Clicked on this topic expecting crazy person talk from a crazy person because that question is like asking, "hey do you like one scoop of delicious ice cream or two scoops better? I like one scoop. And in a cup, no waffle cone."
But you make a fair point. Some people notice it much more than others. There is also something about 24 Hz that makes a movie feel like a movie and people seem to love slapping sepia vignetting on their digital photos. These were technological limitations that are now aesthetic choices. Perhaps when we're all dead there will be people who have survived the cyberapocalypse and those people will say there's something about 120 Hz that makes a cyberfilm feel like a cyberfilm, and 24 Hz will seem like an anachronistic slideshow.
That said, 60. Any time, every time, anywhere everywhere. 60. When screens get better and we finally get 120 Hz standard input on televisions and monitors, 120. Past 100 Hz I don't think anyone can notice so 120 fps is probably the end goal. If we're still around.
This more cinematic thing is kinda bullshit. I've been replaying the Assassin's Creed games on PC again after having gone through them on Xbox and I'm enjoying them far more at 60fps. The game doesn't feel as sluggish as it did on consoles where it felt like there was a delay between input and response. I'm no longer making bad jumps or messing up on combat. I can't go back to 30fps anymore. It was really disappointing putting Vanquish back in and not being able to play it.
People do understand that you need to make graphical sacrifices to reach 60fps right? It's not like you flip a switch from 30 to 60 and everything stays the same except the framerate. All other things being equal, 60fps is always preferable to 30fps, but all other things are never equal.
Some games need to prioritize framerate more than other games do.
@spoonman671: That's not the case if you have an actual gaming PC. I can play most any game at >60fps at maxed graphics. Most sit around 90FPS, some can get to 120.
60fps. I know that 60 can feel a bit weird when you're so use to 30, but that's just adjustment. When you're like me, though, you tend to just enjoy whatever the frame rate is set at. I've never been able to afford a super-computer, so I rarely play games at 60fps.
It's not backed by any scientific evidence; mainly because I'm too lazy to check; but I can't imagine people actually preferring 30 over 60 except for the fact that the transition may be weird and uncomfortable. That's leaving out a lot of factors, though, so theres a large chance I'm wrong. REGARDLESS! 60 > 30, even if you like 30 over 60.
I prefer 60. The Last of Us is a perfect example if you want to see the differences side by side, since there is an option for 30 fps.
If a game can't maintain a constant 60 fps, though, I would rather it just be locked at 30. It gets to be too jarring to see the frames shift constantly, even if it never gets below 30.
So I strongly feel this should have been a poll. Just to see 60fps 99.9% and 30fps 0.1%. Que goofy laughter ahillhillhuillahulicahill... It's bee a weird night...
Edit: just incase it was clear I prefer 60fps and await the day that motion in games looks no different that turning tour head in real life
60 minimum. I honestly think that 30 can be acceptable for many games though, but I always prefer they would have been 60. I'd like to go even higher than that if possible. My laptop can only handle 60fps, but I've been playing at 120 at a friend a couple times. It is a serious step up from 60 as well.
The higher the better I would say. I prefer 98 million fps if possible.
It somehow feels as if those games most renowned for having 60 FPS are also those games I don't play. So I know what 60 looks like, and I like it, but I'm not really used to it.
To each their own, I guess. But I found that once I got a decent PC and had everything running at 60+, I found it nigh on impossible to go back. Especially for Saints Row 3 & 4, those games look like complete trash to me on those old consoles now.
I can play games just fine at 30fps for most games. BUT I will always take higher framerates. So when given the choice I will always pick 60fps over 30 fps.
The point with low fps is that you have to deal with issues like mouse input lag. Otherwise, if you start a game on 30 fps and it maintains that fps, you will find no trouble at all.
Stop trying to give Ubisoft excuses. If you think 30fps is better than 60fps, then something is wrong with your eyes. 60fps plays, feels, and looks better than 30fps in all aspects. Seriously, this isn't a debate. It is fact.
@spoonman671: That's not the case if you have an actual gaming PC. I can play most any game at >60fps at maxed graphics. Most sit around 90FPS, some can get to 120.
On console though, this is definitely the case.
That's not really what @spoonman671 is saying I don't think. It's the developer who make sacrifices, not the user. All games are designed with a ceiling in mind. At some point there is a MAXIMUM setting, and that max is based on your limits. Your limits are based on your priorities, experience, hardware limitations (the developers, not the users') and market realities (your computer specs). So console or PC is irrelevant, it's a design issue in general.
We must thrive to increase framerate and resolution until nobody can see the difference anymore. (And then we must improve our eyes so we do notice it again and then we must increase framerate and resolution again and then...)
All retro games run at 60fps or 50fps in PAL land. I am a big retro gamer so of course 60fps to me is best. Modern games that run at 30fps can look good or bad depending on the game. For example, Forza Horaizon 2 looks fantastic even though it's locked at 30fps but something like a side scrolling game (Sonic Generations) look total ass and have a nasty blured look to them which is really off putting. So I'd say that for FP style games such as driving and FPS then 30fps is do-able but side scrolling needs 60fps.
Depends on the game, I guess. The more cinematic it is, the more I like 30FPS. The more gameplay driven, 60FPS. I find 60FPS in the Last of Us to be really jarring.
Sixty, with the caveat of "quality over quantity." Sixty is great is it is a consistent 60. If the frame rate is the occasional 60 that jumps around, I'd rather have a consistent experience at a lower FPS than a herky jerk experience at a higher number.
Speaking of which, not being a techy person, does anyone know why the choices are always 60 OR 30? I get that 60 might be hard to wring out of the hardware on consoles, but why is the jump seemingly then always down to 30? Why not 45 or 50 if they can get it?
Sixty, with the caveat of "quality over quantity." Sixty is great is it is a consistent 60. If the frame rate is the occasional 60 that jumps around, I'd rather have a consistent experience at a lower FPS than a herky jerk experience at a higher number.
Speaking of which, not being a techy person, does anyone know why the choices are always 60 OR 30? I get that 60 might be hard to wring out of the hardware on consoles, but why is the jump seemingly then always down to 30? Why not 45 or 50 if they can get it?
In layman's terms, and not to get too technical, it has to do with the refresh rate/frequency of your monitor or TV. This is why the relatively-new G-Sync technology is such a big deal (when compared to V-Sync).
Whatever the game engine can handle. I can enjoy myself with either framerate as long as it's not chugging and stuttering all over the fucking place. If it's consistant, I can't really tell anyway, as I'm too busy, you know, ENJOYING myself.
I have overclocked my monitor to 72hz and found that if i halve that to 37 for third person games, Assasin's Creeds and what not's, its enough for me since i'm using a controller to play them.
For FPS games though i'm using a m&k so the minimum is 60, preferably 72.
@spoonman671: That's not the case if you have an actual gaming PC. I can play most any game at >60fps at maxed graphics. Most sit around 90FPS, some can get to 120.
On console though, this is definitely the case.
Do you realize that the only reason your hardware is able to reach those framerates is because the developer chose not to fully utilize the power of your hardware? They sacrificed what it could have looked like on your hardware so that it could run on weaker hardware. The CPU and GPU cycles those games used to get the 61st frame all the way up to the 120th frame in a second could have instead be put to use into displaying more polygons, more shaders, and more effects on screen. If the developers had designed a game to run on your hardware at 30 fps, they would be able to output even more.
Bottom line: your high-end hardware experience is compromised so that budget hardware can still run the game.
With The Evil Within, I really tried giving 30fps a shot so I didn't have to pop open the console window and mess around with that, I really did. I then unlocked the framerate, loved it, and found I actually enjoyed playing the game more. So 60fps for me I guess. Though to tell you the truth, I do not really care as much if I am playing on a console on my TV as opposed to doing it on my monitor with my PC. I'm willing to give a little when it comes to what I play on the PS3.
As much as I prefer 60fps in most games, I have no issue with 30fps (as long as it's stable). My older sister has motion sickness and can't play 60fps without feeling nauseous. People have their preferences and should be allowed to choose between graphics/frame rate options even on the consoles.
Sonny, 60 fps is the greatest thing in the world - except for a nice MLT! Mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe [smacks his lips] they're so perky, I love that.
I'm perfectly happy with 30 so long as the game design functions with it well. eg the Halo games have always felt great to me at 30. I was also one of those people who preferred The Last of Us at 30 rather than 60.
I honestly don't care. As long as there is no stutter I'm fine with 30. I guess 60 is better but I hardly notice ever. I'm also glad I don't because I don't want to become one of those 60 fps nutjobs.
As "what do I prefer?", obviously I would like all the games to have the best possible graphics and framerate. It is like asking "Do you prefer sound at 64 bps or 128 bps?".
However, if that is not possible, I would rather have a constant 30 fps than a framerate that fluctuates between 60 and 30...
60fps whenever possible hands down. Granted I play mostly on pc and I have more control over that being possible, but I can't think of a time when I preferred 30fps. In gaming that is. On live video, I understand it. 60fps looks weird, like there's too much information being given to me at once. But like the bombers talked about awhile ago, maybe it's just because we are so used to 24fps on film that we just need to adjust.
Log in to comment