[Update 2] How/why are console gamers satisfied with 30 fps?
- Thread starter Aaron Sylvester
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The human eye does not have a framerate or a resolution. This whole "your eyes can't see higher than X" is complete nonsense.
30 FPS is fine enough for me, unless it's a fighting game. If fighter run on 30 FPS it's unplayable, otherwise I don't give a damn.
After recently getting a 144hz G-sync monitor.
The idea of playing games at at least 40-100 FPS lower, just seems laughable.
I guess the problem with consoles is you simply don't get a say in the matter.
It's 30FPS, or nothing. So, I suppose most are "Satisfied" because they simply can't choose.
The idea of playing games at at least 40-100 FPS lower, just seems laughable.
I guess the problem with consoles is you simply don't get a say in the matter.
It's 30FPS, or nothing. So, I suppose most are "Satisfied" because they simply can't choose.
I've played many a game going from 30-60fps and honestly I'm fine with either, hell I still play C&C Kane's Wrath and Red Alert 3 on PC (originally 360) and on all platforms those two games are locked at 30 and it's never once bothered me, the only time I've been bothered is when I had a lower end PC years back and wasn't able to run games on bare minimum back then so the FPS would diver from 30 to 12fps and only then did it bother me but apart from that small experience I'm totally fine with 30fps.
Also like some have said it only seems to be PC people that start these threads, there's no changing their opinion, why try to change people like me who are fine with either?, you don't really gain anything at all from this and I certainly don't either, it feels like a "I'm right you're just plain wrong" type of discussion, why must we keep having those if they go nowhere?.
Also like some have said it only seems to be PC people that start these threads, there's no changing their opinion, why try to change people like me who are fine with either?, you don't really gain anything at all from this and I certainly don't either, it feels like a "I'm right you're just plain wrong" type of discussion, why must we keep having those if they go nowhere?.
Because we literally don't care. The only thing we care about is if it lags or not. That's it.
Resolution gate is the dumbest thing to get mad about in a console. I care about the games and the visual aesthetic. Not what is essentially a dick bragging contest about fps, that become irrelevant to the eye after 40fps.
Resolution gate is the dumbest thing to get mad about in a console. I care about the games and the visual aesthetic. Not what is essentially a dick bragging contest about fps, that become irrelevant to the eye after 40fps.
Because they get what they pay for.
I'd rather a solid 30 fps than something that fluctuates between 20-40 and tears like crazy (tearing gives me bad headaches). That said I play on PC and lock everything to my monitors refresh rate at 60. I am planning to upgrade to a higher refresh monitor as well as a higher resolution one in the near future, though the new Asus ROG monitor doe not suit my needs because gsync requires nvidia hardware and I refuse to bind my HID's to a specific gpu manufacturer.
Also the whole "human eye sees x frames" thing is bollocks, stop it, stop it now.
I'd rather a solid 30 fps than something that fluctuates between 20-40 and tears like crazy (tearing gives me bad headaches). That said I play on PC and lock everything to my monitors refresh rate at 60. I am planning to upgrade to a higher refresh monitor as well as a higher resolution one in the near future, though the new Asus ROG monitor doe not suit my needs because gsync requires nvidia hardware and I refuse to bind my HID's to a specific gpu manufacturer.
Also the whole "human eye sees x frames" thing is bollocks, stop it, stop it now.
In my opinion the higher framerate is required not to make the game "look nice". But instead it's to reduce input lag as much as possible, improving my gaming experience. This directly increases my enjoyment of a game as well, I played The Last of Us on the Playstation 3 and I know I'd have loved it a lot more if it was running at a solid 60, it made aiming ridiculously cumbersome for me.
On the PC, I'd willing turn down the graphics just to have a higher framerate, again because it's about the gameplay, not about the graphical quality. I wish this was an option on the console too. It's such a big point for me that that's one of the issues stopping me from considering to buy a console at the moment.
On the PC, I'd willing turn down the graphics just to have a higher framerate, again because it's about the gameplay, not about the graphical quality. I wish this was an option on the console too. It's such a big point for me that that's one of the issues stopping me from considering to buy a console at the moment.
I gamed on a lousy computer and consoles for a long time. 30 FPS really doesn't bother me unless the game runs too quickly for that to be enough (racing games and fighter pilot games typically tend to have to run at pretty high FPS because of the speed of the action). As long as I can clearly make out what's going on, that extra touch of smoothness usually doesn't make or break a game for me. Likewise with resolution. I'd certainly prefer 1080p and extensive AA/texture detail/etc. over a locked in setting, but graphical aesthetic is far more important. I'd take a game like Portal 2 or Arkham Asylum or Call of Juarez: Gunslinger over a lot of more recent titles because they looked damn good no matter what setting they were on.
If you were selling 60fps for 1 fuck, I'd keep my fuck.
All I ever read is about resolutions and fps scores but the only people who care about it are pc users. "OMG, it only runs at 30 and so and so resolution?" And the console users just say "I like/hate this game".
It doesn't even register in a buying decision, where as you said yourself pc gamers will shun games that don't meet certain requirements. Doesn't matter how enjoyable the game is, if it doesn't meet expectations then it can fuck off.
Personally, I think console gamers have it right. Caring is snobbish and elitist to me ... which fits in perfectly with the amount of "Pc gaming master race/console peasent" comments I see.
All I ever read is about resolutions and fps scores but the only people who care about it are pc users. "OMG, it only runs at 30 and so and so resolution?" And the console users just say "I like/hate this game".
It doesn't even register in a buying decision, where as you said yourself pc gamers will shun games that don't meet certain requirements. Doesn't matter how enjoyable the game is, if it doesn't meet expectations then it can fuck off.
Personally, I think console gamers have it right. Caring is snobbish and elitist to me ... which fits in perfectly with the amount of "Pc gaming master race/console peasent" comments I see.
My guess is because games can have fluid controls and nice graphics at 30 FPS.
This just became accepted as a standard over the years and here we are. I have no REAL problem with the situation but it does seem odd that FPS are not among the many things we strive to improve over time.
I suppose when it comes down to spending money and weighing the return based on what's spent...there's simply more important things for companies to invest in over exceeding 30FPS.
That said...I was almost exclusively a console gamer for a time when you'd find a good mix of both and I definitely appreciated the games that went for 60FPS. It was never a deal breaker but it was a noticeable change that I appreciated.
I'm a PC exclusive gamer now though (thanks to steam, humblebundle and similar sites driving down the cost of the hobby).
This just became accepted as a standard over the years and here we are. I have no REAL problem with the situation but it does seem odd that FPS are not among the many things we strive to improve over time.
I suppose when it comes down to spending money and weighing the return based on what's spent...there's simply more important things for companies to invest in over exceeding 30FPS.
That said...I was almost exclusively a console gamer for a time when you'd find a good mix of both and I definitely appreciated the games that went for 60FPS. It was never a deal breaker but it was a noticeable change that I appreciated.
I'm a PC exclusive gamer now though (thanks to steam, humblebundle and similar sites driving down the cost of the hobby).
Maybe they're still shellshocked by the 15fps eye destroying playstation 1 "beginning of three dee" era.
Fps and resolution seem to be the new "bit" in this "console war" except that this carries more actual meaning than bits and blast processing but if you have been an owner of a pc for a while, this whole catfight about already on the brink of outdated formats seems kind of ridiculous and not something you'd want to draw attention to if you were responsible for those consoles.
Like the ps4 can "do 1080p" at a constant 60fps.
Conglaturations sony, here's a lolipop. Good jo- oh noo, 4k is right around the corner.
Welp.
Better make a new console that can "do 4k" now since you market on the resolution. Idiots.
Fps and resolution seem to be the new "bit" in this "console war" except that this carries more actual meaning than bits and blast processing but if you have been an owner of a pc for a while, this whole catfight about already on the brink of outdated formats seems kind of ridiculous and not something you'd want to draw attention to if you were responsible for those consoles.
Like the ps4 can "do 1080p" at a constant 60fps.
Conglaturations sony, here's a lolipop. Good jo- oh noo, 4k is right around the corner.
Welp.
Better make a new console that can "do 4k" now since you market on the resolution. Idiots.
It's easy to undersell the importance of visual fidelity in enjoyment of a game. When people talk about a game not needing to look good to be enjoyable so long as the gameplay is fun they assume that means the game looks passable, or generic, as opposed to the game looking like garbage. Trust me when I say you probably wouldn't have enjoyed games like Okami if they didn't look as stunning as they did. Sure if it looked passable it would have had SOME cult following, but if it had looked like arse it would probably never have been noticed.
Slight tangent, but point being it applies to FPS as well, albeit FPS being more complex due to having much larger and consistent affects on gameplay. A consistent 30fps is at least passable, and I'm sure as hell glad companies set it as the baseline, but I'll be damned if 60fps isn't 100% better in all cases ever.
Probably not the most cohesive argument out there, kind of just reeling off my thoughts for while, but whatever.
Slight tangent, but point being it applies to FPS as well, albeit FPS being more complex due to having much larger and consistent affects on gameplay. A consistent 30fps is at least passable, and I'm sure as hell glad companies set it as the baseline, but I'll be damned if 60fps isn't 100% better in all cases ever.
Probably not the most cohesive argument out there, kind of just reeling off my thoughts for while, but whatever.
I actually attempt to force my PC to 30 Frames a second when I am able. Much like in the world of Film, having lower framerates can change the feel and the experience. in the context of modern games I do notice that Lighting effects seem a lot more constantly noticeable in lower framerates given how they reflect off of textures and junk.
Problem is a lot of games on the PC arn't designed to run at 30 frames and end up glitching in minor ways. Such as Killing Floor losing its slickness and certain UI elements.
Though in general its always better to play the game at the framerate it was designed around. Fable 3 for instance on PC allows framerates higher than 30 but it looks bad because all the effects and the like were designed to be viewed at 30. You also lose that nice fantasy-realism blur bloom effect.
Problem is a lot of games on the PC arn't designed to run at 30 frames and end up glitching in minor ways. Such as Killing Floor losing its slickness and certain UI elements.
Though in general its always better to play the game at the framerate it was designed around. Fable 3 for instance on PC allows framerates higher than 30 but it looks bad because all the effects and the like were designed to be viewed at 30. You also lose that nice fantasy-realism blur bloom effect.
Pretty much this. Honestly why should we care? That is the bigger question. For me its kind of like asking why do you settle for less than 1080P Ultra HD Mega Pore Viewer Mode? We "settle" because if the designers have done their job right it really shouldn't matter. For the visuals if it has a unifying art aesthetic that makes the game unique then it shouldn't matter if its in 360p or 1080p it will look good/beautiful either way. Which I don't think its wrong of me to say that Nintendo are the masters at this and probably the best in the entire industry at it. Their games from all the way back in the NES and SNES days have aged spectacularly. I'm even willing to bet 20 years from now Super Mario World on the SNES will have aged much better than any of the CoD, Battlefield, or Gears of War games.Aaron Sylvester said:
As for the FPS question its kind of the same thing. If they have done their jobs right there really should be no noticeable difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. PC devs have just been using 60 as their standard for so long that if it even slightly drops below you can tell a difference and it makes the game less enjoyable. With games that look and run just as smooth at 30 vs. their PC counter parts at 60 why should we care?