• 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2504 posts) 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: 30fps and Prettier vs 60fps and Smoother (assume locked) (357 votes)

30fps and Prettier 28%
60fps and Smoother 65%
See Results 8%

With the next gen consoles around the corner allowing for a redefinition of base-line performance, which do you prefer? Assume the framerates are locked (never rise/dip significantly).

24fps films have conditioned me to have no problems with 30fps gaming, and it is a good rule of thumb that running a game at 60fps actually divides your resources in 3 rather than the usually assumed 2. That generally results in frame-locked games having significantly less graphical fidelity when running at high frame-rates.

Is that worth it to you? Personally, I prefer prettier but locked at 30 - though I definitely don't mind it when a game runs at 60.

(oh, and of course having a Titan and running games at max settings @60+fps is best, but that isn't the purpose of this poll)

#1 Posted by Salarn (465 posts) -

It depends on the game.

#2 Edited by selfconfessedcynic (2504 posts) -

@salarn said:

It depends on the game.

Really?

Interesting - I know driving games and fighting games are essentially 60fps required, but for others?

I like how The Last of Us looks at 30fps - but many would argue that 60 frames is still preferable (eg. I believe Jeff is one of these men).

#3 Posted by ViciousReiven (821 posts) -

As long as it's actually locked and doesn't tend to dip and slowdown then I think 30 is fine, a really well optimized 30 fps game can still feel like butter, just not quite silk.

#4 Posted by MachoFantastico (4613 posts) -

60FPS any day.

#5 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2504 posts) -

@viciousreiven said:

As long as it's actually locked and doesn't tend to dip and slowdown then I think 30 is fine, a really well optimized 30 fps game can still feel like butter, just not quite silk.

I very much agree.

inFamous 2 was locked at 30 but played like butter - and I'm only pointing that one out because I finished it recently after getting it free on PS+.

I believe Uncharted 2 was also very solid at 30 and that game played preeeetty well. I don't remember any frame drops anyway.

#6 Posted by Chibithor (574 posts) -

60fps, always. Playing on a not so great PC I get to make the choice for most 3D games and I'll go for 60 fps even if it means it pretty much looks like garbage.

#7 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

I appreciate 60 fps (especially in racing games) but I can adjust to a locked 30 fps rate just fine. 30fps and prettier for me.

#8 Edited by Quarters (1676 posts) -

60fps and 30fps both look great to me.

#9 Edited by Salarn (465 posts) -

@selfconfessedcynic: Yes really.

Some games frame rate matters a lot, some games frame rate doesn't matter at all. Same with graphic fidelity.

The assumption that adding more bells and shaders to a game will make it better and the only trade off is frame rate is inaccurate.

FTL - Faster Than Light

Limbo

Bit.Trip

Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors

Super Meat Boy

Could go on and on but for many games your visual style is not decided based on frame rate. While at the same time many games wouldn't be different if their frame rate was 15/30/60 or whatever.

#10 Edited by SlashDance (1814 posts) -

60fps is the FLAC format of video games. It's obviously better, but I kinda want to punch those who can't live without in the face.

#11 Posted by selfconfessedcynic (2504 posts) -

@salarn said:

@selfconfessedcynic: Yes really.

Some games frame rate matters a lot, some games frame rate doesn't matter at all. Same with graphic fidelity.

The assumption that adding more bells and shaders to a game will make it better and the only trade off is frame rate is inaccurate.

FTL - Faster Than Light

Limbo

Bit.Trip

Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors

Super Meat Boy

Could go on and on but for many games your visual style is not decided based on frame rate. While at the same time many games wouldn't be different if their frame rate was 15/30/60 or whatever.

Oh right, low-fi games. Yup, sure - eg. I couldn't care less if Phoenix Wright (one of my favourite games ever - though Ghost Trick comes close) ran at a high framerate or not.

But that somewhat skirts the question posed in my OP - since I'm asking for a preference. In the case of low-fi games and fighting/racing games there is essentially no preference in the equation (the former is fps independent, the latter are 60fps required).

In other instances, however - such as your shooters, action/adventure games, etc - that's where my original question comes into it.

#12 Edited by Th3_James (2576 posts) -

PC, no comprimises.

#13 Edited by SharkEthic (1042 posts) -

Never caught myself saying "Holy shit, look at those 60fps!". Graphics on the other hand...

#14 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

30fps is usually fine in a game. A good bit of it depends on how responsive the controls are. Some games handle like dogs even at higher framerates. If a game has a solid 30fps frame rate, I'd usually prefer that with better graphics than a game at 60fps. It depends a bit on the game--if you're playing a fighting game, 60fps actually helps. For RPGs, on the other hand, and anything with slower-paced gameplay that doesn't rely on fast reflexes, 30fps is fine. In general, though, I prefer the graphics level turned up rather than having higher framerates.

But it's also true that this is pretty far down on my list of considerations. I'd play a game at 15fps with crappy graphics if it was fun and/or had a compelling story.

#15 Edited by adam1808 (1448 posts) -

Depends on the game. I'm perfectly happy with 30 frames in most action games and shooters bar Counterstrike and Quake 3 but on the other hand racing games are 60 fps or nuthin for me.

#16 Edited by believer258 (11785 posts) -

A rock-solid 30FPS is playable, but given the option I will always take lesser graphics and more frames. A butter-smooth experience will always be butter-smooth, whereas a pretty one will be pretty until the next pretty thing comes along a few months later.

#17 Posted by MeganeAgain (123 posts) -

Performance more directly impacts gameplay, so I would take performance over visuals, easy. I would definitely sacrifice some graphical fidelity in favour of achieving a consistent 60fps game.

#18 Posted by GIyn (202 posts) -

I would be happy with 30fps, with the same fidelity as 60 fps, if it meant the resources were used in a clever way, to make more interesting games.

#19 Posted by Jimbo (9799 posts) -

I think higher fps (60 vs 30) is one of those things which significantly improves the experience without the (average) player necessarily being conscious of why. Graphics make a greater first impression on people, but that soon wears off - the game feeling good to play is something which lasts, and fps contributes a lot to that. It isn't a coincidence that the most successful FPS runs at 60.

It's true that it's less important for games where you don't have direct tactile control. It's more noticeable if the task requires a high degree of hand-eye coordination than if you're just watching something.

#20 Edited by Salarn (465 posts) -

@selfconfessedcynic: Well that's my original answer then, it depends on the game.

If it's a racing game, the FPS directly contributes to the sense of speed which is part of the graphics quality due to how things will feel smoother. If it's a fighting game, quantity of frames is less important than consistency you want a locked FPS at 30 or 60 so the input timings are consistent.

Now if the question was no AA and 60fps vs 16x AA and 30fps in the same First Person Shooter, I'd probably go with the AA

#21 Edited by Raineko (433 posts) -

60 FPS > all.

What's the point of good graphics if the framerate dips below 20 at some points? Screw graphics.

Besides Metal Gear Rising has a pretty good framerate for playability and still looks amazing. That's what developers should focus on imo.

#22 Posted by Pie (7078 posts) -

@viciousreiven said:

As long as it's actually locked and doesn't tend to dip and slowdown then I think 30 is fine, a really well optimized 30 fps game can still feel like butter, just not quite silk.

I very much agree.

inFamous 2 was locked at 30 but played like butter - and I'm only pointing that one out because I finished it recently after getting it free on PS+.

Until you look up at the sky and start getting 60fps all of a sudden and it's awesome.

#23 Posted by pepperzz (160 posts) -

60 fps always looks super weird to me in third person view games. Like how TVs look weird when that "Motion smoothing" setting it turned on. Looks unnatural. Definitely crisper, but I definitely prefer some motion blur. Unless a game requires perfect input with minimal lag (fighting games, racing games, games like DMC), 60 FPS is overkill imo.

#24 Posted by Rowr (5532 posts) -

This is a tough one, though i am becoming more and more accustomed to 60 as my standard.

Depends on the game and how much graphical detail i need to sacrifice, which is none at the moment mwuahaha god bless you gtx 690

#25 Edited by SomeJerk (3213 posts) -

If [60fps game with action/timing/reactive/fast moving elements] was 30 it would SUCK.PS4 titles are straight outta Sony asked to be 1080p60. Would like to know if MS say 720p60 or 1080p30.

#26 Posted by EXTomar (4670 posts) -

The answer is "depends".

#27 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

60 errryday.

Style trumps fidelity and the gameplay is more important than the technology behind it.

If the 30fps trade-off was about making games more fun to play then it would be a tougher choice. If it meant more enemies onscreen or more complex environments to traverse or more devious artificial intelligence then maybe 30fps would be an acceptable compromise. Instead, most of the action games which come to mind when people bring up 30fps tend to be about hiding behind cover while putting thousands of rounds into waves of a handful of enemies, occasionally traversing the environment via a single preordained (and highlighted) route. I can't think of any gameplay innovations or new mechanics surfacing this gen which can only be achieved thanks to low framerates. It does seem to be the case that games are trapped at 30 thanks to some desperate, misguided desire to be as "pretty" as possible which is... kind of laughable when you consider the results.

#28 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -

It depends on the type of game.

#29 Posted by Demoskinos (14757 posts) -

Gimme all the frames.

#30 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

I find 30 FPS far less jarring when I play on a console than I do sat at my PC. (or playing on my PC in general, as I simply expect 60 there)

#31 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@pepperzz said:

60 fps always looks super weird to me in third person view games. Like how TVs look weird when that "Motion smoothing" setting it turned on. Looks unnatural. Definitely crisper, but I definitely prefer some motion blur. Unless a game requires perfect input with minimal lag (fighting games, racing games, games like DMC), 60 FPS is overkill imo.

It's not unnatural, you just aren't used to seeing it enough. I hated how 60 looked at first.

and saying it's overkill has filled my quota for stupid remarks of the day.

#32 Posted by Zaccheus (1792 posts) -

It really depends on the game. The biggest problem with 360/PS3 games is that they aren't even 30fps. They easily dip to 20fps and even lower. That's unacceptable. If the nextgen games totally absolutely 100% lock it to 30fps (which seems to be the aim with Killzone: SF) I think that will be fine for a lot of games.

#33 Posted by Superkenon (1416 posts) -

Games with higher frame-rate age way better. Just sayin'.

#34 Edited by Sergio (2080 posts) -

Or just as pretty but at 60fps.

#35 Posted by Nezza (349 posts) -

Unless something drops below 24fps and therefore slower then I'm conditioned to by cinema. I can't say that I've ever really noticed frame rate on a console game at all. You'd literally have to point out what the hell the magical improvement is to me.

I simply can't sit down, controller in hand and think - yeah this baby's running at Xfps without a counter telling me what the frame rate is.

I guess I just fall in the category of 'this is good enough' for me and once you reach that level, you just want to get on and play the game not play with the system.

When it comes to photography I'm in the other camp. I see the difference between a sharp lens and a soft lens and that matters to me. But for 95% of people they don't give a toss as their kit lens produces images of a quality that they are more then happy with so have no reason to start looking for marginal improvements.

#36 Posted by pepperzz (160 posts) -

@sooty: Ok maybe overkill was the wrong term. I understand the appeal of wanting all games to be in 60 FPS, super smooth without any hiccups. I guess I meant to say that it might not be needed for every type of game.

#37 Edited by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

30fps and prettier all the way, a higher framerate can feel disorienting to me sometimes.

#38 Edited by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

MOAR NUMBERS IS BEST NUMBARS

#39 Posted by MarvinPontiac (112 posts) -

I am in the 60fps camp, although I will admit for certain games, extreme-smoothness takes me out of the experience a little bit. It's a bit similar to the high framerate of The Hobbit – by feeling more true to life, it's less true to our experience of the media (ie: the 24fps of most films).

#40 Posted by Skooky (473 posts) -

30fps and smooth. Because console games don't even have that yet.

#43 Posted by Nettacki (1317 posts) -

30 fps is fine. I can sorta get into it. But I greatly prefer 60 fps and smoother, even if the game suffer in looks a bit. Even better if it's 60 fps and still as pretty as 30.

#44 Edited by StarvingGamer (8138 posts) -

Yeah, I only care about 60FPS when it's a game that is completely frame dependent like a fighting game. Otherwise, I don't really care so I'll take pretty at 30.

#45 Posted by Jay_Ray (1078 posts) -

A locked 30 is perfectly fine to me in most games.

#46 Posted by Chaser324 (6409 posts) -

It really does depend on the game. Racing games and faster paced action games can benefit from 60 fps, but I think a solid 30 fps with little or no dipping is perfectly sufficient for the majority of games.

Moderator
#48 Posted by gaminghooligan (1435 posts) -

Frame rate all day.

#49 Posted by mlarrabee (2922 posts) -

If you can guarantee that your thirty-FPS game will never drop below that, then thirty is fine. But since most can't, that buffer of thirty extra frames is critical.

#50 Posted by Trilogy (2648 posts) -

60fps is just so much more appealing to me. This is the case on older games as well (burnout games for example).