30fps and Prettier vs 60fps and Smoother (assume locked)

It depends on the game.

@salarn said:

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).

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.

60FPS any day.

@viciousreiven said:

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.

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.

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.

60fps and 30fps both look great to me.

@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.

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.

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.

PC, no comprimises.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The answer is "depends".

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.

It depends on the type of game.

Gimme all the frames.

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)

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.

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.

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

Or just as pretty but at 60fps.

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.

@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.

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

MOAR NUMBERS IS BEST NUMBARS

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Frame rate all day.

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.

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