Xbox One's Frame Rate: Kid Rejected, Mother Approved

[Vigormortis]

Just looked at your link, and while I can tell the diffrence, it is so minuscule that I can't see why people get up in arms about it. If they'd been shown one by one instead of side by side then I bet I wouldn't be able tell the difference.

This is actually a better demonstration of the differences - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

And believe me, you'll see the difference between 30 and 60.

I think the only genre where it matters one iota is a fighting game such as Street Fighter.

Consistent, and more to the point consistently high, frame rates are incredibly crucial for competitive games in the FPS and RTS genres.

With first person shooters any jitter or jarring transitions in frame rate; and critically low frame rates; can often have drastic effects on a number of things that play into the games and subsequently the players performance.

With RTS games, depending on type of course, poor frame rates can lead to positional and animation errors or desyncs. This can lead to a player having a much more difficult time effectively micro'ing and gaining proper unit and situational awareness.

This is lightly covered in this wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate But further information on the topic can be found with a quick Google search.

 

[Vault101]

snip

take the motion blur off both moons...set one to 60 and one to 30 and set the background to 60

 

[lacktheknack]

*sighs* you know, I said the same thing about resolutions when people were flipping out about those earlier this year.

WHO THE BLOODY FLIPPIN HECK CARES!!!

Literally everyone who's used to 50+ FPS.

Controlling anything with a mouse at 30- FPS is a bleeding nightmare.

 

[lacktheknack]

and more to the point WHAT game could possibly look worse in 1080p and 60FPS?

Dwarf Fortress?



Just stare at every last perfectly-formed uberpixel!

 

[VoltySquirrel]

Like an idiot, I'm going to throw my hat into the ring.

Yes, there is a difference between 30 and 60. There's no denying this. However, there are people who clearly can't tell the difference. That or the difference is one that they simply can't put their finger on or just don't care.

However, that doesn't change the fact that more is generally better. Now, there are indeed games that don't need the full 60. In my opinion, the list of genres that "need" 60fps is actually quite small. Typically these are A) highly competitive and B) feature lots of motion. In both those cases, double the visual information is a huge advantage. This is stuff like shooters, fighting games, MOBAs, RTSs, character action games like Bayonetta, etc. Hell, you could even argue racing games.

Your average bog-standard platformer, though? That avant-garde puzzle game? Games that only take place on a single screen, a la Civilization or Papers, Please? Yeah, you probably don't "need" 60 fps. In those cases, Settling for 30 is just fine.

Now, keep in mind, this is only true for video games, in my opinion. As far as film goes, I honestly can't see myself ever preferring a film on a framerate above 24 or 30. Sure, there may come a day when the fabled "48 revolution" may come, but it's not happening anytime soon. Hollywood decided upon 24fps for arbitrary reasons over a century ago. There's no denying that. However, after 100 years of sticking with just the one standard, we are collectively used to it.

So used to it that 48 just looks... weird. It's too natural. Too smooth. Now, that's not to say that it can't look great. The big elaborate battles in Hobbit 2 look great in 48. However, take that same framerate and stick it in a quiet interior dialogue scene and it's off-putting.

Like I said earlier, this may not always be true. The tech and techniques behind 48 in film is always growing. There will probably be a day when it looks good. But as of this moment? Nah.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

Just looked at your link, and while I can tell the diffrence, it is so minuscule that I can't see why people get up in arms about it. If they'd been shown one by one instead of side by side then I bet I wouldn't be able tell the difference.

This is actually a better demonstration of the differences - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

And believe me, you'll see the difference between 30 and 60.

I think the only genre where it matters one iota is a fighting game such as Street Fighter.

Consistent, and more to the point consistently high, frame rates are incredibly crucial for competitive games in the FPS and RTS genres.

With first person shooters any jitter or jarring transitions in frame rate; and critically low frame rates; can often have drastic effects on a number of things that play into the games and subsequently the players performance.

With RTS games, depending on type of course, poor frame rates can lead to positional and animation errors or desyncs. This can lead to a player having a much more difficult time effectively micro'ing and gaining proper unit and situational awareness.

This is lightly covered in this wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate But further information on the topic can be found with a quick Google search.

snip

take the motion blur off both moons...set one to 60 and one to 30 and set the background to 60

That was more noticable to be fair.
As to saying framerate matters in first person shooters and rts games
Lag is such a big problem for me that the framerate become trivial whether or not it matters normally, and I don't play offline on them so I can't say in that regard. Plus your problem seems to be the stability of the framerate, which does annoy me, as opposed to the 30/60 argument. (I probably misunderstand what you mean)
As for RTS games, I wouldn't know cus I suck at them, so I dont play them

edit: also, I seem to be getting the impression the that pro 60 fps people are PC gamers, while don't care/see no diffrence people are console players.

 

[RA92]

Anyone who thinks 60FPS doesn't bring any noticeable fluidity:

Watch this Bayonetta 2 video running at 60FPS and think again. If the WiiU can pull it off, maybe the XBOne should spare a few more cores to the games instead of all the OS bloatware running in the background.

Edit: Embedding not working, just watch the 2nd video here: http://platinumgames.com/2014/02/14/bayonetta-2-coming-to-wii-u-in-2014/

 

[Vault101]

As someone who is used to playing games at 20 FPS because of a shit laptop I never understood this discussion. Same like I never understood why MOAR PIXLZ!!! is such a big deal. I play fun games. If they look good, all the better, but not necessary.
Some people might think I label them graphics whore out of envy, because they can enjoy Crysis 3 on max settings while my laptop would melt even looking at it. They might be partially right, but if your enjoyment of a game comes mainly from a pretty picture, you deserve that label.

Disclaimer: I mostly play RPG and strategy games, the only notable titles in my games library in need of fluidity are DMC4, Batman: AC and UT2004. As you can see, not a shooter fan.

thats kind of like saying people who don't particularly want to watch a movie projected onto a grafiti laced wall with laptop speakers are just being fussy

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Honest question - do images such as the one in the last panel actually make people laugh? Not being snarky, here; I'm genuinely curious.

Cause to be honest, that type of stuff just makes me sad.

Absolutely. It was my favorite part honestly. There's something to depressing jokes like that one which I find humorous. Even though my brother is likely to end a baseball player and I'll be lucky to make it as a teacher. The fact that it points a depressing idea in a funny way just gets me I guess?

 

[wAriot]

B-BUT THE POWER OF THE CLOUD

I still laugh when I re-read those post made back then, when people thought that the PS3's Cell would "bring an end to computers" (and some still do). "The power of the Cell is unlimited!"

 

[WarpZone]

It bares reposting because:

A: It demonstrates the difference simply and beautifully.
-and-
B: People STILL assert there's no difference.

So here it is - https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that there's no visible difference between the fluidity of the 30 and the 60 fps samples, then I bow to you. Or I may call you a liar. Not sure.

How did you manage to get Flash running at 60fps consistently across platforms? This even works as-advertised on my old macbook pro! That thing NEVER runs flash games properly!

 

[Casual Shinji]

Is that that character from The Tick who's name I can't spell?

You mean Der Fledermaus.

He is so better than Batman.

OT: I can see some people here seem to confuse this comic with saying that 30 fps is shit. All it seems to be criticizing is journalists that say there's no difference in quality between 30 and 60 fps, when there clearly is, just so that they don't piss off Microsoft.

 

[dangoball]

As someone who is used to playing games at 20 FPS because of a shit laptop I never understood this discussion. Same like I never understood why MOAR PIXLZ!!! is such a big deal. I play fun games. If they look good, all the better, but not necessary.
Some people might think I label them graphics whore out of envy, because they can enjoy Crysis 3 on max settings while my laptop would melt even looking at it. They might be partially right, but if your enjoyment of a game comes mainly from a pretty picture, you deserve that label.

Disclaimer: I mostly play RPG and strategy games, the only notable titles in my games library in need of fluidity are DMC4, Batman: AC and UT2004. As you can see, not a shooter fan.

thats kind of like saying people who don't particularly want to watch a movie projected onto a grafiti laced wall with laptop speakers are just being fussy

I think of it more like saying that if the movie is good on more levels than just a spectacle, it doesn't matter if I watch it on a silver screen or this

Spoiler: old tv

I'll get roughly the same enjoyment out of Pulp Fiction on both, not so much with Pacific Rim because it lacks any substance to it (not saying Pacific Rim is bad, I like the movie).
I say entertainment is supposed to be good, not only good looking.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

I can't believe we're STILL having these discussions.

Visually the difference is negligible, if you're watching something at 30 or 60 fps you won't notice the difference let alone give a shit.

But if you're playing something at 30 FPS on PC the input lag makes it so much worse compared to 60 fps. 30 feels slow and sluggish, like your character is walking through water. Your eyes can't see the difference, but your brain definitely can feel it.

Try playing one of the newer Need For Speeds that are locked to 30 FPS, then use a tool that unlocks FPS to 60. World of difference.

 

[truckspond]

...that list consists entirely of games whose developers, the idiots that they are, thought it was a bright idea to use the framerate as a timer.

You mean like the developers of Need For Speed: Rivals? (Seriously, using the framerate as a timer in this day and age is just stupid!)

 

[Vault101]

I'll get roughly the same enjoyment out of Pulp Fiction on both, not so much with Pacific Rim because it lacks any substance to it (not saying Pacific Rim is bad, I like the movie).
I say entertainment is supposed to be good, not only good looking.

actually 20fps on a shitty laptop is like peeking through your window to watch on your neighbours big screen...I mean seriously thats borderline unplayable

and yes its still the same movie/game but [i/]it matters[/i] the closer you can see/feel whatever going on, on screen the closer you are to it... when it matters most is when youve experienced it better and have to go back (and this seems to be the main difference between people who say it matters and people who say it doesn't)....kids these days would look at a TV like that and be astounded anyone could even SEE what they were watching

 

[dangoball]

I'll get roughly the same enjoyment out of Pulp Fiction on both, not so much with Pacific Rim because it lacks any substance to it (not saying Pacific Rim is bad, I like the movie).
I say entertainment is supposed to be good, not only good looking.

actually 20fps on a shitty laptop is like peeking through your window to watch on your neighbours big screen...I mean seriously thats borderline unplayable

and yes its still the same movie/game but [i/]it matters[/i] the closer you can see/feel whatever going on, on screen the closer you are to it... when it matters most is when you've experienced it better and have to go back (and this seems to be the main difference between people who say it matters and people who say it doesn't)....kids these days would look at a TV like that and be astounded anyone could even SEE what they were watching

I admit, playing DeusEx:HR on my laptop (had to play in a small window ) and my brother's dedicated gaming PC (all max) was one heck of a difference. Nevertheless I still enjoyed and finished it on my laptop. And we're talking a moldy rock compared to Michelangelo's David performance wise.
My main gripe with this debate is the "60 fps makes me play better" argument. Yes, the difference between 30 and 60 exists, but it's miniscule and won't make a difference unless you have über-twitch reflexes of an insect. Never have I though "If only my FPS was 60 instead of 47!" in a game. Unless I died in a noticeable lag I always blamed my skill (or lack thereof), not the game or my hardware (experience from MOBA games, in case you wanted to point to my not playing much shooters).

 

[Griffolion]

Red Fluid lol. I hate people who call ketchup 'Red sauce'.

So you hate everybody in Britain and Ireland?

Brit here, never once in my 25 years have I ever heard Ketchup referred to as "Red Sauce". It's usually "Tomato Sauce", or, you know, "Ketchup".

My main gripe with this debate is the "60 fps makes me play better" argument. Yes, the difference between 30 and 60 exists, but it's miniscule and won't make a difference unless you have über-twitch reflexes of an insect. Never have I though "If only my FPS was 60 instead of 47!" in a game. Unless I died in a noticeable lag I always blamed my skill (or lack thereof), not the game or my hardware (experience from MOBA games, in case you wanted to point to my not playing much shooters).

I play a lot of FPS (game archetype, not framerate), and I notice a large difference between 50 and 60. In most games, I'm more than happy to sacrifice visual fidelity to maintain a solid 60. To me, anything less is simply unplayable.

 

[Vault101]

My main gripe with this debate is the "60 fps makes me play better" argument. Yes, the difference between 30 and 60 exists, but it's miniscule and won't make a difference unless you have über-twitch reflexes of an insect.

its not and it does make a difference

if you've got motion and movement you need it to be smooth as possible othereise its gonna screw you up

 

[2xDouble]

I was with you guys right up until the ketchup comparison... Despite the generic label, that is clearly comparing a bottle of Heinz ketchup to a bottle of Frank's Red Hot, a vastly superior product in most situations.