#1 Edited by Bobby_The_Great (1004 posts) -

EDIT: To everyone saying this is a silly question, I honestly DON'T LIKE 60FPS. So, I was just asking if there are any others, apparently not. For instance, I don't like that Rage is at 60fps, there is too much going on, and I'm not sure how to explain it, but there always seems to be this "sheen" to games running at 60fps or higher that I don't like. Also games that run at 60FPS give me eye-strain, games at 30 do not. Maybe I have epilepsy or something.

This is something that I've always wondered. I tend to prefer 30fps. I think developers always get shadows, lighting and just better detail with a game running at 30fps. It's part of the reason I like film running (as in movies) at 24fps as opposed to 60fps which a lot of home movies tend to look like to me.

I know listening to the podcast, Jeff is a huge component of games running at 60fps and wants all games running at 60fps, and I hope that never happens. There are certainly some games I rather prefer running at 60fps, mostly fighting games, but I still think a majority of games running at a very smooth (meaning not dropping frame rate) 30 always look better than 60.

And I mostly can see a difference running the same game on my 360 versus my PC. Take Saints Row 3 for example. On 360 it runs at 30fps most of the time, whereas on my more powerful PC it runs at 60fps, and even though the game has a cartoony art style to begin with, it always looks dizzying and nauseating on my PC.

I just don't think 60fps translates well to the eye on a television screen. I always feel games that run at 60fps lose a lot of realism or atmospheric aesthetics.

So what say you? Or have you even ever noticed?

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I can't even notice.

#3 Posted by ThePhantomnaut (6197 posts) -

60fps with reasonable motion blur.

#4 Posted by Demoskinos (14751 posts) -

Is this a real question? I mean c'mon son...look at witcher 2 maxed out running 60fps compared to 30fps and its night and day how much better 60fps are. Having dove headfirst into PC gaming as of late I've developed a keen eye for frame rates to the point where its really annoying to play console games that dip into low 20's where as before I wouldn't have noticed it.

#5 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1004 posts) -

@Demoskinos: See, I prefer the Witcher 2 at 30fps over 60fps. The 60 drives me nuts and loses the atmosphere for me.

#6 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:

I can't even notice.

#7 Posted by CookieMonster (2416 posts) -

@MikeGosot said:

@Video_Game_King said:

I can't even notice.

#8 Posted by Skytylz (4031 posts) -

Once you get use to 60fps it's hard to go back.

#9 Posted by PenguinDust (12491 posts) -

I doesn't make a difference to me on a TV but on a PC I prefer 60fps. I can't really tell when I'm sitting on my couch playing a game, but I can see the fluidity of the frame rate when I'm in front of my PC.

#10 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Skytylz said:

Once you get use to 60fps it's hard to go back.

This. Playing a game at 30 FPS can be immensely jarring once your eyes get acclimated to 60. The drops become a lot more noticeable and much harder to ignore.

#11 Posted by Codeacious (960 posts) -

60. I really notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps- I have a much harder time differentiating between ~48 and 60, however.

#12 Posted by BirdkeeperDan (400 posts) -

I've always prefered 60 fps. In the past it may have been a more balanced arguement but I think the geometry and textures are looking pretty close to as good as the economics of art creation will allow them to. So when you are comparing technical effects like lighting or AA to fps, I think most people would prefer 60 fps.

#13 Posted by ds8k (412 posts) -

This shouldn't even be a question. I assure you, there is a huge difference between games at 30fps and 60fps. I'm currently playing Red Dead Redemption on 360 and mostly spend my time wishing I could play it on my computer. The lower frame rate and frequent dips completely destroy my immersion in the game. I suppose I've just been spoiled by my PC but it's really hard for me to enjoy a game if it isn't running at 40fps or higher.

Online
#14 Posted by Dtat (1623 posts) -

I am shocked that people can't notice the difference between 60 and 30. Maybe it's because they don't play a lot of games at solid 60 fps? It's hugely different.

#15 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Framerate is far, far more important that overall graphical quality. There's a reason why most fighting games have to constant 60 FPS. Slightly worse lighting isn't going to affect gameplay. 30FPS games are only good for producing ever so slightly better looking screenshots.

#16 Posted by ds8k (412 posts) -

@Dtat: My guess is they've never actually seen a game running at a constant 60fps. The difference is extremely noticeable.

Online
#17 Posted by Swoxx (2992 posts) -

Why in the name of fucking GOD would you want lower FPS?

#18 Posted by AlexW00d (6234 posts) -

Why is this even a question?

#19 Posted by shinboy630 (1134 posts) -

@Swoxx said:

Why in the name of fucking GOD would you want lower FPS?

This. If you can't tell the different between 30fps and 60fps you need to play more games at 60. You will be shocked how different (and better if you ask me) it is.

#20 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

What kind of question is this

#21 Edited by Mahonay (828 posts) -

I'll take Battlefield 3's 30fps on the consoles over Call of Duty's 60fps.

In some instances like the one I just stated I'll takes 30 over 60 if it means a more visually rich experience in exchange.

Although of course I'd love to have 60 frames every single time if I had an option. I'm not a PC gamer so it's not like I get to set how well the game runs.

#22 Posted by JJOR64 (18955 posts) -

60 of course.

#23 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

I honestly couldn't care less. Sure the game looks better if it's at 60fps but if the game still runs at 30fps, then I'm fine with it.

#24 Posted by Swoxx (2992 posts) -

@shinboy630 said:

@Swoxx said:

Why in the name of fucking GOD would you want lower FPS?

This. If you can't tell the different between 30fps and 60fps you need to play more games at 60. You will be shocked how different (and better if you ask me) it is.

Completely agree. It's an amazing difference, in a good way.

#25 Posted by LaserLambert (167 posts) -

60, if light and shadow, and other stuff are more important to you than the framerate, that's fine. It isn't for me.

#26 Posted by Mahonay (828 posts) -

@Swoxx said:

@shinboy630 said:

@Swoxx said:

Why in the name of fucking GOD would you want lower FPS?

This. If you can't tell the different between 30fps and 60fps you need to play more games at 60. You will be shocked how different (and better if you ask me) it is.

Completely agree. It's an amazing difference, in a good way.

OF COURSE 60FPS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

How is that even a question?

#27 Edited by blackbird415 (777 posts) -

60 frames always. On pc its really easy to tell the difference once youve played at 60 for a good while and the frames drop.

the frame rates of film and games are non comparible either.

#28 Posted by Baillie (4077 posts) -

I've played countless games on both 60fps and 30fps. There isn't that much of a difference.

#29 Posted by Vexxan (4618 posts) -

At 60 fps, of course(?). I don't mind if they have to sacrifice some cool effects in order to get to that number, I want my games to run smooth.

#30 Posted by ThePhantomnaut (6197 posts) -

Metal Gear Solid 3 HD now runs at 60fps and it's GDLK.

#31 Posted by kidman (466 posts) -

Do you prefer game that feels better or worse?

#32 Posted by huntad (1931 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great said:

@Demoskinos: See, I prefer the Witcher 2 at 30fps over 60fps. The 60 drives me nuts and loses the atmosphere for me.

I can understand this. It might be a problem with looking at games that run at 30fps for most of your gaming life. I know I felt like that until a point where I was deep into PC gaming and was trying to get as many frames as I could.

I prefer 60fps, because it runs the smoothest, and is honestly just breathtaking and exciting when I see it in console games. However, looking at Need for Speed Hot Pursuit and Burnout Paradise, I'll take the way Hot Pursuit looks any day. If I have to choose in very specific examples like this, then I choose the better looking one if it's stable. If it's just a general question, then I'll go 60fps whenever possible.

#33 Posted by Rehtayne (127 posts) -

Although I do prefer 30 fps, I can't say it's a big deal one way or another, just so long as the game is playable.

#34 Posted by MrCaptain (364 posts) -

Ah you spoiled kids, my crappy computer run games at like 12 fps.. I would kill to get 60 fps! Or buy a new graphics card.

#35 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

60 no contest

#36 Edited by believer258 (11785 posts) -

60 is better, but I don't mind 30.

And for the love of God, I've seen both. It's splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned; I'm far more interested in the game part of the video game than the technical aspects of them.

What I don't get is this line from the OP:

It's part of the reason film (as in movies) runs at 24fps as opposed to 60fps which a lot of home movies tend to look like.

Just... no. Movies still run at 24FPS because it's cheaper to make them that way. A number of famous movie directors, Peter Jackson and James Cameron among them, are filming future movies at 48 because it's better. It looks more natural and fluid.

Note that the movie thing is also splitting hairs, but the reasons behind them are different. Games on consoles run at 30 because that frees up a large number of resources; movies run at 24 because that's cheap.

#37 Posted by Ben_H (3338 posts) -

60 FPS. Anyone who has played at 60 for a long time then went back to 30 will agree.  It's a huge difference in RTS and FPS. For RPGs, I don't really care but I can't play RTS and FPS at anything other than 60.

#38 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

how manys fps's are my eyes

#39 Posted by MildMolasses (3219 posts) -

I don't care. If a game is at 30, fine. If it's 60, fine

The thing I don't get is when they talk about fps in racing games. I only notice the fps on non static objects in games. The back of a car doesn't look a whole lot different if you double the frame count, and everything is is whizzing by to fast for it to even matter

#40 Edited by evilrazer (481 posts) -

@Swoxx: I guess the lower FPS you have the more time you have to react! Use some skill, son!

God, my avatar still has new year's hat.

#41 Posted by Willin (1280 posts) -

To the people saying you can't get a good looking game at 60fps I have but one word:

Rage.

#42 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Skytylz said:

Once you get use to 60fps it's hard to go back.

This. Playing a game at 30 FPS can be immensely jarring once your eyes get acclimated to 60. The drops become a lot more noticeable and much harder to ignore.

I would say much the same in the opposite direction. Playing most games at 30 fps, when I played Rage I constantly found myself feeling a little out of sorts with the added frame rate. Seemed almost a little dizzying. It think it just comes down to whatever you are used to.

#43 Posted by ddensel (372 posts) -

As long as the frame rate is consistent, I don't care.

#44 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

I prefer 120. Just because I'm a PC elitist and can play almost every game at 120.

#45 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10885 posts) -

I'm more concerned with it being steady. Otherwise, I can't really tell. So, I guess, then I would say that I would rather a game at steady 30fps with more other things than a game with steady 60fps and fewer other things.

Moderator Online
#46 Posted by Rowr (5528 posts) -

Anything over 40 is ideal.

30 is acceptable

25 is annoying - and anything less is hard to deal with.

It depends on the game though, It's different if it's wildly dipping than running at a consistent 30.

#47 Posted by wewantsthering (1564 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great said:

This is something that I've always wondered. I tend to prefer 30fps. I think developers always get shadows, lighting and just better detail with a game running at 30fps. It's part of the reason film (as in movies) runs at 24fps as opposed to 60fps which a lot of home movies tend to look like.

The reason movies currently run at 24 fps is because originally cameras needed the longer exposure time to capture more light (photography 101). That's why consumer cameras get super choppy in low lighting. We have stuck with this formula mostly out of tradition. Peter Jackson's, The Hobbit will feature 48 fps, which will be a huge improvement for action scenes. In movies, there is a lot of blurry stuff going on in action scenes because there just isn't enough video information when things are moving quickly. You can also see this if a camera pans from side to side quickly. It will look super stuttery. In the future, we will see movies at higher fps, and finally break out of this ancient way of film making.

You can have a game run at 60 fps and have a good amount of eye candy. It's just about spending the development resources to fully optimize your code base, which a lot of devs opt to skip out on due to production schedules.

#48 Posted by AlKusanagi (915 posts) -

This has always confused me, because aren't movies and whatnot projected at 24 frames per second?

#49 Posted by Masha2932 (1241 posts) -

Despite the texture pop-in issues, RAGE looked and played awesome at 60 fps.

#50 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4970 posts) -

Give me ALL of the frames.