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

[Evonisia]

Though I am starting to notice the 30fps sluggishness, on the whole I am not bothered at all unless the game is poorly optimised so the frame rate drops even lower.

Though I do wish Triple A developers would just lower the resolution to get a higher frame rate on their games, I mean the boob glisten devices won't look too bad if you lowered it to 900p or (God forbid) 720p.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I do prefer the feel of 60FPS, but I can deal with lower framerates, its not the end all be all. However games these days really should be aiming to hit 60fps

 

[Windcaler]

There are a few contributing factors. 1. Most console games arent released at 60 FPS. In fact theyre locked at 30 more often then not. So a lot gamers that play on consoles dont notice the difference due to lack of experience. 2. Many systems are built into the game like aim assist to help deal with lack of precision and smoothness. A game like the stick of truth FPS doesnt matter at all. The same could be said for a turn based strategy game like X-com. However for games that require speedy reaction time and precision like FPS and to a lesser extent 3rdPS it becomes highly noticiable without these systems (which usually cant be turned off).

Lets also be honest about framerate. The higher framerate you go the more you hit diminishing returns. For example going from 15-30 fps makes a game go from unplayable to playable. 30-60 puts a lot more twitch performance in the hands of the player. 120+ FPS you start getting diminishing returns. Running say Battlefield 3 at 120+ FPS definately feels smoother and more accurate but you dont see as massive of a difference then say going from 30-60, or 15-30

Personally I think develoeprs should be releasing two options. The locked 30fps that looks amazing and the 60fps with graphical downgrades version. That would allow console players to choose which they want to prioritize, gameplay or looks. It would also stop games locked at 30fps (like the last of us) from seeming frustrating if not unplayable to those of us used to 60+ like me

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's a couple of things that layer on top of each other:
- their screen is 10 feet away
- the camera angles are tight
- all sorts of effects are added to muddy up the moving images
- their controls are real slow comparatively
- and games are designed to compensate for inherit imprecision
This makes it hard to tell there is a stutter.

On PC meanwhile you are looking at a screen from 2-3 feet, possibly twice the FoV, the control input is realtime hand movement, games mostly use the raw input and if you turn the blurring off you will have a knife sharp image. All that makes it incredibly easy to spot imperfections, when you swing the view around and the objects around you stutter, and when you move your mouse an exact distance and it doesn't end up there nor keeps up with the timing... that shit is jarring as hell.

Finally there is the personal component, how quality aware people are, for someone who considers McDonalds fine dining anything will do, but to people who take notice of how things actually turn out this will look quite a bit different.

 

[1Life0Continues]

If the Church of 1080p60fps, Glory to TotalBiscuit, Hallowed be His Name would pony up the dough required for all of us lowly peons to play at this, the most Holiest of Standards, then I wouldst surely fall to my knees in succor, and proselytise the joy that it most assuredly is.
...
Until then, back off, shut up and don't judge me for making the best of what I have.

Amen.

 

[Aesir23]

I will repeat what some of the others have said. I really don't care.

Sure, on a PC you can tell the difference between 60 and 30 fps(although I don't really notice any choppiness until it dips into the low 20s) but when you're playing on a console you really can't tell the difference. Honestly, even when I am playing on a PC I don't care about the FPS until it dips into unplayable territory.

 

[GTMippey]

I bought an n64 and I'm currently having more fun with that than I have with any modern game for a while.
God knows what fps those games run at.
Who cares as long as the game's fun?
Elitists nowadays....
*Edit: "Elitists" wasn't aimed at anyone in this thread for the record.

 

[Gunner 51]

Because I can't really notice any real difference, it just isn't really a problem - hell, it doesn't even affect my gameplay.

I say this because I come from a generation where using the Acorn Electron was pretty swish, and that thing could barely manage or or two frames per second. (And it was still FUN!)

 

[Sandjube]

As a pc gamer for....a long time now, I notice when my game drops to 30 pretty damn easily, and it irritates me. That being said it's far more annoying in some types of games than others. I mean, just try to do as well in say Counter strike with only 30fps, or any other twitch movement game. For stuff like racing games or whatever, eh.

 

[JagermanXcell]

I don't really care just as long as the game is good/runs well.

The only games where MAH EYES notice the difference and it legitamtely bugs me, only ever narrows down to the character action genre. If it's not 60FPS or higher, it's not the fast pace i'm playing the game for...
*stares intensely at DmC*

 

[GundamSentinel]

Because I quite simply don't care. Graphics come in dead last when it comes to making a game enjoyable. FPS fall into that category for me. I don't care what the FPS are on a game so long as its fun to play.

Yep, basically this. Often enough, I don't even notice it. Maybe I'm more easily immersed (god, I hate to use that word) in a game than other people, but when I'm playing a game I enjoy the fps can drop below 20 without me caring (believe me, I have enough experience playing on crappy PCs, this has happened often).

Do I see the difference? Of course, I'm not blind. Do I care? No.

Or maybe I am blind. I often watch TotalBiscuits 'WTF is?' series, and sometimes when he remarks on texture quality, AA, or whatever, I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with it.

I won't say that graphics come last in my appreciation of a game (nothing wrong with a game that looks good), but I would say: art direction > graphics, every day.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Because it's always a trade-off.

I'm one of those people that does both, but because PC's are so flexible, I often experiment with settings.

What framerate I will put up with really depends on the game.

Some games are really, really bad at low framerates.
Even console games. (One that comes to mind is bit.trip beat - Even on the Wii, where the only 'framerate' choices are Pal 50hz, vs 60 hz mode, 60 hz is better for gameplay)

Thing is, in a lot of games 60 fps just doesn't get you anything.

And the price you pay is reduced graphical quality.

Less detailed meshes, lower resolution textures (lower resolutions generally), lower quality effects... Etc.

As an example, on PC, with a mid-range system playing, say, the original Crysis,

Going from 30 fps to 60 is the difference between playing on one of the highest graphical settings versus one of the lowest.

The improvements in framerate come at such a huge cost to visual quality, it's clearly only something you'd do if you were absolutely desperate, or if it was having a very large, and very obvious negative effect on being able to play the game...

I for one, don't like making that trade-off, so I often opt for lower framerates, but higher visual quality.
(Except for AA. AA can suck it, mostly. I mean, yes, it makes things look better, usually, but typically at the expense of AT LEAST a 15 fps drop, in my experience. (And often a lot more). Besides which, if you have the choice between AA and simply running the game in a higher resolution, higher resolutions win every time. Why play a game at 1280x720 with 4x AA when you can play it at 2560x1600 with AA turned off?)

 

[Kathinka]

i think it also has to do with the input devices.
with the precision of a mouse, especially in shooters, medium fps around 30 will be very noticeable. since a gamepad is a world more inaccurate and slow, and console shooters almost always feature some kind of aim assist or the other, lower fps are much less noticeable, except of course on the eye.

 

[Twintix]

Agreed with everyone else.

I don't give a shit about framerates. My give-a-shit-o meter never started up.

I've never had too much of a problem with framerate droppings, and when I did, I never felt like it impacted my experience. I have fun with my games. I don't care about quality graphics. I don't care about framerates. All that's needed for me to enjoy a game is if it's fun.

Not saying PC gamers don't like fun games, of course.

 

[Irick]

I really wish that developers would make a fluid 60 FPS a design goal.
I mean, I understand the trade offs going on, but i'm always happy to hear a developer on the console side of things prioritise a smooth gameplay expereince. Especially since it isn't ever going to get better. On a PC I can just throw money at the problem, but a console is stuck with whatever choices are made.

I remember playing Fallout 3 on the PS3, that was a poor experience until it got patched up to at least a decently stable FPS. But I also remember playing things like Tekken 5, and loving the hell out of it. That trade off can be easily made. It doesn't need to be that drastic, I'm fine with 720p60FPS on console, but I want that clean, tight control.

Probably because of my twitch gaming heritage, but still. Graphics are no big deal, responsiveness is.

Seriously, playing Doom 3 at 120 FPS is such a massively different experience...

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Ahhh, the not so subtle console vs pc bullshit yet again...don't people get tired of it?

I don't give a shit about frames per second unless the game runs like a bag of shit. I don't care about frames per second unless i'm playing a multiplayer game where someone uses the faster technology to gain an unfair advantage because they lack the skills without it. I don't care about frames per second because the people who talk about such things are generally fuckwits

 

[smithy_2045]

Simply, it doesn't matter as long as you get a consistent frame rate. I'd rather a constant 30fps over a 60fps that drops during intense moments.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

I'm not really interested in graphics full-stop ? so long as the framerate doesn't slow enough to affect the gameplay.

Having looked at a few links in this thread comparing 30 and 60 fps, I have to admit, I hate 60fps - it looks ridiculous to me, it feels like all the movement is exaggerated and 'hyper-real'. Reminds me of the new Hobbit films ? I saw them in 3D at 48fps and it completely ruined the experience for me. Peter Jackson said the rationale was for more 'immersion' but I felt it did the exact opposite and I think the same is true (for me at least) with 60fps games.

 

[masticina]

Well I am mostly a console gamer due to having a laptop and not a pc. And well it might have a GT 630M, yet being an M meands mobile, aka quite slower then the desktop variants. And some games like skyrim run pretty meager on it To say it nicely the PS3 runs Skyrim better.

So yeah that sucks

Still the older games and older RPG's I love run great on it so. It isn't a loss.

Now why do console gamers not mind 30 fps. Oh sure having more would be nice but a console is a frozen in time asset, it gets it set of hardware and then that stays. It isn't improved...

This means that many console gamers are happy enough if a game runs. Indeed if a game runs without to many problems they already are happy. Then 30fps versus 60fps... eh doesn't matter. They get gameplay the graphics look acceptable, the sound is good. And they get to play the game! That is all that matters that you get to play the game.

Sure on a game pc or even a pc with a budget graphics card it might look better. Hell even on one of those Kavari AMD APU's phew... it doesn't looks terrible there. Easily beats a PS3 or Xbox 360! Okay it might not beat a PS4 or Xbox One still.

So yeah if you really really care about FPS and how it looks sure buy a game pc. And you don't have to invest $1000. Far from even super budget gaming pc's if put on lower settings.. actually perform very good.

I am thinking about a $450 or about that gaming system. Not the most powerful to say the least but at least it allows me to play Skyrim on PC relative good. And maybe The Witcher...

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Sounds like a confirmation bias. I get it, you don't like consoles. Kudos for you, not liking something because its "inferior." On the technical side, you are correct that it is inferior. However, it doesn't matter in the long run because unless 60 fps changes the gameplay in a noticeable way, it doesn't matter. By noticeable I mean actually improves it, not marginally makes things a bit more accurate. Sure there are games that 60 fps gives an advantage to the player, mostly in multiplayer. In a single-player story, 30 fps can serve just fine and not detract from any of the game. It doesn't make the writing better, it doesn't make the game mechanics suddenly seem 100% more fun. It is mostly just an aesthetic preference.
So why console gamers are satisfied? Because their games play, are fun and engaging to them and there isn't enough of a difference for them to really notice unless you put things side-by-side.
The other nice thing about consoles is that you know for sure that the guy you are playing with across the world/country/state/city/town/village/etc. is playing with the same specs and same limitations and has no advantage over you except maybe better latency. Also they don't have to worry about buying a new video card or CPU because a new game's framerate tanked due to old hardware.