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

[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.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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, this post says it all. Yes we can agree 60 is better than 30. But i still dont care - 30fps has never stopped me from enjoying games. This is just another PC v Console flame bait thread. Because once both console do 60fps as normal then we will get "Why are console gamers satisfied with 60fps?" Ive been gaming since Atari and fps was never much of an issue and hasnt been until PC gaming became a thing and the fanboyism of consoles became prevalent and then PC gamers feeling left out. Just enjoy your gaming - what ever platform you use doesnt matter.

The thing about PC fanboys doing threads against console gamers is pointless. All console gamers admit that PCs have better graphics, better framerate and better resolution. I just cant see the point in keep bringing it up.

 

[Artaneius]

Really don't matter to me unless it's a game where I'm going to be playing competitively. Casually, I couldn't give a shit less about the fps.

 

[Irick]

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.

I can't speak for OP, but I gamed primarily on consoles for a pretty much every generation but the last. I've also always gamed on PCs, but i've always been quake a few years behind the curve in terms of GPU up until recently, so I always ended up playing older titles.

So, I can agree that 30 FPS is fine, but you can't tell me that fighting games are not improved from a 60 FPS experience. You can't tell me that driving sims are not improved from a FPS expereince. We know it to be true, the leading edge console devs know it to be true and we have developers like Kojima, Polyphony and Turn 10 who will throw no end of resources at the problem of making games look good and running at an uncompromised framerate. And we've seen them make compromises on the resolution for it in the previous generation.

A high resolution, high FPS experience is preferable. Just... it is. Anything short of that is a compromise... and I really wish that developers would compromise more on the visuals rather than the FPS. I think, going forward, the sort of dedication that we've been seeing at providing this sort of experience will drive more gamers to demand this sort of responsiveness and I think this generation can actually be the one to give it.

 

[Danny Dowling]

if the 30 frames are used properly it isn't noticeable to the human eye

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Because...

Spoiler

These threads about why I shouldn't be having as much fun as I do. What is it with them?

 

[Akiraking]

People forget that the frame rate is not as much just a visual graphics thing but a gameplay thing. If the frame rate is bad then the game wont be fun but at the same time if it was designed with 30 fps in mind then there should be no problem. Yes 60 looks better if you can tell the difference but if the game works on 30fps then you are not really missing out. If the game is a shooter than as long as you are playing against other 30 fps people then you are not in an unfair position.

 

[hermes]

Framerate is only an issue when it is an issue.
Having 60, 30 or 24 fps is not bad, the real problem is when its not locked.

Playing a game that varies its framerate between 60 and 30 is worst than a game that plays constantly at 30...

 

[NiPah]

I didn't know PC gamers cared so much about FPS, does it really matter when you're playing league of legends? That's like the only game PC users play right? When they get bored of leaguing they pop onto Internet forums and post how bad consoles are, then Go back to league.

 

[Guy_of_wonder]

When a frame rate is locked to either 30 or 60 or whatever, you will not noticed a difference at all. the game will be optimized to run at that framerate. The difference is when the framerate fluxes high or low. Some games need a higher framerate, like fighting games. others do not need a high framerate, they only make the game movement smoother.

watch these FPS test shows

http://futzi01.deviantart.com/art/FPS-Test-471165394 (MLP:FIM related)

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Framerate and resolution on consoles is just another way for console makers to continue the bit wars form the 80s and 90s without the innovation of that time.

 

[Nieroshai]

Being both a PC and console gamer for nearly 15 years, I can honestly say I've never seen a difference worth noting. That's right, in 15 years, the one thing I've NEVER noticed between PC and console gaming is framerate. My PC games are often MORE choppy, have TONS of anti-aliasing issues, and you're probably going to blame my rig, aren't you? The rig that, when it has these issues, is newer and "more" up-to-date than the console generation at the time. I seriously wonder if people who strike up these debates have even touched the preferred system of the opposition.

 

[Nieroshai]

As console gamer, and sometimes pc player.

They really don't care. They play games to, shock horror, play games for fun.
Because they're sensible.
Console gamers ar'nt as big graphics bores as pc, most of the time.

I don't give a frack what the hell my consoles run at, so long as the game works!
I have a PS2 and PS3, and the graphics are the last thing I think of.

The only time I notice is when they are grotesquely substandard failures. Like skyrim is. That fails at things they could do on Playstation 1!

When I play pc games, I don't give a frack what the graphics are. So long stuff looks like what it's meant to, and it runs, I'm fine.

When it comes to it, on any platform. The most important thing about a game is you can play it!
Mechanics, systems, playability! The graphics mean nothing!

It's freaking sad and pathetic, when the only things a gamer can say is about the graphics.
When they mean more to you than playing a game for fun, you need a serious rethink on why you're playing games.

All this bullcrap about fps or whatever. It's things you can't even see!
Your eyes don't even percieve them!

Despite agreeing for the most part, I'm gonna call bullshit. You couldn't even get Morrowind to run on a PS2 unless it was a downgraded port, so I don't see where you think a PS1 title outperforms Skyrim. Play King's Field, even the PS2 ones, even the PC ones, and tell me they're somehow technically better than even the 360 port of Skyrim.