[Update 2] How/why are console gamers satisfied with 30 fps?

Lockling

New member
Aug 16, 2010
20
0
0
Whether or not im satisfied with it is entirely up to the game.

Fighting games run at 30FPS would either a)have the animation slowed down to compensate b)would have its gameplay simplified by ALOT or c)would have the problem of some move having 7 impact frames, but not always hitting a -7 move(the idea being it would be a i13 move now).

FPS i dont really play, but for them i suppose id like to have tighter reaction windows, so 60 is better.

For any other game, it really makes no difference whether i order my troops to attack/allocate my stat points/activate turbo boosts in 5 frames at 60FPS or 3 frames at 30FPS.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
Yeah... I just don't care about framerate as long as its consistent framerate...

With that said, every rhythm-based game needs to be, at least, 60FPS... especially when they're played on their highest difficulty when shit gets intense as fuck, if you know what you mean...
 

Darklupus

New member
Mar 13, 2010
46
0
0
The more frame rate a computer has, the less likely the computer will slow down, and the more content one can put in a game. If a person can put more content in a game, the more obstacles the game designers can put into a game to make the game more challenging and possibly more fun to play. The more challenging and fun a game is, the more likely the game will sell compared to ones with low budget.
 

Strelok

New member
Dec 22, 2012
494
0
0
Does it matter? The archaic console does not have much time left. Once the relics are gone this bizarre debate will finally be over. I mean it's 2014, there are console gamers ready to re-buy Halo 2 for what, the third time now? It still can't hit 1080P and 60 FPS. XBone is only a year old and hit it's ceiling, consoles need to go, and soon.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Strelok said:
Does it matter? The archaic console does not have much time left. Once the relics are gone this bizarre debate will finally be over. I mean it's 2014, there are console gamers ready to re-buy Halo 2 for what, the third time now? It still can't hit 1080P and 60 FPS. XBone is only a year old and hit it's ceiling, consoles need to go, and soon.
Because all PC gamers have top line rigs, yup. They are the ones making these threads on here too also right? The message coming through isn't one of not caring or anything.
Oh and as always even if you are correct that they'll go the way of the dodo at some point it'll be no grand show of clairvoyance. You claimed that last generation, have this generation, will the next, and so forth.

FPLOON said:
Yeah... I just don't care about framerate as long as its consistent framerate...

With that said, every rhythm-based game needs to be, at least, 60FPS... especially when they're played on their highest difficulty when shit gets intense as fuck, if you know what you mean...
Not exactly... I say that because Drakengard 3 was 30 frames (on its best day), and it had yet another infamous rhythm game at the end. Cleared it on the 4th/5th try.
 

Ticklefist

New member
Jul 19, 2010
487
0
0
I think if people had a chance to see their favorite games running at top performance they'd change their tune. The "gameplay is all that matters" point goes out the window when we're discussing the same game. It's a cop out answer.
 

lunavixen

New member
Jan 2, 2012
841
0
0
I don't really notice the difference when I switch between PC and my consoles, so it doesn't really matter to me. I would actually rather have a lower but more stable FPS than a higher but unstable one. Also, on consoles, keeping a locked down FPS can keep a more level playing field, especially with multiplayer games (internet lag discounted). There are also differences between the arrangements of PC and console; console players tend to sit further away from the screen, game angles and FOV are different, controllers don't have the reaction speed relative to the hand movement as tightly, etc.

Most of the games I play don't really need a higher FPS anyway, as very few modern games have interested me lately.
 

Ushiromiya Battler

Oddly satisfied
Feb 7, 2010
601
0
0
To all the people saying fps doesn't matter. It does. Not having a stable 30 or 60 is living hell. FPS drops can completely ruin a game.
Now is there a massive difference between 30 or 60fps? Not really. It just has to be stable, and consoles are a lot better at bringing stable fps.
 

Ishnuvalok

New member
Jul 14, 2008
266
0
0
Ushiromiya Battler said:
Now is there a massive difference between 30 or 60fps? Not really.
This is just flat-out wrong.

I dare anyone who says this to play a game on their PC running at 60fps, then to use the nvidia control panel to force 30Hz after 10-15 minutes.
You WILL notice a MASSIVE difference in how the game looks and feels.
Anyone who says "There isn't a massive difference" hasn't played a game side-by-side running at 30 and 60fps, they've only seen comparison videos on Youtube.

This is not a subjective debate, it's an objective fact that 60fps is superior to 30fps.

The only reason this non-debate exists is because idiots started believing the trolls who said "30fps is superior for cinematic games".
 

Liquidprid3

New member
Jan 24, 2014
237
0
0
It's more noticeable on PC because you are much closer to your screen. On console, your sitting on a couch/chair at least 5 times further back than on a PC, therefore 30 FPS is less noir enable. I can tell if a game is 30 or 60 FPS, but it's only important on consoles if the game is fast paced. PC games should always be reaching 60-120 FPS, but consoles have limitations, so I understand 30 FPS. Honestly, I'll take 30 FPS over a fluctuation of 20-50 FPS any day (some games on console let you unlock the framerate.)
 

Ishnuvalok

New member
Jul 14, 2008
266
0
0
Liquidprid3 said:
It's more noticeable on PC because you are much closer to your screen. On console, your sitting on a couch/chair at least 5 times further back than on a PC)
That applies to resolution, not framerate. Framerate is easily noticeable regardless of distance.
Differences in resolution change depending on distance and display size, for example: A 48" 4K display is indistinguishable from a 1080p display past 2 meters or so.
 

Haerthan

New member
Mar 16, 2014
434
0
0
You are all a bunch of dirty console peasants. PC MASTER GAMING RACE FOR LIFE SON!!!!!!!!! Oh yea look at that ************ shoot peeps in 60 frame per second and triple anti-aliasing and the highest settings money can buy. Look at the blood flow from that awesome-looking stump. /s
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Ishnuvalok said:
for example: A 48" 4K display is indistinguishable from a 1080p display past 2 meters or so.
this is false. there is a circling false graph that seems to claim that, however the graphc is incorrect because it assumes we are using only small part of our vision to see the screen. it also worth mentioning that our concetration point (whithc shifts around hundreds of times per second btw, our eyes move like crazy) has up to 457 megapixels resolution. thats over 21000p on only our focus point. so the whole "you cant see 4k on small displays" is pure bullshit.

porunga said:
then people mentioned in this thread that 60fps feels unnatural to them, comparing it to watching movies like Hobbit at 48fps or thereabouts.
these people are lieing. if that was true, then real life would look fake, because real life has even higher "Refresh rate". your eyes see it in matter of hundreds and above.

the reason Hobbit looked "Fake" was because higher framerate meant better visuals, whitch in turn allowed for fake props to stand out more among the real things (like landscape and people). Hobbit was in fact more natural than 24fps movies, its just that people spotted the fake props easier. thats like getting a better signal on your TV and noticing that a man in a rubber suit of a monster looks fake. better signal does not make it look fake, you just finally are able to notice it because the signal is better.
 

Rylee Fox

Queen of Light
Aug 3, 2011
115
0
0
I quit playing consoles and went to pc out of necessity since I had no where to put one anymore.

Played pc games for a few years until my laptop got stolen. I played tons of games that ran at a stable 60fps. You know what my reaction was to the difference? I didn't even notice.

I got a Wii U (which I am very much enjoying) instead of another computer and no matter the game I play, if it runs at 60 or not I still do not notice.

I recall playing Skyrim on my pc at medium settings until I had a better comp when I put it on ultra and even used the hi def pack download. I could barely see the difference.

Basically, if the frame rate is stable and the game is fun, I don't give a crap what it looks like really. The fps wars don't mean anything to me.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Higher framerates are more about a sharper gameplay experience rather than smoother graphics. I really can't understand all of these "graphics don't matter if the game is good" responses to the OP. It's not about graphics. I usually sacrifice graphical fidelity for more consistent and faster FPS.

I think console gamers are just used to 30 FPS and heavily motion-blurred games and as a previous comment said, they usually play on TVs a few feet away with controllers that are comparatively clunky compared to a keyboard and mouse (not bashing game pads, many people prefer the restriction and ergonomics of a controller compared to a keyboard... but they're not as precise and I don't think they were ever meant to be).

If you're watching someone else play, I'm sure even 24FPS could suffice. But when you're playing at 30FPS after being used to smoother framerates your input doesn't feel as "instant" and your agency over the player character and the game experience suffers.

With many older games they can run at hundreds of frames per second on decent PCs these days and playing them feels extremely streamlined (the gameplay in Doom feels so fast and dare I say, "aerodynamic"), as if there's no barrier between the game and the player. If there was a 30FPS cap the sluggishness would be felt immediately.
 

Ishnuvalok

New member
Jul 14, 2008
266
0
0
Strazdas said:
Ishnuvalok said:
for example: A 48" 4K display is indistinguishable from a 1080p display past 2 meters or so.
this is false. there is a circling false graph that seems to claim that, however the graphc is incorrect because it assumes we are using only small part of our vision to see the screen. it also worth mentioning that our concetration point (whithc shifts around hundreds of times per second btw, our eyes move like crazy) has up to 457 megapixels resolution. thats over 21000p on only our focus point. so the whole "you cant see 4k on small displays" is pure bullshit.
Our eyes don't see in "megapixels", the limit to what we can see is determined by its angular resolution. Which, for the human eye, is about ~1 arc minute (1/60th of a degree), slightly more or less depending on individual vision acuity.
At 200-250mm, this means that the smallest objects we can see are around 50-70 micrometers.

Resolution suffers from diminishing returns, though, just look at 1440p and 1080p ~5.5" smartphones.
We can't appreciate a difference in resolution between those displays. Although the moment a dead or stuck pixel presents itself, we tend to notice it.

That's why 4K displays are, for large TVs viewed at distances between 2-3 meters, for the most part worthless.


But this is a thread about framerate, not resolution.
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
Because I simply didn't give a fuck and I still don't now, as long as it's not running like a slide-show presentation at 15FPS.

Case in point, I play DayZ Mod averaging about 25FPS and I find that perfectly fine to play with. Fuck, I sometimes played it at 19FPS and found that tolerable as that was just before everything became a slide-show. I recently ran Shadow of Mordor at 50FPS on medium settings, also fine. I also played Borderlands 2 on console and I'm pretty sure that chugged down to 20FPS at some points and I didn't give a shit then as it wads fine. As long as I'm having fun and it's not a slide-show presentation, I don't care if I'm getting 20, 30, 60 or 100FPS. :p
 

SmugFrog

Ribbit
Sep 4, 2008
1,237
0
0
I think the reason people get so bent out of shape over 30 fps is because they're expecting during moments of a lot going on, it's likely to dip below 30 to around 15 or so. For a lot of people that may be unacceptable. Comparatively when people hear 60 fps, any resulting dip that even brought it down to 30 fps would be tolerable if not completely unnoticed. If the game keeps a steady 30 fps, I don't see a problem.

***EDIT - removed youtube video that doesn't really reflect accurate information***
 

Morgoth780

New member
Aug 6, 2014
152
0
0
I consider 30 fps unplayable. So everyone saying there isn't a massive difference between 30 and 60 fps - there is, you just don't pay attention/notice it. Which I don't blame you. I turn down graphical settings on a lot of games to be able to get 60, unless I'm installing a couple hundred Skyrim mods so it has insane graphics and lots of CTDs. But generally speaking, when being used to 60 fps, only being able to play at 30 fps has a huge impact on my enjoyment of a game. I went back and played some Crysis 3 on max settings to show my friend how great it looked, but it only runs at 30 fps and while I had been able to get through it at that framerate the first time, this second time around I quit after 5 minutes because of how frustrating it was to play. And I was too laxy to turn down graphical settings lol.