What FPS a developer chooses to run is never indicative of the actual quality of their game. So despite this "issue", I'm sure this game can still turn out fine.
The Division Aiming for 30fps
- Thread starter DarkhoIlow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually have played games at 120+ fps with my old CRT monitor (I'm one of those freaks used to turn off textures to gain more frames). In Quake 3 that makes a world of difference. But then again this is your usual Q3 matchManlyburger said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE5b_cTZzBw
try playing that with joypad.
Also playing Q3 and Need for Speed underground on Elsa Eraser III graphic card with it's 3D glasses gave me catastrophic headaches but also unbelievably awesome satisfaction.
I also play Gran Turismo games and I would hate that game at below 60fps. But again, it's relative to the game. Not is it better or no, just is it something I would care about.
Fast FPS, Driving simulations, flight simulations, VS fighting games - important
Fast paced games generally, fast animated games - really noticable
calm, slow paced games - don't really care
But in all reality, soon 60fps is going out and 120 is stepping in. The reason is VR. With oculus rift 60fps per eye has noticable effects of lag. It's a whole different ballgame there.
Yet you sound like someone who has some strange concepts.TheKasp said:
1) Steady framerate is much more effective at delivering immersive and convincing visuals than faster but inconsistent frame rate.
2) Frame rate and generations have nothing in common. That is most common misconceptions people have. There were 60fps games in 8 bit era. God damn Uridium for Commodore 64 ran at 50fps for PAL and 60fps for NTSC regions. And that on 0.976MHz 8 bit computer (in PAL regions, a bit over 1MHz in NTSC). Take cheapest phone you can find. You know, those phones that can't even reproduce digitized sounds. They still have greater computational power than that computer by at least two orders of magnitude. Its a tradeoff and steady 60 fps costs halleluiah much in GPU time and development time if you don't want to sacrifice everything and a goat to 60FPS altar. That's why developers go for 30FPS.
My standards are lower, obviously. But then again I don't care about that that much. I care about different things in games.
We all agree 60fps is better than 30fps. End of the day if you really are that annoyed go complain to the developers of The Division and moan at them. Go moan at MS and Sony. I really cant see what you hope to achieve with this thread that states the obvious.
Surely the majority of people who care about this will be be playing at 60fps on their PCs anyway. So what's the problem?
And there's another reason why the PC mustard race gloats about the latest console generation. PC always could reach 1080p and 60+FPS for several years, but consoles are going to have to wait for another year or even another console generation.
http://www.30vs60.com/mirrorsedge.php
It really matters the most in the aspect of multiplayer, where everything's quicker and more intense so you want your response to be quicker and clearer. And hey, The Division looks pretty multiplayer-centric, so it needs 60+FPS for the best experience.
http://www.30vs60.com/mirrorsedge.php
It really matters the most in the aspect of multiplayer, where everything's quicker and more intense so you want your response to be quicker and clearer. And hey, The Division looks pretty multiplayer-centric, so it needs 60+FPS for the best experience.
Some people obsess too much over FPS. As long as it can stay smooth and doesn't spike or tear, then it can work out just fine. Back when I had a lesser PC, I would sometimes sacrifice frame rates over 30 for more eye candy.
Although first PC gaming on a 286 (not counting "games" on old monochrome machines) and being like OMG WTF THIS IS SO AWESOME to Doom in low detail mode back on a slowish 386 probably helps me not be quite the FPS whore a lot of the newer gamers are. Learn to appreciate what you have and stop being such a obnoxious snob about it people.
I used to play Ultrabots on a RAM drive at less than 1 FPS. Beat that!
It is funny to think my cellphone is hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than my first PC.
Although first PC gaming on a 286 (not counting "games" on old monochrome machines) and being like OMG WTF THIS IS SO AWESOME to Doom in low detail mode back on a slowish 386 probably helps me not be quite the FPS whore a lot of the newer gamers are. Learn to appreciate what you have and stop being such a obnoxious snob about it people.
I used to play Ultrabots on a RAM drive at less than 1 FPS. Beat that!
It is funny to think my cellphone is hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than my first PC.
But if everyone is running 30fps across the board then your advantages of frames 31-60 are only imagined... The question is whether or not PC and PS4 servers will run together or separate. If separate then all PS4 players will be multiplaying on equal ground, and its the PC players who will be worrying about that extra 31-60 amongst themselves.TheYellowCellPhone said:
Wouldn't it be great if they actually gave us the option though?
I'd much rather play a game at 720p without HDR lighting or ambient occlusion or anti-aliasing if it means it plays at a smooth 60 FPS.
This nonsense by publishers is going to make this gen a repeat of the last one where games often dip down to 20 or lower FPS at times. What happens when they want to increase fidelity even further? Other things like framerate and resolution will have to take the hit since the hardware isn't going to get better. Is 600p and 25 FPS the future of 8th gen?
I wish 60 FPS was easier to market than fidelity. With fidelity you can show off a nice bullshot that looks great. It's hard to show off a smooth running game in the same way because most video sites are capped at 30 FPS.
Why is it that every next-gen related discussion is about Fps and 1080p? Is it because the upgrade in visuals is so insignificant that we don't have anything else to discuss? Personally i don't really care, i'm probably not going to notice unless you showed me the game side by side in 30 and 60 fps. As long as it runs at a consistent speed without drops. If i had a problem with low fps, i probably wouldn't play as much Wii, Ps2 and Ds as i do (Assuming that these consoles runs games at 30fps, i honestly couldn't tell you).
It would probably be better if Dvision ran at 60, but it doesn't and i'm not sure i would have noticed if i wasn't told beforehand. Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most ps3 games running in 30 fps? If so i don't have a problem with it, Ps3 suffers a lot from frame drops, which suks, but when the games runs smoothly it seems fine to me.
It would probably be better if Dvision ran at 60, but it doesn't and i'm not sure i would have noticed if i wasn't told beforehand. Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most ps3 games running in 30 fps? If so i don't have a problem with it, Ps3 suffers a lot from frame drops, which suks, but when the games runs smoothly it seems fine to me.
To me the discussion seems too often miss one thing: Console users are used to 30 fps. It's all they've had for years, aside from a few very rare exceptions.
Yes, 60 fps is objectively better than 30. There's nothing more to say there. But if you're used to 30 fps and get more games running at a stable 30 fps, there's no change and you simply get what you're used to.
If you, like me, have later migrated over to play some PC games at a minimal 1080p and 60+ fps (which the PC I've had for about 3 years now still provides), then going back too and/or simply seeing 30 fps is noticeably inferior. It just doesn't feel as good any more, as it's noticeably sluggish. To some that's simply unbearable.
But if you simply go from Xbox 360 and/or PS3 to Xbox One and/or PS4 you'll only see an upgrade in graphical fidelity, the difference in fps isn't there to be seen because it hasn't changed. If anything it might have even become more consistent, with fewer instances where it drops below 30. It's just plain better looking, and probably runs better ? that?s what you?ll experience.
Now, simply put, this is why PC gamers complain about 30 fps:
Many of us are used to 60 fps, or more, and a minimum of 1080p resolution and on top of that we also expect additional graphical features like higher resolution textures, better lighting effects, better AA and so on.
Our standards are simply higher than what a console provides. And so, when we get what is console standards presented to us in a PC game, it is substandard to us. It's not as good as we are accustomed to, and so we rightfully complain because we will not accept inferior performance in new games. We (PC players accustomed to 60 fps or more) simply have higher standards than the console experience, and we expect them to be satisfied - because the power is damn well there to provide that experience.
This is why we complain about 30 fps. It's half of what we are used to ? and that?s not counting other issues that might be present in a multi-platform game. And we will not accept our standards being lowered for the sake of the consoles any more than you'd accept the speed limit being lowered from 100km/h (~60mph) to 50km/h (~30mph), on the basis that two popular models of cars can't drive that fast.
30 fps has no right to exist as the target frame rate in a PC title, it's as simple as that - it?s 60 (or higher, if you have the power) or you can go fuck yourself.
Personally though, if I'd stuck with consoles, I'd probably not give a damn as I'd only experience a more stable frame rate and prettier graphics. That's what you get when you move from the previous console generation to the current one, and that's probably all you'll notice if you haven't become accustomed 60 fps or more. And personally I don't blame you at all if you think that's fine and that it lets you to enjoy your console version of a game. But it's completely unacceptable in a PC version.
So yes, most PC players don?t want to play and don?t enjoy games running at 30 fps. But many (dare I say most) also forget that it?s not (even though we think it should be) what the latest consoles are selling. They are selling prettier graphics, and a more stable 30 fps that doesn?t dip as often. That?s substandard to a decent gaming PC, but a welcome upgrade if you only play on consoles, or even a PC that doesn?t provide more than around 30 fps and comparable graphics to a console.
So, in conclusion: 30 fps is and continues to be fine if you move from console to console. You?ll only notice the upgrades in graphics. It?s substandard to what most PC gamers expect, thus they naturally see the consoles as just that: substandard.
Even simpler:
Last generation console to current generation console = upgrade, prettier graphics, same frame rate, smoother gameplay, higher standards provided.
Decent PC to current generation console = downgrade, inferior graphics, lower frame rate, slower gameplay, lower standards provided.
PC version of a console game running like a console game = See decent PC to current generation console.
This is what causes the resistance from PC gamers, as we do not want standards to decrease.
Now that all of that is over; I'm still cautiously optimistic for the Division. It looks like a game I'd enjoy and I will continue to follow its development, for now. Sorry about the wall of text, I hope I got my point across.
Yes, 60 fps is objectively better than 30. There's nothing more to say there. But if you're used to 30 fps and get more games running at a stable 30 fps, there's no change and you simply get what you're used to.
If you, like me, have later migrated over to play some PC games at a minimal 1080p and 60+ fps (which the PC I've had for about 3 years now still provides), then going back too and/or simply seeing 30 fps is noticeably inferior. It just doesn't feel as good any more, as it's noticeably sluggish. To some that's simply unbearable.
But if you simply go from Xbox 360 and/or PS3 to Xbox One and/or PS4 you'll only see an upgrade in graphical fidelity, the difference in fps isn't there to be seen because it hasn't changed. If anything it might have even become more consistent, with fewer instances where it drops below 30. It's just plain better looking, and probably runs better ? that?s what you?ll experience.
Now, simply put, this is why PC gamers complain about 30 fps:
Many of us are used to 60 fps, or more, and a minimum of 1080p resolution and on top of that we also expect additional graphical features like higher resolution textures, better lighting effects, better AA and so on.
Our standards are simply higher than what a console provides. And so, when we get what is console standards presented to us in a PC game, it is substandard to us. It's not as good as we are accustomed to, and so we rightfully complain because we will not accept inferior performance in new games. We (PC players accustomed to 60 fps or more) simply have higher standards than the console experience, and we expect them to be satisfied - because the power is damn well there to provide that experience.
This is why we complain about 30 fps. It's half of what we are used to ? and that?s not counting other issues that might be present in a multi-platform game. And we will not accept our standards being lowered for the sake of the consoles any more than you'd accept the speed limit being lowered from 100km/h (~60mph) to 50km/h (~30mph), on the basis that two popular models of cars can't drive that fast.
30 fps has no right to exist as the target frame rate in a PC title, it's as simple as that - it?s 60 (or higher, if you have the power) or you can go fuck yourself.
Personally though, if I'd stuck with consoles, I'd probably not give a damn as I'd only experience a more stable frame rate and prettier graphics. That's what you get when you move from the previous console generation to the current one, and that's probably all you'll notice if you haven't become accustomed 60 fps or more. And personally I don't blame you at all if you think that's fine and that it lets you to enjoy your console version of a game. But it's completely unacceptable in a PC version.
So yes, most PC players don?t want to play and don?t enjoy games running at 30 fps. But many (dare I say most) also forget that it?s not (even though we think it should be) what the latest consoles are selling. They are selling prettier graphics, and a more stable 30 fps that doesn?t dip as often. That?s substandard to a decent gaming PC, but a welcome upgrade if you only play on consoles, or even a PC that doesn?t provide more than around 30 fps and comparable graphics to a console.
So, in conclusion: 30 fps is and continues to be fine if you move from console to console. You?ll only notice the upgrades in graphics. It?s substandard to what most PC gamers expect, thus they naturally see the consoles as just that: substandard.
Even simpler:
Last generation console to current generation console = upgrade, prettier graphics, same frame rate, smoother gameplay, higher standards provided.
Decent PC to current generation console = downgrade, inferior graphics, lower frame rate, slower gameplay, lower standards provided.
PC version of a console game running like a console game = See decent PC to current generation console.
This is what causes the resistance from PC gamers, as we do not want standards to decrease.
Now that all of that is over; I'm still cautiously optimistic for the Division. It looks like a game I'd enjoy and I will continue to follow its development, for now. Sorry about the wall of text, I hope I got my point across.
