60fps is not always better...

There is big hype about 60fps being the norm on next gen console to which it will not

most games will be running at smooth 30fps thanks to more than enough RAM which is more important above all else

You ever notice when you play COD or RAGE which run at 60fps but after awhile it just looks weird almost "cartoon like" that's cause your vision or realty does not run at 60 or more FPS instead your brain has a lot RAM if you will to keep every thing loaded up with no hiccups

Basically people forget that PS3/Xbox 360 barley peek at 30fps dropping down to 20 here and there which will not be an issue on next gen again thanks to RAM

I think that when it's no longer an issue, it almost becomes a stylistic choice. More detail, more cinematic at 30. I like that in a lot of cases. But game-ass games that feature twitch action, 60 may be better.

I feel that both have benefits based on the experience. I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Edit: By more detail, I mean more shit on screen.

@shinjiex: The stronger video cards in these systems are going to give it better FPS not the ram alone. For my bet last gen barely hit 720p when you look into the details, this coming gen I'm betting between 720p and 1080p and thats going to decide how good the FPS is, which I'm betting there going to be stuck at 30fps again. Consoles are still having trouble with handling the resolution, and most of the times for current gen they would rather have more shit on screen then actually a higher resolution.

And Sony makes me laugh saying the PS4 is going to be 4k compatible, yea to video content no way in hell for video games.

What? No. 60FPS is so much better. Seriously, find a PC game that you can get to run at 30 without forcing the framerate but will scale to 60fps as well. Play it with the settings you need to force it down to 30, with vsync. Then, play it at 60 without vsync. It's a massive difference in latency and responsiveness and that's the main reason people should be into 60-fps.

The framerate is as much about smoothness of motion and input as it is about the appearance of individual frames, as well as the responsiveness or lack of latency in input. It's why Call of Duty feels very tight and responsive where as something like GTA V on the 360 feels latent and slow and sluggish.

Also, the weird thing that people get with high framerate video? It goes away really quickly and just seems normal after a while of regular viewing.

And talking about your brain's framerate is silly, always has been, I'm sorry. It's not only kind of pointless because that's not really how you see, but it's also just pure science. Things that move normally in the world have no framerate, it's just always changing at even the tiniest fraction of time. That means the higher the framerate becomes, the closer to reality you get. Because things don't flicker in reality, so the less time between frames the better for realism.

Ultimately what you prefer is up to you. For some, 60fps is always better. Myself included.

And one more point: most games ran smooth at 30 early in this generation too. I just hope this next generation of consoles doesn't shit itself into games with massive latency that barely run at 25, let alone 30. I'd say 30 is acceptable when it's constant, smooth, and as responsive as is reasonable to expect from 30, but when you start compromising on any of those, it starts to sort of fall apart.

...no. To all of that.

Lol, no. Just no.

I'm going to state now that I haven't read any of this thread, but I will say that 60fps is always better. Always.

What are you even talking about? Sounds to me you want games to more like TV and Films and less like real life.

You know, I read an article about this the other day and thought it was ridiculous then.

Reading it again now, I don't know whether I should laugh or cringe that this is a commonly shared sentiment.

For me, framerate is one of those things where I shouldn't have to think about it. If I'm noticing the framerate, then there's a problem. It's like inventory UI in that way. So I don't care a whole lot if it's 30 or 60, so long as it doesn't change a whole bunch.

To echo the people above, no. Quit it. I want to run a workshop and show people what this is about and why 60 is better than 30 in games that have no business being 30. I want to show people computer games running on CRTs, side by side the framerates a/b/c test-like and show them how wrong they are.

The people who keep posting that viewing distances and resolutions chart would be shipped off to the nearest organ donation plant because that's where they'll become of some use to humanity.

You know not of what you speak my boy. I've noticed when a lot of people talk of FPS they talk about how it looks on the screen, and never about how it feels. The difference in how it feels is way more important. When I played CS 1.6 competitively, 60 FPS would have been unplayable, simply because it completely changed how the game felt, particularly how the recoil on the guns felt. 100 FPS was required to play competitively, yet I bet any person who just started playing wouldn't even notice the difference.

This german dude explains it better than me.
Also if you don't understand german then the video itself should be enough to show why it might not be important to have 60fps compared to 30fps, but it's always better.

1080p 30/60 fps or 720p 60 fps please.

1080p 60fps please. It's 2013, soon to be '14.

Speak for yourself, my brain RAM is only DDR2.

Seriously though, a) 60fps > 30fps. Always. Whether that comes at a noticeable hit to everything else, obviously is case-by-case. b) "FPS" is not just reliant on RAM.

Meh. My monitor is 1440x900, so I do not give a shit, as long as it's a solid 60.

As a guy who will play a game to completion at 10-15 FPS in a pinch (if it's playable, I'll suck it up and enjoy... this is especially true while I'm constrained to this laptop for a while), 60 is always better.

Also, you're taking the "brain is a computer" thing too literally.

@jarmahead said:

30fps is fine as long as it can stay there... hence why GTA V can suffer on "dated hardware specifications" and not having the horsepower to keep everything loaded up in real time for that smooth lag free 30fps

The opening scenes of GTA V had pop ups which made me laugh and cry

Depends strongly on the game, the only one lately that i've enjoyed at 30fps was Dead space 3 on PC, which is locked at 30.

I'm guessing in few years this thread will be back but with 60fps vs 120fps

Bigger number = Instantly Better.

Just use your brain, duder.

Just because we don`t have "60fps" vision doesn`t mean we can`t notice. Our vision is not in synch with the tv/monitor meaning we're able to notice it unless the frequency is much too high, 60 fps for instance. Even then it's possible to notice sometimes. Some people will notice it more easily, especially when they're used to higher frequencies. For the most part however 30fps is perfectly acceptable. Some games however a higher fps is a must, fighting games comes to mind. I personally believe anything higher than 60fps to be just overkill. The kind of thing elitist pc gamer like to show to explain why pc gaming is better than consoles and that kind of stuff (don't get me wrong, I'm a pc gamer too).

Long story short: 60fps>30fps.

They already said 4K will be for video only. Same goes for the X1

I'm all about rendering resolution and pixel density. Pushing a smooth 30 FPS is fine with me. That said, unsteady framerates dropping below 24 FPS are the worst... like driving a car in FarCry 3 on PS3. Jeez!

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Sorry but 60FPS is the way to go for me. I only ''tolerate'' 30FPS on consoles when it's ice-cold solid.

Dead Space 3 is not locked at 30. I get 160-180 with vsync turned off and locked 60 with vsync on through RadeonPro.

60 is clearly better.Playing something like perfect dark on the n64 then playing the 360 HD version of that same game will solidify the argument for you. Go try it. Just because games used to have horrible frame rates doesn't mean that we should be used to it. Far Cry 3 is a great example. It literally plays like a shooter on PC but it plays like an RPG on 360... Akin to Fallout 3.

Edit: The problem was I had v-sync enabled in game, and off in Nvidia control panel, with adaptive on, and off in game.. it's 60

This argument works for movies but not for games. A locked 30fps is too stuttery for me and makes it much harder to aim properly. Another issue is with laggy input. A 30fps cycle for the physics engine is a 33ms input lag just in the engine. Most games apply a motion filter or blurring to try to reduce the effect of stuttering, but then it just looks muddy. 60fps is great, but I've also gamed at 120hz at 120fps. I sat and just moved windows around the desktop in awe for a few minutes haha. Games looked great.

OP has some serious gas issues with all of that nonsense that is spouting out of his rear.

Although, thanks to that G-sync thing that Nvidia is going to be putting out, having framerates below 60 won't be a bad thing because usually an inconsistent framerate clashing with the monitor's refresh rate is what's responsible for jutter, screen tearing, hitching, all that bad shit that ruins the smoothness of the gameplay. Thanks to the g-sync all of those issues should be nonexistent even if the game dips below 60 which means that I can enjoy lower framerate gameplay since the smoothness is still retained, I'm just going to notice that the game running a bit slower.

I'm just gonna put this here as my answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

Preferring the look of 30 FPS over 60 is one thing and completely subjective but i don't think there's ever going to be a case of a game playing better at 30 than at 60. Faster, more responsive, more precise. For some types of game it doesn't matter. Civ 5 would be playable at 5 fps. But you're never going to see a shooter or any action game somehow play better at 30 compared to 60.

Gameplay trumps graphics every time. If a game is in a genre where the gameplay benefits from a faster framerate i want all the frames they can give me. 30 FPS Shooters, racing games, fighting games etc.. no thanks.

It's not about looks for me but reducing input lag. I can't even go back to 60 fps now that I got a 144hz monitor (or 120hz with lightboost). I have another computer next to this one and you even notice the missing frames while the mouse moves around on the desktop. As a matter of fact I think I've switch from graphics whore to latency whore. I'll do almost anything to maintain the highest frame rate. Once you go high frame rate/ frequency and try to go back, you'll notice the difference. GTA V was so hard for me to play because of that.

Edit: I'm not even a competitive gamer who needs the higher input response. I personally just notice the difference more and it bothers me more than jaggies and screen tearing.

The human eye notices variation in frame rate more than a steady, lower frame rate. To me, as long as it isn't noticeable, I couldn't care what number it is. Keep it steady, keep it playable. People value numbers to much.

As someone who has typically had lower-end machines: I will take what I can get. HOWEVER, personally if I can get a steady 60 FPS in a game I would like to go for it. My brain computer finds 60 FPS much more pleasant than 30 but y'know, that's just like my opinion, man.

I honestly don't care about frame rate that much but 60 is usually better in every situation. I couldn't tell you if a game is at 60 if you just put a game in front of me but if I were to play borderlands 2 on 360 then immediately play CoD I can definitely tell the difference.

I had an argument with my housemate a couple days ago, he claims that since the human eye can't perceive a difference above [whatever the number is] frames per second, that people talking about 60fps are stupid because it can't make a difference.

I know enough to know that he's wrong, but not enough to have the language to properly explain why - can somebody give me a rundown of it so I can go bask in the glory of being right?

Human vision & the brain do not have a framerate with which they sample the real world. It is far, far more complex than that. For particular types of motion & feature combinations even 60fps (approx. 16ms) is far too slow a refresh rate.

You can say you like to look at low frame rate images and that's fine. I personally don't like looking at a blurry finger-painting every time I rotate the viewpoint.

All of that doesn't matter. In interactive software the user input exists in a feedback loop: user input -> game logic software -> display video image -> display device -> eyeballs -> brain -> user input ... Slowing down the rate which new data is displayed introduces lag into this loop.

Lag between user input and seeing the results makes a game FEEL fake. You can tell it isn't happening in real-time. Because the video image update time is integral to this feedback loop it is extremely important that it happens as quickly as possible and as consistently as possible.

24-30fps may be fine for a passive "cinematic" experience. It's shit for an interactive experience.

I can barely comprehend this. Please, explain it further, because it's blowing my mind.

Has been a while since the last ShinjiEx post spouting utter nonsense. These continue to be entertaining. :)

Please learn what RAM does and GPU does at the very least.

60fps is always better. It's a latency thing. Back when FPS games involved twitch skills and you had CRTs that could do fast refreshes, you cranked your graphics down to get the highest frame rate you could. None of this 200ms, aim assist, projectile stuff. 2ms pings on the LAN, pure player aiming, hit scan.

I realized just how sensitive to latency I was a few years back when I was first trying Akoustic Piano, which is a software piano library. The best latency I could muster on my laptop's hardware at the time was 20ms. It was downright unplayable. It wasn't until I picked up a Mac with an SSD and was able to get the latency down to 6ms did it feel like playing an actual piano.

blah blah your eyes can't really see 60 fps blah blah

Holy shit, just no. Stop being one of those drones that knows jack. Do a little bit of research before making yourself look stupid.

This man is right. 120 FPS is where it's at.

Holla if you've been down the same road.

This is a stupid conversation.

This is dumb. 60 is twice as close to reality's infinite frame-rate than 30. Thus it is more life-like.

More cinematic sure in regards to being closer to the 24 frames that most movies run at, as for more detail? lol

Not to be a jerk OP, but you are wrong on just about everything you stated.

The main problem with 60fps isn't ''you can't perceive it'' or even ''it takes more optimization time for the devellopers''. No, the main problem is that when you play enough games at 60fps you become a 60fps junky that needs to buy a 1500$ PC every 2 or 3 years to fuel his addiction. You become a whinning dick that can't handle a game that dips to 28fps on a few occasions often labeling it as sub 20 or single digit frame rate. 60 fps won't ever be the norm, deal with it.

I had a ton of trouble forcing DMC to run at 30. After a while at succeeding at making the game look and run worse I went back to 60. Big difference. The feel of the controls and the smoothness makes that game shine.

Boy, you sure sound like a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.