What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?
- Thread starter WindKnight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe there isn't actually a physical difference between 30FPS and 59FPS when you're playing games. I think it;s because it has to sink up with the refresh rate of the screen and eye. I can't find where I read that thoughchadachada123 said:
The big debate over 60FPS is not if 60FPS is better or not, but rather if the loss of gameplay and immersion elements required to reach 60FPS on consoles is worth it.
Fro example, I can run Battlefield 3 on High with 60FPS on my computer - a damn good experience. However my 360 can only run the game at 30FPS and lowered graphical settings - its capable of pushing to 60 FPS, but in order to do so you'd have to strip out gameplay and immersion elements like destruction.
Or like the eternal debate over Call of Duty. They keep making one of their selling points that "Their game runs at 60FPS on all consoles" and that its some huge advantage. The counterpoint that many of us keep making and the both Treyarch and Infinity Ward keep refusing to answer is that many systems could run much harder to run games at 60FPS anyway, and that to keep that precious 60FPS, CoD is ignoring and refusing to add anything that would make the game better, like actual physics or even minor destruction.
Bungie (the makers of Halo) put it best (I'll paraphrase, since it was a long post): Systems like the 360 are perfectly capable of running games like Halo 3 and Reach at near 45 or 60FPS, but it causes stability issues and requires sacrifices in graphics and gameplay systems. Ultimately, we'd rather have a game that runs stably at 30FPS with its gameplay intact than at 60FPS with things stripped out of it.
Fro example, I can run Battlefield 3 on High with 60FPS on my computer - a damn good experience. However my 360 can only run the game at 30FPS and lowered graphical settings - its capable of pushing to 60 FPS, but in order to do so you'd have to strip out gameplay and immersion elements like destruction.
Or like the eternal debate over Call of Duty. They keep making one of their selling points that "Their game runs at 60FPS on all consoles" and that its some huge advantage. The counterpoint that many of us keep making and the both Treyarch and Infinity Ward keep refusing to answer is that many systems could run much harder to run games at 60FPS anyway, and that to keep that precious 60FPS, CoD is ignoring and refusing to add anything that would make the game better, like actual physics or even minor destruction.
Bungie (the makers of Halo) put it best (I'll paraphrase, since it was a long post): Systems like the 360 are perfectly capable of running games like Halo 3 and Reach at near 45 or 60FPS, but it causes stability issues and requires sacrifices in graphics and gameplay systems. Ultimately, we'd rather have a game that runs stably at 30FPS with its gameplay intact than at 60FPS with things stripped out of it.
24fps in movies and tv is not an argument.
it was the cheapest way to do movies with sound when that as novel and for some reason that was never changed.
i just hope the hobbit being shot in higher fps may put an end to that.
also: everything below 20 is shit, above 30 is ok and you only really need 60 when playing something very fast.
it was the cheapest way to do movies with sound when that as novel and for some reason that was never changed.
i just hope the hobbit being shot in higher fps may put an end to that.
also: everything below 20 is shit, above 30 is ok and you only really need 60 when playing something very fast.
While 30 to 60 is noticeable, it isn't that big a deal to me. Anything over 60 I don't believe there's any difference at all. Maybe my eyes are screwed. But generally the higher it is the more I prefer it, because as soon as I switch Fraps onto record I know that frame rate is dropping by a factor of three or four, and that's a difference I really can tell.
It really grinds my gears when people compare movies and games when it comes to frame rates.
A camera gathers light for the entire time the shutter is open so if there is any fast movement there is some "blurring". This makes the frame transitions smoother in film so 24fps is fine. In animated films, they will apply motion blur in post.
Games, however, render a single image per frame so if there are large movements it looks stuttered at low frame rates. Therefore you need higher frame rates for it to look smooth. Motion blur doesn't work so well here because games are real time and it has detect movement very quickly and apply the blur before the frame is rendered.
There is a difference. After playing games for so long at 60fps, I can see when something runs slower, even without a side-by-side comparison. It's just what I'm used to.
A camera gathers light for the entire time the shutter is open so if there is any fast movement there is some "blurring". This makes the frame transitions smoother in film so 24fps is fine. In animated films, they will apply motion blur in post.
Games, however, render a single image per frame so if there are large movements it looks stuttered at low frame rates. Therefore you need higher frame rates for it to look smooth. Motion blur doesn't work so well here because games are real time and it has detect movement very quickly and apply the blur before the frame is rendered.
There is a difference. After playing games for so long at 60fps, I can see when something runs slower, even without a side-by-side comparison. It's just what I'm used to.
The thing about ~24fps that we see on TV and in the cinema, is that it actually is kinda too slow. You can't do a very fast pan with 24fps because there aren't enough frames to show the changing image. A lot of games, that wouldn't be a problem, but in just about any modern FPS, you need to be able to turn your "camera" very quickly, and if the view appears to stutter when you do, it could get you shot.
I call bullshit on this statement.Daystar Clarion said:
At 30 FPS, there is .03 seconds between each frame. At 60 FPS there are .0167 seconds between frames. That's already a pretty miniscule difference, but it's made all the more irrevelent mechanically by the fact that the world's fastest human reaction times are .100 seconds, 6 times slower than the frametime at 60 FPS. If the the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is a workable amount for you, then congratulations you're officially superhuman, but no regular member of the homo sapiens species could actually utilize such a meager amount of time with any significant measurable difference in player capability.
Which would be a valid criticism if combos were down to individual frames, which they're not.The Heik said:
I suppose a lot of it is down to personal preference and the the differences between what people are use to, what individuals can perceive and what they think they can perceive.
If someone is adamant that they can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, then that's great for them and their enjoyment of media.
Likewise, if someone is adamant that they can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, then obviously it is more important to them and mustn't be dismissed as mere graphics whoring.
However, there is a very noticeable and undeniable difference between 24fps, 30fps and 60fps, but you may not actually be aware of it unless you have a side by side comparison (you could play many different isolated games without being aware they run at different frame rates).
This tool is the best comparison of frame rates I've come across, as it allows you to change the frame rates of different objects (and add more objects) within the same image, giving an unrivalled comparison:
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Personally, I'm fine with whatever frame rate a game throws at me, as long as it's consistent. I'll happily play a game at 30fps as long as it's 30fps at all times and while 60fps is obviously smoother and better for gameplay (especially racing games), that 60fps is worthless if it slows down at any point. I'd rather have a game capped at a consistent 30fps than a game that runs at 60fps but will suffer the occasional slow-down.
If someone is adamant that they can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, then that's great for them and their enjoyment of media.
Likewise, if someone is adamant that they can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, then obviously it is more important to them and mustn't be dismissed as mere graphics whoring.
However, there is a very noticeable and undeniable difference between 24fps, 30fps and 60fps, but you may not actually be aware of it unless you have a side by side comparison (you could play many different isolated games without being aware they run at different frame rates).
This tool is the best comparison of frame rates I've come across, as it allows you to change the frame rates of different objects (and add more objects) within the same image, giving an unrivalled comparison:
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Personally, I'm fine with whatever frame rate a game throws at me, as long as it's consistent. I'll happily play a game at 30fps as long as it's 30fps at all times and while 60fps is obviously smoother and better for gameplay (especially racing games), that 60fps is worthless if it slows down at any point. I'd rather have a game capped at a consistent 30fps than a game that runs at 60fps but will suffer the occasional slow-down.
Play something a bit more action focused than Minecraft and you might notice why people want more than 30fps. Hell, getting below 15 or so is reaching the point where the human eye can pick out the individual frames, and action oriented games at frame rates below 30 are frustrating (dropped frames could mean death in that case). Below 20 and you're basically talking about something that's unplayable if it's got even a reasonable pace.chadachada123 said:
Have you actually played games that ran between 30-60fps? I only ask because while the difference between 30 and 60 may not be as noticeable as say the difference between 10 and 30 (by simple virtue of the fact that the latter is the difference between seeing individual frames and not), it is absolutely quite noticeable none the less. 60fps is much smoother, results in fewer dropped frames, and things like screen tearing from fast movement become less of an issue, if not disappear completely, at fps higher than 30.
Honestly, it's nice that most companies at least focus on a bare minimum playable goal of 30fps and all. But I'd like to see the standard bumped up to 60. On the PC it doesn't matter as much since settings are adjustable. But on console it'd be a nice touch, and yes, it really is so noticeable that I'd like to see every game run at that speed.
That's not how it works in terms of the whole system. A very finely tuned 60fps game has around 66ms of input latency while solid 30fps has twice that although it often goes up to over 200ms if the engine is not tuned and the hdtv is laggy or whatever.The Heik said:
And also in fighting games losing every other frame of animation is losing a lot of data about what is happening. Is this move x or move y, how obvious is the difference and so on. With 60fps developers can convey the same amount of visual information to the player in a shorter amount of time making action games feel a lot faster.
its true that you cant really tell the difference over 30 fps, however you must remember the number displayed is an average, so lets say you normally run at 60 fps and then for the first 1/2 a sec it cant render the screen quick enough and only renders 5 frames in that first half a second and then manages to render 30 in the second half, you actually see oh my fps dropped to 35 which means I still shouldn't be able to detect it, what you do detect is the shit performance in that first half of the second. Having the capability to run at higher fps makes increasingly unlikely for this to occur.
Personally, at lower than 30 fps usually, I start to find a game unplayable because of the sheer amount of stuttering that occurs. I played Tera on my friend's laptop (integrated graphics *shudder*) and had to stop because he was only getting 15 or so and 30 if he was lucky.
You can definitely see the difference if you play a game @ 30fps then play it again at 60. Some people can tolerate 30 and lower, while others find it unplayable. At a certain point, though, FPS just serves as bragging rights (unless you are playing professionally or something.) The extra frames are useful so you won't dip past 60fps but there really is no need for 400 fps in a casual game of Halo or such.
If anything, I find lag to be a bigger problem than low fps in some games. Having 100fps in WoW or Rift, etc. means nothing if you have 1000ms ping. :'(
You can definitely see the difference if you play a game @ 30fps then play it again at 60. Some people can tolerate 30 and lower, while others find it unplayable. At a certain point, though, FPS just serves as bragging rights (unless you are playing professionally or something.) The extra frames are useful so you won't dip past 60fps but there really is no need for 400 fps in a casual game of Halo or such.
If anything, I find lag to be a bigger problem than low fps in some games. Having 100fps in WoW or Rift, etc. means nothing if you have 1000ms ping. :'(
for some games 60FPS is useful and if you get a slowdown of frames it less noticeable at higher frame rates but anything above 60 is really just technological dick waving.
This is a pc.....boost over the pointless. lol. Its similiar to Crysis 2, i played it on 360 (which is old tech) and found the graphic great but gameplay boring. All the pc moaned at was the graphics, which they got an update to with better physics and water etc etc and yes it looked amazing. But. Its still the same boring game.
As for 30fps. I know the greater the frame rate the more smoother the game. But if you dont notice it then who cares? Yes, it would be great for every game to be 60fps. But if 30fps works well with no issues, then it doesnt matter to much.
As for 30fps. I know the greater the frame rate the more smoother the game. But if you dont notice it then who cares? Yes, it would be great for every game to be 60fps. But if 30fps works well with no issues, then it doesnt matter to much.
Because, while as low as 12 FPS is enough to create the illusion of movement, it's not enough for it not to seem like jerky movement. The 24-30FPS is a sweet spot in film, but that's because they have motion blurring, which makes up for the deficiency. But said blurring was at first prohibitively expensive (in computer resource terms) in PC gaming, and now, people have gotten used to the crispness of 60 FPS. Why go back to 30 FPS and have to add a filter, to get a blurrier (or, worse, jerkier) result?
And, yes, as games are designed to run at 60 FPS mostly (some parts of console games being an exception), the game itself often does slow down if you are below that, as it means your computer itself is slow.
And, yes, as games are designed to run at 60 FPS mostly (some parts of console games being an exception), the game itself often does slow down if you are below that, as it means your computer itself is slow.
I've never understood the obsession with it. I've been playing Driver: San Francisco quite a lot lately, and that has a solid 60fps for singleplayer, and locked 30 for multiplayer. Going from singleplayer to multiplayer, there is a noticable difference, which you notice for about... two seconds. After that you're immersed in the gameplay again and the frame rate doesn't matter.
I prefer more gameplay options if it comes down to that or doubling the frame rate.
I prefer more gameplay options if it comes down to that or doubling the frame rate.
Most people will notices the difference... once their eyes/brains have gotten used to the higher frame rate.
Just like you will never have a problem with standard definition until you've watched/played on high definition for long enough.
Just like you will never have a problem with standard definition until you've watched/played on high definition for long enough.