60 fps (frames per second) in console games

[D]

http://kotaku.com/5393106/insomniac-dev ... 60fps-game
sad but true, and that's why I hate reviewers and mags, may they burn in hell.
30 FPS is like a little blow to the head every frame.
Probably in the future games will run at 20 or 15 fps. If it looks good those damn idiot reviewers will still like it. 60 FPS should be standard for EVERYTHING. Why do I so often get the feeling that things are degressing all the time because of commerce and the way the world works. It doesn't matter if it shit just as long as nobody talks about it being shit people will buy it WIN-WIN. I hate that. Sega Rally 1 on the Saturn runs smoother then Ridge Racer on Playstation damnit. No-one ever mentioned that in their stupid magazines.

[cools]

Play only 60fps games, problem solved.

[THE]

Welcome to the mainstream.

Play only 60fps games, problem solved.

QFT!

That's why I play 3D games only on PC. I can buy there whatever framerate and antialiasing I want, it's just a matter of money. While on 3D consoles everything is fixed and deprecated from the beginning.

[D]

Play only 60fps games, problem solved.

No, because if nobody gives a shit (those zombies) then games will start to run at 15 Fps. Zombies do not know, care. Anyway. Don't you see where this is going?
1995 - 2000 Fps. performance increase
2001 - 2010 Fps. performance decrease
Yeah I know what you mean, just stop playing games and kill myself, but I really hate this trend and also the fact that reviewers never mention what native resolution and what framerate the games run at. Beautiful graphics! Yeah, you dumb reviewer, we CAN SEE THAT OURSELVES, TELL US SOMTEHING WE CANNOT SEE FROM A SCREENSHOT OR DIE.
(It's just me, I know I should have posted this in the things I hate thread, sorry.)

[cools]

Completely understand

Buying any game nowadays without seeking reviews from your peers or other similarly trusted sources is sheer foolishness.

[KBZ]

3 cheers for 60fps. we should throw a party

[Taylor]

I didn't realise some people still believed the human eye can only see at 25 fps.

[Elixir]

My PC's garbage. I hover around 25-35 fps in Team Fortress 2 and I had to upgrade to the best possible graphics card for my Celeron in order to achieve even that. It would be better on the 360, but then you have the issue of the developer not caring about updating their console releases with patches and updates in general. This is a developer's issue, though, not the console. Valve is pro-PC.

This is why I bought Bayonetta for 360. Still hasn't even arrived, but I haven't even bothered to download the demo for my PS3 (or currently, PS3s) as it's inferior. It's "converted by Sega". The comparison videos actually told me but again this is coming from someone who enjoys playing shmups with a Saturn pad now and forever, so "the true experience" isn't all that important. Especially when it's just a new game.

Reviewers and consoles are not at fault, it's the developers like Insomniac. Oh no our game isn't selling well or getting good reviews, let's follow the rest of them and lower our quality. Or, let's lower our games to 30fps and emphasize on graphics.

Good games don't need good graphics or framerate, everything sells on core gameplay aspects still. This is why asuka/roguelikes are still popular, because of the survival factor. Even Gears of War sells on a core aspect of every game being different, making online interesting. The second sales tactic is brand. FF, DQ, that sort of thing comes to mind. People will lap that shit up in any form. Doesn't matter if it's good or not, they just have a relationship with the series.

I don't see how becoming part of the problem is going to help.

I never supported them to begin with so I don't care what they do in the future. I don't like their attitude though. "We're not going to make high quality games at 60fps because others aren't" is just fucking dumb.

[kengou]

I love when a game is a solid 60 FPS, but I don't have a problem with 30, it's perfectly playable. My problem is when a game has a baseline of 30 and then dips below that at all. If you're going to sacrifice framerate for better graphics, you better damn well make sure the game stays at or above 30 the whole time. For a PC, that's simply a matter of getting better hardware or lowering graphics settings. But any time a console game has a framerate dip below 30, I get upset, because it's a CONSOLE! You know what the hardware is like! There's no friggin excuse for not having at least a solid 30 throughout the game.

[D]

I love when a game is a solid 60 FPS, but I don't have a problem with 30, it's perfectly playable. My problem is when a game has a baseline of 30 and then dips below that at all. If you're going to sacrifice framerate for better graphics, you better damn well make sure the game stays at or above 30 the whole time. For a PC, that's simply a matter of getting better hardware or lowering graphics settings. But any time a console game has a framerate dip below 30, I get upset, because it's a CONSOLE! You know what the hardware is like! There's no friggin excuse for not having at least a solid 30 throughout the game.

Variable frame rates, OMG, that's a whole other ballgame. I get motion sickness (not really offcourse) from variable frame rates, it discusts me. games should have fixed framerates first and foremost, then make it 60 Fps, forget about the graphics, just make one that is cool and relaxing to play without annoyances.
Oh wait, I'm that idiot....Forget about me then, it's all about graphics. Just make a game which is just one pretty picture. It does not move, but boy is it awesome to look at! No gameplay, but a 10 for graphics.

[Marc]

Yeah, I can pretty much live with any rate as long as it's fixed. Sega should give lessons on that shit, how they got F-Zero GX to run the way it did on an 'inferior' machine is still beyond me.

[Cuilan]

Trading framerate for graphics is fine with me, up to a certain point; I'm ok with it as long as it doesn't fall below 30fps. I can tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps, but I don't think the difference is big enough to really care about.

[Ed Oscuro]

[TF2] would be better on the 360, but then you have the issue of the developer not caring about updating their console releases with patches and updates in general. This is a developer's issue, though, not the console. Valve is pro-PC.

A. Controllers suck but then again you won't be playing against the big dogs on PC if you have a 360
B. Regular updates are Microsoft's doing, not Valve's. They have addressed this multiple times; Microsoft wants people to pay for every download. Neither Valve or anybody else could put out the amount of polished content they do over a long period of time in one drop. As a result they have to hold up the updates for what would be a few cycles on the PC so that they can release a decently-sized update on the 360 at a better cost to their users.

Back on topic, yeah, 60 FPS is the minimum games should run at. 30 FPS starts to cut into reaction time and bring on the headache. Anything below that is just laughable. Calculating motion blur at 30 FPS instead of going 60 FPS is just silly as well.

[neorichieb1971]

A game like Ratchet that appeals to younger audiences is the type of title that can get away with 30fps. A game such as God of War or GT5 that appeals to a much older audience will be scrutinized for having 30 or below framerates.

Those stats are funny D. In 1996 the N64 re-invented slowdown, RARE were the masters of it. They should have won an award for Conkers bad fur day.

[Ed Oscuro]

In 1996 the N64 re-invented slowdown, RARE were the masters of it. They should have won an award for Conkers bad fur day.

It's not just the RARE games; lots of stuff on the N64 is adept at giving me headaches.

[BulletMagnet]

Kind of a shame - personally, I tend to prefer a game that sacrifices some detail in favor of smoother overall movement, as opposed to the other way around. It's not a game-killer either way, but I do wish that 60 FPS had managed to garner a bit more appreciation before the market analysts got ahold of it.

[linko9]

I remember when Ken Kutaragi said that all PS3 games would be required to run at 120 fps... funny how the opposite has become the norm. I think it's really unfortunate that money is encouraging devs like Insomniac to take this route, but I refuse to believe that they were "forced" into this in any way. This said, 60 fps is more important in some games than others. It's imperative in a game like F-zero GX, but Twilight Princess' 30 fps never really bothered me, as Zelda games generally have relatively plodding gameplay (though OoT's 20 fps is pretty egregious). In the end, as long as a minority of reviewers and players are unable to even detect the difference (an unfortunate truth it seems), 60 fps will remain low on the graphical priority list of many developers.

[MadScientist]

I used to think it wasn't a big deal, but then I went back and tried to play Wipeout Fusion after spending a lot of time on Wipeout HD. Yikes. This digital foundry article explains why it's important - input responsiveness.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... or-article

Games that run at 60fps generally have ~67ms latency, whereas in somthing like GTA IV it can be up to 200ms.

[linko9]

Holy crap, I live in Frederick Maryland too. Lived there all my life. Good to know another shmupper's around.

[MadScientist]

Small world! I've only been here a few years though.

[Ed Oscuro]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... or-article

Games that run at 60fps generally have ~67ms latency, whereas in somthing like GTA IV it can be up to 200ms.

That's a great article, thanks kindly for posting it.

[system11]

I didn't realise some people still believed the human eye can only see at 25 fps.

Some people are relentlessly stupid.

Of course the only way to address this trend is to put pressure on reviewers to do their fucking job.

[louisg]

The jittery-framerate trend has somewhat reversed, hasn't it? I remember last gen, it seemed like every time I went to GameStop the XBox was running some unsteady ripping thing. I wonder how much it has to do with coders being used to writing Windows games, where often times the necessary hardware isn't quite there at the time of the game's release and there's more of an emphasis on benchmark data and less on perceived performance.

[MadScientist]

Maybe they release them thinking that if it's a big problem they can just patch it later - then if not enough people are bothered by it, they just leave it as it is. The reviews for NFS:Shift all praised the graphics and how great it looked from the cockpit view - I only played the demo (PS3 version), but the jittery frame-rate combined with the wobbly head cam and the dashboard blur all combined to give me a headache.

[gameoverDude]

Look at Ridge Racer 7 on PS3- 60 FPS, at least in 720p. It can take occasional FPS hits in 1080p, OTOH. This looks better than Sega Rally Revo, which has decent graphics but doesn't do 60.

Razing Storm runs on System 357 PS3 hardware in 30 FPS (and AFAIK it's in 720p), but I can live with this. I guess FPS differences are more obvious in racing games than gun games. That said, I wouldn't have minded a slight degrade in graphics detail to get RS up to 60 FPS.

First-person shooters on console should start offering 30 FPS (more detail) and 60 FPS (detail reduced as necessary to get 60) options.

[e_tank]

Calculating motion blur at 30 FPS instead of going 60 FPS is just silly as well.

unfortunately the average gamer thinks 30fps with motion blur actually looks better than 60fps.

A game such as God of War or GT5 that appeals to a much older audience will be scrutinized for having 30 or below framerates.

as far as god of war is concerned, i'd say don't count on it. i don't follow the series nor have i seen any previews for the game but based on past comments made by lead developers for for the series i wouldn't be surprised if god of war 3 runs at 30fps with motion blur instead.

for the most part i think i'd almost always prefer 60fps over extra visual detail+effects, but it depends on the type of game.

[kozo]

I've always been really picky about framerate, and I would sacrifice everything else first in order to get a better number. I value 60 FPS because it makes me far less sick. It's easily the most important thing to me graphically outside of good art direction, but these days (and even in the 32-bit ones) you're lucky to get that, for reasons we've all discussed here.

It's funny, because one of the lame arguments I've heard against 60 FPS was that it looks "too smooth" and "too unrealistic." Right, because real life only runs at 20 FPS.

[nZero]

Well, certainly 30fps with motion blur would look more "cinematic" than 60fps. I'd rather play the game than watch it, though.

[Lordstar]

whats a 60/30fps?
Oh dear lord im on a roll today

[jonny5]

whats a 60/30fps?
Oh dear lord im on a roll today

frames per second