Snip

I was in the middle of typing my response when you posted, but I think Starzdas's latest link was good enough to indicate people can pass blind tests.

So how do you explain the fact that people can FEEL the difference? You can even try it yourself in some fast paced games. Like Osu! a rythm game which becomes impossible if the framerate isn't 60fps. You will perform worse at 30fps.

I'm not fully versed on game programming, but there are games (especially older ones from what I've heard) where actions, speed, and other factors are tied very heavily to each frame. This can cause some very odd behavior as you increase or decrease the framerate, and it may even be possible some games lock the framerate to mask this. I forget the game, but I know TotalBiscuit has put this on display at least once when he unlocked a game that was locked at 30 FPS. The game became unplayable at the 120 FPS he let it go to, as the game speed was directly tied to the number of frames being run at.

In these situations, yes, you could experience a major difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. The problem, though, is that, from everything I've heard, this is a horrible practice.

But as for this discussion, it is hard to tell exactly how a game is programmed (since most games are proprietary and don't make the source code available), but I would say any game that becomes unplayable to the degree you're claiming probably partook of this practice in some degree. It's not a case of 33.3ms being too much delay. It's the fact that the game is horribly programmed.

 

[Strazdas]

As I've already mentioned to someone else, you'll need to show that 33.3ms is above the threshold of what humans can perceive before that becomes a relevant number to this discussion.

Please read my link again then, because i already did.

If you knew me, you wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Then why are you claiming that to be the case here?

I'm not fully versed on game programming, but there are games (especially older ones from what I've heard) where actions, speed, and other factors are tied very heavily to each frame. This can cause some very odd behavior as you increase or decrease the framerate, and it may even be possible some games lock the framerate to mask this. I forget the game, but I know TotalBiscuit has put this on display at least once when he unlocked a game that was locked at 30 FPS. The game became unplayable at the 120 FPS he let it go to, as the game speed was directly tied to the number of frames being run at.

In these situations, yes, you could experience a major difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. The problem, though, is that, from everything I've heard, this is a horrible practice.

But as for this discussion, it is hard to tell exactly how a game is programmed (since most games are proprietary and don't make the source code available), but I would say any game that becomes unplayable to the degree you're claiming probably partook of this practice in some degree. It's not a case of 33.3ms being too much delay. It's the fact that the game is horribly programmed.

some DOS games did this in the 90s, but its very rare nowadays. the game you are talking about is Need For Speed: Rivals released in i think 2013. here is the link to video you mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDA37BmvNwM TB complains that it is unacceptable to do this and that no other games do this nonsense.

Edit: Also any game that does this is very easy to spot without knowing its source code. Actually thanks to modding being popular a lot of source codes are actually accessible.

 

[duwenbasden]

Depends on my tolerance:

If it's a game that requires my immediate attention (FPS, RTS, MMO, etc...), then 60fps is required.
Otherwise (TBS, Sim, etc...), I'll accept 30fps.

Yes, I can tell the difference. 30 fps feels a bit sticky and gluey.

 

[Supernova1138]

As I've already mentioned to someone else, you'll need to show that 33.3ms is above the threshold of what humans can perceive before that becomes a relevant number to this discussion.

Please read my link again then, because i already did.

If you knew me, you wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Then why are you claiming that to be the case here?

I'm not fully versed on game programming, but there are games (especially older ones from what I've heard) where actions, speed, and other factors are tied very heavily to each frame. This can cause some very odd behavior as you increase or decrease the framerate, and it may even be possible some games lock the framerate to mask this. I forget the game, but I know TotalBiscuit has put this on display at least once when he unlocked a game that was locked at 30 FPS. The game became unplayable at the 120 FPS he let it go to, as the game speed was directly tied to the number of frames being run at.

In these situations, yes, you could experience a major difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. The problem, though, is that, from everything I've heard, this is a horrible practice.

But as for this discussion, it is hard to tell exactly how a game is programmed (since most games are proprietary and don't make the source code available), but I would say any game that becomes unplayable to the degree you're claiming probably partook of this practice in some degree. It's not a case of 33.3ms being too much delay. It's the fact that the game is horribly programmed.

some DOS games did this in the 90s, but its very rare nowadays. the game you are talking about is Need For Speed: Rivals released in i think 2013. here is the link to video you mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDA37BmvNwM TB complains that it is unacceptable to do this and that no other games do this nonsense.

Edit: Also any game that does this is very easy to spot without knowing its source code. Actually thanks to modding being popular a lot of source codes are actually accessible.

It's rare in Western development, but you still see it happen with a lot of Japanese games. Koei Tecmo has started putting out PC ports of some of their titles, they are usually locked to 30FPS and will run into game speed problems if you try to unlock the framerate. Japanese devs still develop primarily for consoles and operate under the assumption that they are never releasing their games on PC so they don't have to worry about the end user unlocking the framerate, so they can be lazy with how they code their games and tie a bunch of crap to the framerate.

 

[RisenStorm]

I will take 60 FPS over 30 FPS whenever it's available, but I do not consider 30 FPS game-ruining except in the case of the fast paced hack 'n slash genre I have a soft spot for.

 

[t850terminator]

Really? Is this a discussion? Its like asking if you want 360p or 1080p.

 

[MatParker116]

Where's the "I don't give a flying fuck as long as the game works" option?

 

[MysticSlayer]

As I've already mentioned to someone else, you'll need to show that 33.3ms is above the threshold of what humans can perceive before that becomes a relevant number to this discussion.

Please read my link again then, because i already did.

What I saw was a comment about smoothness in the second link, which is very ambiguous. I interpreted it as smoothness on screen, not based on input.

But I guess I should provide a couple links by now that have informed my own opinion (I would have done this last night, but I was starting to get really tired and didn't feel like looking for them).

For starters, here's an article that Gamasutra did a few years ago with the help of a Neversoft employee: link [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130359/programming_responsiveness.php?page=1]

It's long and theoretical, but a couple things do stand out:

"So if we are running at 30fps, then the lag is 3/30th or one-tenth of a second. If we are running at 60fps, then the lag will be 3/60th or 1/20th of a second... [page 2]

One of the great misconceptions regarding responsiveness is that it's somehow connected to human reaction time. Humans cannot physically react to a visual stimulus and then move their fingers in less than one-tenth of a second.

Game players' peak reaction times vary from 0.15 seconds to 0.30 seconds, depending on how "twitchy" they are. [page 3]"

Now, as the rest of the article shows, there's more that goes into input lag than just framerate, and as a result a poorly programmed game at 30 FPS is more likely to show input delay than a poorly programmed game at 60 FPS, which has more "padding". But there are also a lot of other factors, even down to the way the animations go. Essentially, it is an issue with how well the game is programmed, not whether or not the framerate is in the threshold.

Furthermore, this comes up occasionally on Game Development on Stack Exchange. Here's one example: link [http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/59645/what-is-an-acceptable-input-delay]

The premise of the question was bad (they were trying to control input delay more than they should), but there were also a few comments regarding how 30 FPS is entirely within the acceptable range. One person even called it "common knowledge" without content. This is pretty much the way I've always seen these discussions go: 30 FPS is entirely acceptable, but 60 FPs is better. The only exceptions are discussions like this where someone is trying to prove 30 FPS isn't acceptably responsive without much evidence outside of anecdotal experience that may have been indicating bad programming on the developer's part more than an issue with 30 FPS.

If you knew me, you wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Then why are you claiming that to be the case here?

You said I don't measure enjoyableness by smoothness and responsiveness, which is something you've added to what I've been saying.

In actuality, I know very few people that pick up input lag as often as I do or let it bug them as much as I do. I've even put down games because I could tell there was a delay between my button press and what happened on screen, only for someone to tell me they couldn't feel any. This includes those I know that only play their games at 60+ FPS.

 

[hermes]

The poll doesn't really make any sense. Of course 60 fps is better than 30 fps... That is like asking what looks better, HD graphics or SD graphics? What sounds better, 64 kbps or 128 kbps? Which downloads faster a 14.4k modem or a 33.6k modem?

The real question would be if you notice the difference, or if you would accept 30 fps if it comes at the expense of other features, like better physics or particle effects. Personally, I don't mind 30 or 60 as long as it is stable. A game that is 60 but gets down to less than half that when things get hectic is more irksome that a game that is always 30.

 

[NPC009]

Really? Is this a discussion? Its like asking if you want 360p or 1080p.

The actual discussion is, or atleast should be, about when it's acceptable to sacrifice high framerates for better graphics and such.

I hate making food comparisons because they're such clich?s, but in the current gaming landscape (where many big studios put pretty graphics before high framerates, because most consumers really don't give a fuck) 60fps is like food from a good restaurant. It's great when you can afford it, but homecooked mac 'n cheese isn't so bad either, especially if that means you can pay rent and support your action figure collecting habit on top of it.

 

[WindKnight]

Honestly, I consider myself lucky if my rig runs a game, so 30 fps is perfectly fine by me. At least until I win the lottery and buy the mythical slab of silicone that can run Crysis at full spec.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

The difference in quality between 30FPS and 60FPS is very easy to perceive on recorded video. Certainly, some may genuinely prefer a lower frame rate for aesthetic reasons, but the advantage of higher FPS is obvious if one is interested in recording motion as close as possible to how it was perceived in person (even 60FPS isn't sufficient for this purpose, IMO).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nU2_ERC_oE

If you have trouble perceiving any difference, try pausing the video when the dune-buggy reaches the peak of its jump (0:06-0:07/0:39).

Admittedly, the effect can be more subtle in 3D applications, but it is indeed a significant change if one also considers the reduction in input lag.

My bet is this issue will fall to the wayside once PS4 and XB1 titles start reaching 60FPS more frequently as developers make greater use of low level APIs like DX12 and Mantle, as well as the usual late-gen optimizations.