30fps vs 60fps.

Humans can rationalise anything.

I've only ever heard jokers say games should run at 24 fps. Some think 30 fps is better because it allows the devs to use those system resources in other areas. I don't play on consoles anymore and I always aim for 60.

24 FPS is more cinematic, 60 FPS looks fake like a soap opera or something.

I can't tell the difference once it goes above 25 or so as long as it is stable. I get that other people can, I just can't, so it doesn't matter to me :)

@mike: are you taking a stand there?

I hate the soap look more than anyone but I've never applied that descriptor to a game.

This is the only reason developers should ever intentionally want to release games that are 30 fps. If they feel that power is better used elsewhere, that's for them to decide.

If it's the same game at either 30 or 60... wait, which one is the bigger number again?

If I could choose between a better looking game or 60fps I would ALWAYS pick higher frame rate.

Banner Saga 60fps

was chatting with a friend and he finally noticed it after over me telling him for years about it. Thank you Xbone.

Developers should always strive to hit 60fps and I'm a console player. If you can't reach sixty on the console then you should do absolutely everything in your power to make the game run at a steady 30. I will gladly take a hit to visual quality to have a better frame rate situation. I have a fairly high tolerance for frame rate (games like Far Cry 3 and Saints Row IV that were dogged for bad frame rate never really bothered me) but just because I can be fine with less than ideal conditions doesn't mean everyone else can.

At the very least, shit like Just Cause 3 should not happen on consoles. I beat it a few days ago and that game ran so poorly on the One that I was gobsmacked. It was bad enough to make me think twice about picking up anything coming out of the pipe from the New York side of Avalanche. I was able to power through and beat that game but it was still pretty damned unacceptable.

60 is definitely preferable, but 30 is hardly the unplayable slideshow that certain folks make it out to be either. One is better, neither are bad.

I definitely notice the difference, and yes, 60 is definitely preferable. That said, when it comes to console, all too often, developers want to get the most visually our of their games, which means greater look to it, but less fps, and to me, that's fine. I just want steady frames though. A good looking, steady 30fps is totally fine to me.

I think Doom 2016 is the shining example of why 60+ fps matters in games and why every game should strive for at least 60 fps. Not only do the animations look smoother, but the game itself feels smoother as well. When you are playing a fast paced action game where every frame counts, a fast frame rate is extremely important. You can make the argument that lowering the frame rate to 30 fps allows for better visuals on screen, but I would counter that by arguing which is more important, how the game looks or how the game plays? When it comes down to it, I choose smoothness of game play above just about everything.

As for the people who say they can't tell the difference between 30 to 60, 60 to 120, and 120 to 144, I ask those people to get their eyes checked and/or get a better TV or monitor.

As for the 24 fps movie/TV thing, with more modern cameras shooting at 60fps these days, I think the days of the old NTSC 30 fps limit (25 fps PAL) will probably be going away in the not-too-distant future. The reason why those standards were put in place is because at the time that was the best camera/television systems technology available. Now with even smartphone cameras being able to shoot 1080p/60fps video, and professional cameras being able to much more than that, there is no need to stick to those old NTSC/PAL standards anymore. Frame rate and resolutions have taken a huge jump since then, and with pretty much everything going digital we don't really have to worry about over-the-air broadcasting, either.

It's 2016 Y'all. Technology motherfucker!

144hz or bust.

Depends on what type of game really. A steady 30 is tolerable in some games, but anything fast-paced and action-y, 30 fps is choppy as fuck. Under 30 is unplayable. I remember playing GTA V on PS3 when it fist came out and I could literally count the frames when you were swimming in the ocean. It was painful.

60 plays smoother but it has to be stable for it to be better then a solid 30. In a lot of games I prefer to bump up the settings and lock the framerate at 30. I love it when games give the option to lock at 50 or even 40hz. All pc games should have this option IMO.

At the moment I'm a console only player and every game on it that has a stable 60 fps feels like a massage to my eyes. 30 fps certainly is very much playable for most type of games, but when I've been playing 60 fps titles and go back to a 30 fps shooter it just doesn't feel right.

When games like Battlefront, MGS5 and Doom can have 60 fps on consoles with amazing graphics then what's the excuse for not aiming for 60 fps?

I don't mind low framerates nearly as much as most people seem to, even sub-30, but I can't see how in a game less fps would be preferable to more.

Play Doom at 60 FPS and tell me 60 FPS looks "bad"

I'm not a stickler for 60 either. If a game runs at a solid 30 FPS then I'm perfectly content, but when you see a fast paced action title perform at a rock solid 60 it's really a sight to behold.

South Park would look bad in 60fps, maybe. The show is 29.97, so 30fps works for that but it's a very specific case.

It totally depends on the game. If you're doing anything that requires a reaction time then 60fps can be a huge deal. If you're playing a turn-based strategy, or an adventure game, or anything that doesn't require reaction time or fast movement then 60fps becomes a bit of an afterthought and a stable 30fps is just fine.

This. I basically just play CS:GO now and I am to have a stable 200 fps at least for my 144 Hz monitor.

I will always choose 60fps over 30, but I can be just fine with a game at 30fps if it is rock solid, like the original Forza Horizon.

Would it be better at 60fps like the 'core' Forza games? Absolutely, but that doesn't stop it from being one of my favourite games ever.

I do get frustrated when a game is just not cutting it technically, though. I still remember playing Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood on the PS3 when it was released. I love that game, but the frame-rate and near constant screen-tearing in that game make me not want to play it at all. When I built a gaming PC a few years ago, I bought another copy and I was shocked at how much more I enjoyed the game. Solid 60 fps, no screen tearing. It's wonderful to just have a game work correctly, like the devs intended.

As for more recent stuff, I am currently playing through the Witcher 3: Blood & Wine expansion on PS4. I have put a lot of time into the game (not sure exactly how much because the in-game timer seems bugged) but I see footage of the game running at full-tilt on a capable PC and it makes me sad to see how much better the game is when it's not compromised by weaker hardware.

Sure, it looks good on the PS4, but the aliasing, draw distance, texture resolution on objects at a distance, little micro stutters when moving through the environment, constant (lengthy) loading screens when in cutscenes - it really pulls me out of the game. Not to mention the frame-rate drops to way below 30 if too many effects are on screen at once, especially in combat. (I hate the rain in Velen because it makes the game chug so much).

That said, it's still my favourite game of all time. I can't wait to get another PC built and do a second play-through.

My old man eyes are starting to kick in. Playing at 30fps in fast paced games causes me eye strain but not an issue at 60 or higher.

Yup.

For me if it's running below that as long as its steady I get adjusted and won't be thinking about it. But for an example, just played Dragons Dogma on PC over console and wow is it just so much better with the framerate there. Makes the game feel better and faster to control even.

Where is the I don't know button?

Got a 165Hz display last winter, 60hz and just about anything under 90-100hz feels sluggish now.

I can run some games at 4k with about 30fps, and i can safely say that it looks worse than 1080 60fps. I think uncharted 4 did a very good job with 30fps with the use of motion blur to hide it, so it's absolutely not unplayable if developed around it. I played arkham knight on pc at 30 and after locking things down it felt pretty decent besides a few drops below.

I think the difference lies in the way a game feels when creating movement rather than watching a cutscene, things just feel a bit more sluggish at 30fps, and without good motion blur things tend to look like a slide show to me.

but 24 fps is obviously more cinematic than 60. :-)

60 is always better than 30 if you can get it, in scenarios where you can't get 60 it's only sometimes a dealbreaker. I would not play Doom at 30 fps for example, but I played most of Witcher 3 hovering around 30-40.

so many fps it hertz

The more the merrier.

I do not care what frame rate I get as long as the game is playable. I really couldn't care less for devs spending resources on achieving 60 fps for no real benefit.

@mrcraggle: For me its the exact opposite. The older I've gotten, the more I prefer the slowness of 30. It causes less strain on my eyes. I get headaches when playing most games at 60.

I dont think anyone can deny that 60 fps pretty much always plays better

BUT I am one of those weirdos who thinks a lot of games just look wrong at 60 fps, especially third person games. I dont know how to explain it but ,people specifically ,animating at 60 fps look super wrong to me 90% of the time, like its way too smooth, kinda like 90s cgi stuff. Runcycles in games at 60 fps often remind me of that sped up benny hill stuff. That said I bet I wouldn't notice if I'd only play on 60 fps. And it does play better....

I wouldn't want to play any Unreal tournament or the new doom at 30 fps for example but those also totally seem like they should be moving smoother/faster than real life in contrary to say the witcher or dark souls.

Im surprised people are so focused on fps though, as someone who cant even handle most tvs' input latency 30 fps has never really bothered me. Variable framerates and screentearing though, oh boy I cant stand those.

Excellent example. Horizon 2 vs. Forza 6 is the same story. I like Forza 6 and its 60 FPS fine, but Horizon 2's 30 FPS has never bothered me a bit because I always have such a blast driving around the beautiful open-world. There are some games like Doom and competitive multiplayer shooters that arguably need 60 FPS, but sacrificing some FPS between 60 and 30 to make things prettier can be well-worth it in many cases.

I don't have a response. Couldn't imagine DOOM or MGS5 at 30fps but The Last of Us at 60 on PS4 was distracting and off putting. I'm far more used to 30 as a console gamer but certain games definitely benefit from 60.

60 are obviously better, but I don't mind a smooth 30 either.

Disparaging 60 makes no sense too me.

60 is the magic number, but I don't avoid games that were designed to run at 30. If one game's 30 looks as smoothly as another game's 60, I'm good.

Needs a "Doesn't Matter to me" option. I care more about stability than either of those. 60 is good and all, but 30 ain't horrible.

This, yeah. If a game manages to hold a vaguely 30ish framerate then I could not be bothered to care about anything past that. I get that 60 helps for some genres but it's not something that's ever been an issue for me. But then, I also don't care if something is 720p instead of 1080p, let alone anything between there and 4k.

The real question is "what games will you accept at 30fps"

I think maybe if you get used to 60 fps then it might be hard to go back. But sometimes 60 fps looks a bit "swimmy" because our eyes aren't trained to view 60 fps generally. So it starts to look a bit strange.

I'll give my answer in the form of a fact, COD4 came out and was the most popular shooter ever made, i believe a big part of this was due to it being the only first person shooter on console with 60fps... something console gamers had only experienced with platformers, small arcade games, Gran Turismo and Devil May Cry, now Halo runs at 60 too.
There is another factor when it comes to 30fps beyond just having less frames, the positives are of course more or better graphics, but there are cases where a developer is pushing so hard on those graphics that things like input response and loading/streaming delay actually have a negative affect on the game, the original releases of the Uncharted series into The Last of Us all have pretty much a half second input lag, it's something average players don't notice but it totally ruined those games for me, when i mention the lag to my friends who didn't notice it the games were then ruined for them too, i recently replayed 007: Bloodstone but on PC, when trying to fix a stutter issue i locked the frame rate at 30fps, which then introduced input lag and longer loading times for some reason, the game runs at 30 on its primary console platforms so you wouldn't think the effect would be so drastic but it is, there's something inherent to 30fps which just introduces those issues. Regarding loading times almost all the Call of Duty games load maps within a few seconds, we can point to optimized graphics to enable higher frame rates as the cause, and it benefits the game to no end that you can join a multiplayer game with almost no waiting
Games which i played at 30 (or less) on console which i have replayed again on PC have always been better at higher frame rates.

Our eyes aren't trained? I don't know what you mean. Real life looks far more fluid than 60 fps.

60 is preferred but I would never avoid playing a game that looks fun just because it was 30 fps. I notice the difference but its not game breaking.

Yeah but if you've been playing games long enough and especially on console then you're probably more used to the way 30 fps looks. It's the same reason why The Hobbit looked weird to people at 48 fps as opposed to 24. Our brains have the animal instinct of picking out movement that looks different than what we're used to. So when something suddenly seem more fluid it looks "weird".

Oh, the benefit is definitely real. Someone described 60FPS as an "eye massage" above and, yeah, that's a good descriptor. I've been playing the HD remakes of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess on the Wii U as well as Tokyo Mirage Sessions and all of those run at 30FPS. While I don't have a problem with that, there are definitely a lot of places in all three games where I'm bummed at how choppy it gets. I'll give up any graphical or aesthetic effect if it means the framerate stays at 60.

I think 30 is fine for a lot of games, but 60 is always better. When I have the choice on PC games I always choose 60 fps steady over any kind of visual flourishes.
By the way, is this the most asked question on Internet gaming forums? It feels like I've seen this discussions so many times

For me it really blows my mind when I go back to a Dreamcast/ps2/ps1 game and it has 60fps and seeing how much framerate does for old games. It straight up makes them age better.

For example the PS2 games they're putting on PS4. I think the frame rate improvements do more for those games than the 4x resolution.