I would like to see more information on frame rates in reviews. A frame rate analysis with a dedicated section in reviews.
It seems like the next big hurdle in video game tech is making the frame rate issue go away. No game should ever dip below 60 fps. I'd like to see 120 fps become standard.
I understand that a developer can always push a machine too hard. But, that line of thought means we will have to deal with bad frame rates, forever.
Spending more time covering frame rate will push developers to raise the bar.
Would be great to have noted but a whole section. Not to be anal, wouldn't a simple it's supposed to run at x vs what it actually runs at. if it is a serious problem, Jeff and Brad usually hit on it. Still a good thought. Your ideas regarding 120 fps as a standard are a little farfetched. Current consoles could never run a FPS or for that matter practically any graphically taxing game at 120 fps. Maybe on a Boss gaming PC. But pandering too the privileged few at the expense of the rest. Elitist perhaps. Also look at a game like Hot pursuit. CRiterion strayed from their normal 60fps to 30, and had some of the coolest effects as well as visuals I have ever seen. A lower framcount could liberate developers to engage in more ambitious effects and visuals (like the lighting in hot pursuit) without having to fret over keeping to a ludicrously high standard of 120 fps.
@shua310: I agree that it is a tough decision for developers to trade cool effects for better frame rate. But, the frame rate issue is a fundamental to human vision. At 60 fps, you can rotate the camera and still read a sign at a distance. At 30 fps, you can't.
No game should ever dip below 60 fps. I'd like to see 120 fps become standard.
Uhhh... ok then. You realize how bad the graphics would have to be to keep a constant 120 fps on a console, don't you?
Have you ever played a game at 60 fps? Or 120 fps? Are you saying that you like 24 to 30 fps?
I'm sure we've all seen 60fps. And I think what he's getting at is that it isn't very feasible to expect 120fps standards. I guess it'd be nice, but so would video game costing $1 standard. It's just not very likely.
Personally, I only notice dips. If a game runs at 60fps and dips down to 30fps during action, I notice. If a game runs at 30fps at all times though, I generally can't point it out.
60 fps SHOULD BE the standard at the moment, but consoles always go for graphics over performance. Such a shame because I consider certain games unplayable to such a standard.
No game should ever dip below 60 fps. I'd like to see 120 fps become standard.
Uhhh... ok then. You realize how bad the graphics would have to be to keep a constant 120 fps on a console, don't you?
Have you ever played a game at 60 fps? Or 120 fps? Are you saying that you like 24 to 30 fps?
I have played games at 60 fps, it looks nice. Maybe you should read my post again, I never said anything about a constant 60 fps. Back when my pc was fairly new I played a couple year old game at 120 fps, have never gotten a modern game at 120 fps with max settings, I'm not saying it is impossible but it would either cost a lot of money to get a system to run a brand new game at that or the graphics would look similar to the graphics of a few years ago at best
BTW, I see absolutely no problem with 30 fps as long as it NEVER dips below that.
You wouldnt be able to tell the difference between 60-120 This thread is bait
This.
Bait for what? Play minecraft and enable the fps display. You certainly can tell the difference between 60 and 120. Try it! http://www.minecraft.net/
Dude you're wrong. It's impossible for the human eye to discern more than ~57 fps. Scientifically. You can turn on FPS and "look" at it but it's actually anatomically impossible for you to discern the difference. As for FPS in reviews, I think it should only be mentioned if there are issues. Otherwise there's always going to be the section which is like "and the FPS is...fine."
@tplarkin7: Perhaps, although I haven't had trouble with most games that stay at a consistent framerate. However, with current consoles, I dont think the trade off is worth it. A game like Black Ops, which does run a consistent 60fps, suffers graphically for it. In addition, asking Developers to double or even quadruple development visually would probably come at the cost of other parts of the game. While a smooth game should be high as a priority, it is certainly not the exclusive priority. Maybe we can discuss when specs for new consoles come out, but right now a 120fps standard is unreasonable.
Dude you're wrong. It's impossible for the human eye to discern more than ~57 fps. Scientifically. You can turn on FPS and "look" at it but it's actually anatomically impossible for you to discern the difference. As for FPS in reviews, I think it should only be mentioned if there are issues. Otherwise there's always going to be the section which is like "and the FPS is...fine."
You're wrong about the science of the eye. If you have a CRT monitor, set it to 60hz and you will see flicker. 75hz is where the flicker is less noticeable. Like I said, try minecraft. I think you can fix the fps. Set it to 60, play for a while. Then set it to 120. It's a huge difference.
Not really bringing anything new to this, but I'm also entirely happy if a game has a low but constant framerate. 60fps on everything would be cool I guess, but it's hardly a necessity. 120fps just seems excessive; there are more important things to worry about.
I understand wanting 60 to be the standard (give it a generation and most console games probably will be), but 120 is just excessive. Why waste the processing power rendering that many frames when the difference is negligible? 120 should only be for 3D gaming, and who knows how long that will last.
I was playing Rapelay while zipping up a load of files and sometimes the framerate would dip down to 58 or 59fps and I'd completely lose my boner and it would start to flicker. I feel OPs anger.
I'm surprised at all of the comments against a 60 fps standard. In order for 60 fps to be standard, the game will have to run above 60fps, most of the time (or have the ability to run at that rate if they choose to lock it at 60).
Am I the only fucking bitch in the world who doesn't mind 30 FPS in his games?
@louiedog said:
120? Is it 2010? 240 or nothing. I'd rather have my eyes gouged out and fed to honey badgers than suffer 120 fps. You console gamers are so cute. edit: apologies to the poster below me. i hope i don't drip too much sarcasm onto you.
Log in to comment