Poll: 60fps vs 30fps? opinions?
- Thread starter maxtiggertom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One has higher number. One has lower number. One is better than the other. One is not better than the other.
Depends on the game. First or third person games where the view can change rapidly, or there are fast moving objects on screen 60 feels a lot smoother on the eyes if your PC can keep it smoothly. But for others, as long as it doesn't skip and hitch it's fine
I disagree. I'm able to basically instantaneously tell whether a game runs 30 or 60 fps.Souplex said:
60 fps is so much smoother and clearer. I of course have been playing on the PC for... over 20 years... (fuck I'm old)
Next up is the statement that it affects nothing. It affects frame times and therefore basically everything.
Since you run at double the speed everything will be more responsive.
In 30 FPS a frame is displayed for 33.3* milliseconds, in 60 FPS its 16.65* milliseconds (*assuming frame time is constant, which it is not but let's keep it simple shall we?). Every input or change will be displayed faster and therefore leads to be perceived as more responsive and precise.
Next up are frame drops. A frame drop from 60 to 50 FPS is a drop of roughly 17%. It is noticeable but hardly affects the enjoyment as everything is still smooth.
If you have a 17% frame drop in a 30 FPS game you will get 25FPS. Only 5 FPS drop but oh my god will you notice the stutters!
And there will always be frame drops...
There is no argument to be had: 60 FPS is superior in every way to 30 FPS and noticeable so for me.
BUT (com on everyone knew there was a BUT coming)
There is a tradeoff to be made. If the system is not strong enough there is a high chance that you have to sacrifice visual fidelity in order to achieve those 60 FPs.
So it's usually visual fidelity vs FPS.
And this is where 60 FPS loses out on console systems more often than not.
It is way easier to use stunning visuals for marketing than it is with 60 FPS. Many people like for example Souplex don't care about 60 FPS despite its advantages.
So if you a developer and you face the choice between 60FPS vs. better graphics, better graphics tend to win since that often translates to better sales as it is easier to market to the audience.
Better visuals they will see, better FPS they will only feel.
And that's about it.
And since the video game industry is pretty shitty we have to live with shitheads beating around the bush making up excuses why they use 30 FPS instead of 60 as the real reason is always the same: Better graphics are easier to market than 60 FPS.
Can't tell the audience that we favored something over something else can we... especially if it was a business decision...
And who can blame them? Gamers lose their shit over every tiny detail...
Does this mean a game running at 30FPS is horrible? No, of course not.
If those 30 FPS are achieved consistently it is good enough for most applications.
So it's not like 30 FPS is a reason not to buy a game... it would just be nice to know beforehand. That's all.
Btw. I have the consoles for console only titles.
Multiplatform I usually play on my very potent PC. It is far more powerful than any console and it powers a 144hz GSync display. That btw. is really smooth.
And before you AMD users get wet pants or something I would imagine FreeSync to be the same.
Call me a "PC-master racer" or "entitled" but I refuse to play any games that are locked to 30fps in 95% of cases, on PC there is zero excuse for it at this point, and frankly, I think console players should expect better from their machines, if you don't care about 60fps fine, but I get sick of people trying to push 30fps as just as good or somehow even better, it's not
60 is just more....surreal than 30. There are moments in videogames - boss fights, gauntlets, raids, huge battles that are simply better at 60fps. When you're in the midst of an event like that, there's no substitute and it just adds to the awesome when the fight is finished. With 30 there's more blur. It looks more cinematic because that's the FPS most films play at, so without the added frames, game companies can substitute motion blur for actual graphics to make the action appear faster and more movie-like. For some games this works, but not for the types of games I regularly play. So this is me, happy to be in possession of a computer that can run 60FPs for just about anything and I dread the day that this is no longer the case.
PS3 was the last console I will ever own, so bring on 144 FPS, consoles can continue to stagnate in the past as they always have done. Currently though if a cut scene drops to 30 FPS, it bugs the shit outta me. 60 FPS is just beyond better than 30 FPS, I couldn't imagine playing on something like the XBone playing Just Cause 3 and dropping to 18 FPS... That is unplayable.
I've never been able to tell the difference, honestly. I mean, if you show me the same game side by side then I can tell that one looks better, but if you sit me down and have me play a game and then ask, "Which one was it, sixty or thirty?" I will shrug and tell you I don't know.
I echo what a lot of people here have already said. If the game works, I don't care. One of my friends keeps telling me that there's some sort of frame rate issue with Bloodborne, how it's skipping a frame every few seconds or something (See? I know jack about this subject) and he's tried to point it out to me, but I just don't see it. Same thing I guess.
I echo what a lot of people here have already said. If the game works, I don't care. One of my friends keeps telling me that there's some sort of frame rate issue with Bloodborne, how it's skipping a frame every few seconds or something (See? I know jack about this subject) and he's tried to point it out to me, but I just don't see it. Same thing I guess.
Haven't had to deal with the matter as such this gen, seeing as I don't own a current console yet. But I'll always take 60fps. And to add discussion value, I'd rather take lower res, less or no AA, and definitely less AF, motion blur, natural hair or other such effects in order for smoother frames. Hardly notice the difference anyway after a few minutes in minor graphical tweaks, but frame rate dips start and stay really annoying from the get go.
Well games that are locked at 30 on PC for no reason is inexcusable and I have a hard time understanding why everything on a next gen console isn't running at 60 all the time. 30 vs 60 is a non-debate. 60 wins.
I mean it's not that important in some genres but I have the perfect example in the Steam release of Guilty Gear Xrd. Not gonna lie, I love the game but there are some damn crippling performance issues, probably the worst performing game ArcSys has ever released and everyone I know has had to disable floor textures to get a solid 60. I knew immediately that the game was on 30 the second I pressed a button and it was almost unplayable and everyone knew this. This is why the Steam forum is full of how to get 60 FPS threads. If it was fine at 30 everyone would just play the game and only ***** about the memory leak problems that may be the cause of inexplicable lag online when we know that this is ArcSys level netcode we're on. Pls. Bugfix when.
I mean it's not that important in some genres but I have the perfect example in the Steam release of Guilty Gear Xrd. Not gonna lie, I love the game but there are some damn crippling performance issues, probably the worst performing game ArcSys has ever released and everyone I know has had to disable floor textures to get a solid 60. I knew immediately that the game was on 30 the second I pressed a button and it was almost unplayable and everyone knew this. This is why the Steam forum is full of how to get 60 FPS threads. If it was fine at 30 everyone would just play the game and only ***** about the memory leak problems that may be the cause of inexplicable lag online when we know that this is ArcSys level netcode we're on. Pls. Bugfix when.
60 is objectively better. This isn't a debate. It is objectively more responsive and provides a better experience. If you're playing a game that requires twitch reflexes, this is the bare minimum.
Is 30 playable? Yes, but that's the best I'll give it- playable. This is similar to how 12 fps is playable.
Is 30 playable? Yes, but that's the best I'll give it- playable. This is similar to how 12 fps is playable.
Ahh, but can you tell the difference between high and medium settings on a PC game, or even the difference between low settings and max settings? Can you do it on a game from around 2010, when a PC as powerful as the consoles we have now would have been considered pretty kickass?pookie101 said:
I find it really hard to tell, in fact the only thing I notice is the effect that higher settings have on my framerate.
Well since I'm stuffing my face at the moment let's make it a food analogy:
One of them is a McDonalds burger and the other a properly cooked burger, sure they both do the same thing but there is a big difference in how they taste. And at the same time a lot of people will not know it, possibly not want to know it as they are stuck with only one option.
Having no other option I will also squint a little and get through 30FPS games, but it will always be an eyesore (quite literally at times).
One of them is a McDonalds burger and the other a properly cooked burger, sure they both do the same thing but there is a big difference in how they taste. And at the same time a lot of people will not know it, possibly not want to know it as they are stuck with only one option.
Having no other option I will also squint a little and get through 30FPS games, but it will always be an eyesore (quite literally at times).
Personally the amount of people whom have experienced 120fps is extremely low especially in the grand scheme of things the only reason I could see someone investing in a 120hz mounter is for CSGO and or Starcraft 2 just my opinion thoSeraj33 said:
I agree with you completely mate lets look at sleeping dogs DE for example 1080p at 30fps on the "next gen" consoles what the flying hell were they thinking? that should easily be able to keep a constant 60fps no excuses there.thewatergamer said:
60fps should take priority, it makes all games better. I would gladly take sacrificed graphics for 60fps in all games.
I understand that in the past you couldn't render a 3D world and have 60fps, i'm thinking the playstation 1 era with games like Syphon Filter, Tomb Raider etc, the render distance would be so short it would be a huge negative, but we're well past that. Every single game in the last generation was 30fps until COD4 came along and took the world by storm, you just couldn't get that fast rendered fast paced style multiplayer shooter on the consoles, of course PC users were used to games like Quake, its sequels, Half Life and it's hugely popular mods like Counter Strike, COD4 was the first exposure for huge numbers of people on the consoles so now we can easily see the difference when developers opt for 30.
There are people who claim to not notice and that's fine, but this poll is currently 94% in favor of 60, so don't pretend that it's not what people want.
I understand that in the past you couldn't render a 3D world and have 60fps, i'm thinking the playstation 1 era with games like Syphon Filter, Tomb Raider etc, the render distance would be so short it would be a huge negative, but we're well past that. Every single game in the last generation was 30fps until COD4 came along and took the world by storm, you just couldn't get that fast rendered fast paced style multiplayer shooter on the consoles, of course PC users were used to games like Quake, its sequels, Half Life and it's hugely popular mods like Counter Strike, COD4 was the first exposure for huge numbers of people on the consoles so now we can easily see the difference when developers opt for 30.
There are people who claim to not notice and that's fine, but this poll is currently 94% in favor of 60, so don't pretend that it's not what people want.