• 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for d-man123
Posted by D-Man123 (58 posts) -

I'm going to go on a slight rant here so be prepared. Gaming developers have done something over the last couple of years and it still frustrates me to this day everytime I hear it. The emphasis on 1080p and 60fps for video games. All the time you hear people when a new game is being demoed someone eventually asks if it runs at 60fps. I understand that there is a standard when it comes to video games and how they should look and run. Nobody wants to play a game in this day that runs poorly myself included. What I don't understand is why some gamers are so obsessed with a game running at a certain frame rate.

I see this in a lot of P.C. gamers on the internet and a from friends I know. They always wanna boast that their gaming apparatus is the best thing ever. I played on plenty of gaming pcs so I'm not ignorant to the might of a gaming PC, but it still bugs me when I feel I'm looked down because I didn't choose to play on a PC. I had a friend who went out of his way to not play The Witcher 3 because he found out it ran at the same framerate and resolution as the PS4. I think that is a stupid reason to not play a game especially one as critically acclaimed as The Witcher 3. It isn't only the PC gamers who act like this. There is always silly arguments over what console is better and people trying to prove what they bought is better so they could feel good about their purchase. What doesn't help this is the fact that framerate and resolution are always marketed heavily when it comes to anything these days.

I guess what I'm asking for is the world where we all can understand that not everybody plays games for the same reason as you. I know that will never happen and it's a miracle to ask for it. I'm tired of hearing what framerate and resolution a game is going to be at. If it sucks then I will be able to tell if it runs badly when I watch gameplay footage on youtube. I play games that are good whether that be because of its voice acting and immersive characters and the world like The Last Of Us. The fantastic and tight gameplay like COD and Wolfenstein. For its weirdness and comedic undertones like in the latest Yakuza 0 or for its strategic gameplay and the critical thinking, you have to do while playing like Civilization or Halo Wars. At the end of the day, I feel focusing on the looks of a game is such a superficial way of judging a game. What matters is if it's fun and enjoyable to you and that is the only thing that should matter when it comes to a game.

Well, thank you for listening to me rant for a minute and let me know if you dislike the emphasis on 60fps and 1080p resolution as much as me. If you don't tell me why you care about it and maybe you might change my mind I'm always open to it. Also tell what are the big things you look for when you play video games. Have a wonderful night, people.

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for ezekiel
#1 Edited by Ezekiel (1695 posts) -

Because it's the bare minimum and most TVs don't go above 60 Hz anyway. I mean, I can play at 30 frames if that's how the game is coded, but it doesn't look good the majority of the time. Motion blur doesn't solve it. I briefly tried motion blur in Arkham Knight after having it disabled in all my games for years, and it honestly looked awful. Yes, obviously what's most important is how the game plays, but games are made of many parts and it's nice when all of them are of high quality.

Avatar image for nnickers
#2 Edited by nnickers (263 posts) -

So you're upset because other people are interested in an aspect of games that you don't personally care about? I...wha?

Avatar image for probablytuna
#3 Posted by probablytuna (4922 posts) -

To me framerate has a lot to do with my immersion in a game. If a game is running at subpar/under 30 frames it kinda takes me out of it no matter how good a story or the gameplay is. 60FPS is also highly preferred for action games and shooters because of how you react to what's going on, the controls needs to be precise and smooth. Playing Dark Souls on consoles get frustrating not only because you're fighting a hard boss, most of the time you're also fighting against the framerate, especially if they have large bosses/destructible environments.

I'm all for developers making games run at 30FPS so they can look better, but if they aren't pushing the tech to the fullest and yet can't run at 60FPS then I gotta wonder why not?

Avatar image for d-man123
#4 Edited by D-Man123 (58 posts) -

@nnickers: I don't like how much of a focus there is on it sometimes, but I understand that isn't going to change at all. I get some people will always value how a game looks more than me I accept that. It still bugs me sometimes how its brought up alot, but it all comes down to my taste vs theirs at the end of the day. I wanted to rant about and possibly see some responses that could change my mind on how I feel about it as well.

@ezekiel: I agree you have a point about high quality I just believe that some people take it to the extreme, but the same can be said for a lot of things when it comes to games.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#5 Edited by Ezekiel (1695 posts) -

I feel that way when I see people like this:

No Caption Provided

I know it's personal preference, but you're still a dumbass.

Avatar image for hunkulese
#6 Posted by Hunkulese (4015 posts) -

That's a pretty silly reason considering it's not even close to being an accurate statement.

@d-man123 said:

I had a friend who went out of his way to not play The Witcher 3 because he found out it ran at the same framerate and resolution as the PS4.

Avatar image for justin258
#7 Edited by Justin258 (14374 posts) -

It's always worth mentioning in these resolution/framerate threads that people are different. One person may not perceive a difference between 30 and 60 and someone else may feel so much discomfort from 30FPS that they can't enjoy a game. It's the same story with resolutions.

I have all of the current consoles so I'm definitely not an elitist and I'm definitely not looking down on you for choosing to go with consoles. Go with what works for you.

But seeing a game run at 1080p60 at a minimum is a real treat for my eyes. And it's a constant treat, too. It's like my eyes are continuously dining on the best candy in the world and they never, ever get sick of it.

I don't have a problem with the idea of playing a game at 720p30, which should be an absolute minimum for consoles. I do really have a problem with console games that can't even maintain a smooth 30FPS. If something about the game is causing it to constantly and noticeably run lower than 30, I'm not going to play it because at some point any enjoyment I could be having is being sucked away by poor performance. Also, it's always worth noting that when your game struggles to maintain at least 30FPS, its controls also start to feel sluggish and terrible and that's another thing that really takes me out of it.

Avatar image for ivdamke
#8 Edited by IVDAMKE (1420 posts) -

It's simple really. Games look like a blurry mess sub 1080 and they feel less satisfying to play sub 60. I've been playing 1080/60 for so damn long its incredibly jarring when I'm expected to go back to 900 or 720p at 30 frames or less a second. It's more commonly from PC users because we've been at that benchmark for so damn long and the fact that most console games still aren't there is understandably frustrating to people who are used to and prefer that as a minimum standard.

This is purely down definition of 'runs poorly'. You plain and simply have lower standards, but for me being forced to play a game that isn't 1080/60 is 'running poorly'. Also you mistakenly say "I feel focusing on the looks of a game is such a superficial way of judging a game." Framerate and resolution are much much more than just looks, especially frame rate. They're screen real estate, they're visual clarity, they're game feel and in some instances directly tied to game mechanics.

1080/60 is a low expectation these days and achieving that as a standard will be nothing but a benefit for you despite your lower standards. Pushing for progress shouldn't be looked down upon especially when it's pushing for improvement in an area that's long overdue.

EDIT: Also you're friends a fool, TW3 looks and runs far and wide better on PC than it does on console provided you have the hardware. The only thing they hard coded was mesh level of detail which some modders have managed to somehow surface and improve.

Avatar image for csl316
#9 Posted by csl316 (13925 posts) -

I'm fine with a steady 30. 60 is only helpful to me for mechanics-heavy games.

But this site is a 60fps lover's paradise, so be prepared for people poo pooing your thoughts.

Avatar image for koelsh
#10 Posted by koelsh (32 posts) -

I concur that 1080p60 is overemphasized in gaming. Personally I care far more for frame rate stability and overall fluidity. My gaming pc can run many games at 1080p60 or even better however a number of them have hitches or hiccups in the action which is far more of an issue in my opinion than the number of frames generated.

There's a few games I've played on PC that even though they're running at 60 on PC they have a multi frame pause every second and a half or so that's far more distracting than a low frame rate.

One thing I think about is games in the Legend of Zelda series. I think all of then except for Link Between Worlds have been 30fps and yet they play perfectly well. I don't feel that Link Between Worlds necessarily benefitted that much from running at 60. Yes it's nice but it wouldn't have been a deal breaker if it didn't.

Avatar image for nietzschecookie
#11 Posted by NietzscheCookie (58 posts) -

To me the connection between how a games feels and whether its 30 or 60 fps isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be. Responsive, fluid controls are more important and if a game puts in the work to make it feel amazing to control, hitting 60 feels like a dream. At 60 fps MGS V and DOOM are great to control but things like borderlands 2 or moving Geralt in Wild Hunt at 60 still feel kinda bad. Upping the frames only makes it stick out more to me. On the other end of the spectrum Destiny feels great at 30fps and I've never felt that it suffers from not being 60, though I bet if bungie targets 60 for destiny 2 they'd do a great job.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#12 Edited by Ezekiel (1695 posts) -

@nietzschecookie said:

To me the connection between how a games feels and whether its 30 or 60 fps isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be. Responsive, fluid controls are more important and if a game puts in the work to make it feel amazing to control, hitting 60 feels like a dream. At 60 fps MGS V and DOOM are great to control but things like borderlands 2 or moving Geralt in Wild Hunt at 60 still feel kinda bad.

Moving Geralt in general feels bad. It's not the framerate. Honestly, if the game didn't have such high production value and a story, the controls and animations would get a lot more criticism.

Avatar image for sinusoidal
#13 Edited by Sinusoidal (3331 posts) -

It's a bit of an asshole-ish stance to take I realize, but I honestly think that people who don't care that much about 1080p, 60Hz just haven't properly experienced it. I used to primarily game on a PS3 and was totally fine with all kind of performance issues. Then, one time I was gazing out over the water in Infamous, and BOOM. Clarity. Coherence! The game was running at 60Hz and wow did it look and feel good. Mind you, look anywhere else in Infamous and you're not getting anywhere near 60Hz, but I was hooked. I've since put together a decent gaming PC and get that sense of performance and clarity in every game (that's at least minimally well-coded) looking in any direction. It's euphoric compared to something like my first runs through Dark Souls and Saints' Row the Third at 720p, unsteady, sub-30 FPS.

Not that long ago, I went back to play Skyward Sword on my Wii (480i at best!) and it was painful.

If you can still overlook that stuff, power to you I guess, but I honestly think you're missing out.

Avatar image for liquiddragon
#14 Edited by liquiddragon (1699 posts) -

I don't care much about resolution. I played a bunch of PS2 and PS3 games last year no problem. Especially with an older system like PS2, there is beauty in what they can pull off with the given resources. I love looking at games like MGS2, FF12, Ico or Okami. If it looks good, it looks good. Resolution will keep going up, it's not something to obsess over. Yes, Blu rays look nice but there is still charm in looking at a VHS tape. For me, length of the game and fun factor matters as well when it comes to fidelity. If it's over like 15 hours and I'm having a good time, the game can look like shit, I start not giving a fuck.

Bad FPS has impacted my enjoyment of some games like PS3 Enslaved, RDR, Far Cry 3 and maybe a few more but I can put up with a lot. If it's steady, it doesn't have to be that high. Fluctuating ones are more noticeable.

If it's a good game, I'll deal with a lot. XCOM:EU on PS3? Really bad.

Online
Avatar image for dukeofthebump
#15 Edited by duke_of_the_bump (223 posts) -

@d-man123: I guess what I'm asking for is the world where we all can understand that not everybody plays games for the same reason as you.

Then could you try to understand that some people prioritize visual fidelity and responsive action in games over other factors? I've never heard anyone who prefers 1080/60 say unequivocally that there should be no other games. Simply asking if a game runs at a specific resolution/framerate isn't a judgment on other games.

I do agree that people who go out of their way to say they won't play a game because of the resolution/framerate are assholes, though.

Avatar image for shagge
#16 Posted by ShaggE (8398 posts) -

As a DOS game enthusiast, the whole resolution argument takes me right to Giggletown. Let's talk about some 320x200. Aw yeah.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#17 Edited by Ezekiel (1695 posts) -

@liquiddragon said:

I don't care much about resolution. I played a bunch of PS2 and PS3 games last year no problem.

I still watch DVDs and play standard definition games. But I expect new games to be much more detailed than that, because it's significantly easier for them to do HD and they have more details that need to be clearly seen.

Avatar image for zevvion
#18 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

I mean, you want at least 60fps though. I get that some people boast or want these performance benchmarks for the wrong reasons; indeed some get into a weird delusion where they convince themselves they can't enjoy something if it's less, or enjoy something because it does hit that spec. But in reality, 60fps is just so much smoother and more comfortable to look at that even in games where it isn't beneficial to the player to have a higher frame rate from a player performance standpoint, like XCOM, it's still preferred. Higher resolution also obviously matters for both quality and comfort of play.

I just notice it a lot when a game runs very smoothly and looks sharp. And yeah, PC is top dog there. The reason I buy most of my games on PC is twofold. First, it's easier to access years from now. Second, it just looks and plays better most of the time, in a way that is noticeable enough for me to be disappointed if I didn't get to play something on PC.

@nietzschecookie said:

To me the connection between how a games feels and whether its 30 or 60 fps isn't as clear cut as some make it out to be. Responsive, fluid controls are more important and if a game puts in the work to make it feel amazing to control, hitting 60 feels like a dream. At 60 fps MGS V and DOOM are great to control but things like borderlands 2 or moving Geralt in Wild Hunt at 60 still feel kinda bad.

Moving Geralt in general feels bad. It's not the framerate. Honestly, if the game didn't have such high production value and a story, the controls and animations would get a lot more criticism.

Sounds like you missed some posts of me around the time Witcher 3 was all the hot buzz. I hate when games get praised so much or blindly to the point that people start to believe everything about it is perfect and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Avatar image for nietzschecookie
#19 Posted by NietzscheCookie (58 posts) -

@ezekiel: My point is that there's significantly less benefit to going above 30 if the gameplay can't take advantage of it. It looks prettier, but that nebulous 'feel' that some people love takes more work than that.

Avatar image for holyxion
#20 Edited by holyxion (34 posts) -

It's an interesting and sometimes divisive issue, but I think that ultimately almost everyone would agree that good design will always be more important than meeting some arbitrary technical spec. That said, the reason it gets harped on so much is because it is objectively better to play the same game in 1080p60 than 720p30 because you are processing more data and as such the game objects are presented with higher spatial and temporal precision. For instance, on the Switch, I'm sure that the 720p screen looks great for a high-dpi portable gaming device, and realistically most games don't require much more than that, but for a fast-paced, visually complex game like an arcade bullet-hell shooter, fighting game, or anything which requires a high level of precision in its execution, rendering at 60Hz is really the bare minimum to make the game playable, let alone being at 1080p or 4k or whatever (which might not even look much better based on polycount, texture resolution, etc.).

I do think that people lose sight of the fact that targeting a higher res means spending less GPU resources on other things like shaders or whatever else. I'm no expert on GPU programming, but my understanding is, the larger the pixel matrix the GPU has to render, the more calculations are required for every polygon, particle or light source. Personally, I'd much rather play a meticulously detailed and immersive game at 720p60 or 1080p60 than a merely decent-looking game rendered at 4k30.

Avatar image for anonymous_jesse
#21 Posted by Anonymous_Jesse (224 posts) -

For me I don't mind under 60 while I like when it's running well but it's not a deal breaker. Frequent drops is much worse. And a driving game really should have a minimum of 60.

Avatar image for kindgineer
#22 Posted by kindgineer (3087 posts) -

So... do you dislike the emphasis of 1080p/60fps or do you dislike the people that emphasize 1080p/60fps. I got waaaay more of the latter from your OP. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a consumer expecting a company to prioritize the quality of their product. It's part of technology and it's evolution. If we just say around enjoying "whatever," then what is the point of it all? I can playTitanfall 2, Shantae: 1/2 Genie Hero, or even World of Warcraft at 30fps, but why should I if I can at 60?

Maybe, just maybe, instead of being angry that people have higher expectations than you, just enjoy what you enjoy. Who cares what your neighbor likes or dislikes? Why does it matter that he passed up on the Witcher 3 due to his own qualifications? He has that right, and while anything is up for criticism, there are certain levels of it that can seem a bit, obsessive?

Frame-rate has been a factor in my purchases in that past for many games, and I don't see why you think that I should have to question my own perspective because you don't see it the same way.

Avatar image for teddie
#23 Posted by Teddie (1497 posts) -

The only time sub 60/1080 bugs me is when I'm using a PC and the screen is right up in my face. 30/720 has and always will look totally fine to me on a TV. Sure I can tell the difference, but that involves me actually having to think about it in the first place.

Avatar image for glots
#24 Posted by Glots (2869 posts) -

I'm totally ok playing PSOne games in the year 2017 and also playing something like Uncharted 4 or Ratchet & Clank on PS4 at a steady 30, but I do get bummed when some Unity games, PS2 classics and even "remastered" games like Skyrim can barely deliver a steady 30 fps on a modern console years after the original release.

I've also played on my PC bit more often in the last years and I still don't fall into the "once you see this running in 1080 and 60, you just can't go back" pit. Going back might feel jarring for a moment, but after a minute or two it's all good.

Avatar image for mems1224
#25 Posted by mems1224 (1625 posts) -

I would rather play a game at 720p/60fps than one at 1080/30. I care more about a smooth performance than graphics. Framerate actually impacts gameplay. More than anything though I want a stable framerate, even at 30.

Avatar image for yesiamaduck
#26 Posted by Yesiamaduck (2150 posts) -

Games that run at 60fps feel better to play imho, 1080p allows for more detail and information which looks nicer and can make games feel better to play.

Avatar image for fezrock
#27 Posted by Fezrock (206 posts) -

I also dislike the emphasis on 1080/60, but I don't think you made the right argument OP. The real problem is that it causes too many AAA studios to focus on graphical fidelity above all else in their games, and its resulted in a lot of AAA games being not nearly as good as they used to be. There's almost always at least one, and usually a lot more than one, element that was sacrificed to time and money constraints caused by graphical development costs.

I think there should be more AAA that cater to more tastes, and its fine for some of them to be graphical behemoths; but I wish there were others that were in the vein of "Okay, we hit 720/30, we're not anywhere close to over-taxing these consoles and we've got a bunch of dev time and money left; what crazy stuff can we come up with?"

Avatar image for cikame
#28 Posted by cikame (1851 posts) -

60fps is the minimum frame rate required for a super smooth looking display, it also positively affects gameplay in that a faster refresh rate minimizes input lag with controls (in general), which is why fast action games like Devil May Cry, COD, fighting games and other action games pursue 60fps. When it comes to optimizing a game for specific hardware (console) or settling on a recommended spec (PC), games have to be carefully tuned to meet the target frame rate, which is where i'm surprised that you say developers are targeting 60 because most of the time for big games they are still targeting 30 as it presents less optimizing work, that's half as many frames to have to try and keep flowing at a steady rate.
So if 60fps is smooth, why not allow all games even on console to have unlocked frame rates?
There are myriad reasons including games where physics and other calculations are tied to frame rate so it has to maintain a set number, people can perceive frame drops even at high frame rates so if a game goes from 150 to 70 all the time it may cause nausea or a weird feeling image, especially if it drops below 50 or 60 regularly, horizontal tearing caused by a lack of V-Sync which requires an image be locked to either 30 or 60fps, sometimes manageable on PC by locking a game to 59, 73 or other odd frame rates.
I'm a PC user who leaves it locked at 118 to avoid unnecessary power use on rendering and a cleaner display without tearing, while maintaining minimal input delay, but if i'm playing a game on controller i'm totally happy with 60, i don't feel a need to get an expensive monitor to see more frames 60 is silky smooth to me, but given how much better a game usually feels and looks at 60 it really should be the standard target.
As far as 1080p goes it presents a clean image simple as that, you don't need to run as many anti-aliasing filters to clean up ugly pixels and it's not as resource intensive as 4k... so currently it's the defacto resolution target, it's the highest my tv's and monitors will go without spending thousands of £'s and the majority of the world is in the same position.
So for now 1080p is the most reasonable and best looking resolution, which makes it the standard, and 60fps presents the most reasonable and useful target with advantages to image quality and gameplay, which makes it the standard for many players... but not yet all developers/publishers unless you're making VR games, at which point you need to target 90 or people get sick.

Avatar image for takoyaki
#29 Edited by Takoyaki (264 posts) -

Higher framerate and resolution will always be better, but as someone who goes back to older consoles and PC games a fair bit the idea that 30fps and lower resolutions are completely unplayable is pretty silly. Frequent drops into below 20fps is bad though and is where I typically peace out.

Avatar image for xanadu
#30 Posted by xanadu (1175 posts) -

@d-man123: "I guess what I'm asking for is the world where we all can understand that not everybody plays games for the same reason as you." You said that in your OP, OP. You sort of countered your own argument there bud.

People emphasise 1080p60fps because a large amount of HDTV owners have 1080p tvs that refresh at 60hz. Some people prefer to play games at their highest possible fidelity and performance. Some people don't, please understand this.

Avatar image for ds9143
#31 Edited by ds9143 (251 posts) -

As someone who is playing Hitman at 1440p and around 90fps I will say that it all comes down to personal standards and what you are used to. PC has spoiled me, that's kind of the long and short. Since Bloodborne ran pretty badly I passed, because I knew it would be hard for me to enjoy.

Also, the 21:9 aspect ratio example, if it's not supported by the game then the guy will play with black bars on the sides, which can be distracting, so I understand.

Avatar image for noizy
#32 Posted by noizy (942 posts) -

Most of your issue is around people being dicks and elitists, which there is a lot in most hobbies. Don't let people's attitude dissuade you from the actual issue if it can be discussed in a calm and reasonable matter. People like to bicker about little things on and on and on, and that's mainly because of the polarizing nature of internet discourse and the sheer volume of people involved that makes it feel like the issue is relentless and just never stops. There's a lot of discussions you're better of just walking away from as it's just a pissing contest for people's egos.

Avatar image for boozak
#33 Posted by BoOzak (1719 posts) -

Dont care about the P's but that fantastic gameplay you mentioned wouldnt be possible without 60fps. Some games work fine at 30 but action games will always feel better at 60.

Avatar image for nnickers
#34 Posted by nnickers (263 posts) -

I think a very important distinction to make is that frames-per-second is not an artistic or graphical measurement, it's a performance measurement. Most people yearning for that 60FPS bar don't want it so much for the way it looks but the way it controls. And there is a difference there that can be proven: read about frame rates and screens' refresh rates, this part is not opinion.

My own best anecdotal evidence, though, comes from going back to PS4 Destiny after months on a PC. I just built my first PC last May and before that played almost exclusively consoles for twenty-five years. For a long time before I built that PC, I played a lot of Destiny on PS4 - I would guess somewhere between 200-300 hours. Destiny is locked on PS4 at a steady 30FPS.

After building my PC and spending a few months playing games only on PC and only at 60FPS. One day, a friend of mine asked me to help him with something in Destiny and when I tried to go back to this game I had very extensive experience with, I played terribly. Not because the low textures were burning my eyes or anything, but because I couldn't control it well: I couldn't time things right, my responses felt sluggish, and the whole game seemed to be operating at a delay. A few months earlier I would have told you that Destiny was the best-feeling FPS ever made, but that's the impact FPS can have once you become cognizant of you.

You mention in the OP that you "[...] will be able to tell if it runs badly when I watch gameplay footage on youtube." You can tell through videos how a game looks and you can see big frame rate drops, but the feeling I'm trying to describe above cannot come through in a Youtube video.

I'm not trying to convert you: like I said, I was perfectly content with 30FPS until a year ago, and I still don't poo-poo it by any means. If you're happy, you're happy. I'm just trying to make sense of other peoples' opinions to you now.

Avatar image for chrispaul92
#35 Posted by chrispaul92 (57 posts) -

I built a computer over the summer so I've only recently realized how great 60 fps looks. It's one if those things that I notice now that I didn't before. That being said, as someone who grew up with weak computers and consoles I'm perfectly fine with 30 if that's the only option. I do find it annoying though, how deranged some people become when it come to how different games run.

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#36 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (5710 posts) -

You can play at whatever technical performance suits your standards. There definitely PC gamers that thumb their noses at consoles (I certainly have at times despite owning every current console) but that doesn't mean people should dismiss the importance of high framerates in games either.

High framerate matters more than resolution. Some people are already looking to 4k but I rather see the power needed for that to go towards higher framerate games. If you ever watch Giant Bomb play old games or even games from PS2 era you'll notice how the high framerate games they play look, move better, and generally don't look like they aged all that much. Some of those games may be terrible overall but the fact that it runs smooth at least allows the player to think the game doesn't feel like shit. It's why many multiplayer shooters are trying to push for higher framerates on current consoles.

I certainly enjoy some 30 fps games like the old Gears of War trilogy or more recently Uncharted 4 but I certainly won't try to drag my feet against technical progress that is moving towards higher framerates in more games in more places.

Avatar image for _brojangles_
#37 Edited by _Brojangles_ (52 posts) -

I think consistency is the most important thing. While a higher fps is more desirable, If I was to decide between a 30 fps game with no drops or a game that "kinda but not really" runs at 60-ish fps. I would take the consistent 30 fps game every time.

As for people that look down upon others for what platform they play on at a fanatical level? Those are just assholes being assholes.

Avatar image for maginnovision
#38 Posted by Maginnovision (788 posts) -

@nnickers: This is something I had with the newest gears. Playing horde with a friend we started on xbox because xbox-pc was having huge issues. It went well and we had fun. The next time I was able to play on pc, but then a few times after that were console before I went pc 100% of the time. After playing on pc, 6 hour session, and going back to xbox I couldn't shoot ANYTHING. I was playing the sniper and I felt like an idiot. Eventually I figured out it was the framerate. I can deal with resolution changes just fine, but playing the same game going from 60-30 was too much and ruined my timing on everything.

It was sort of a running joke because I play very well on PC. I kept telling my friend, "I don't know man, when I play by myself I'm awesome." Of course he'd just laugh at me because of course I'd say that. Once we were able to play with me on pc and him on xone we were able to do any difficulty, about 50% of maps by ourselves with no problems. It may be a poor metric but on pc I was #1 score any time after first 5 rounds, on xbox I was lucky if I didn't get supervisor first 10 rounds and was almost always the guy with the lowest score. As sniper, as engineer sitting on a turret it barely matters.

That was my worst issue where framerate was my only issue and all I could say was it felt bad to play on xbox one but it was great on PC.

Avatar image for insectecutor
#39 Posted by Insectecutor (1242 posts) -

This thread is amazing. I have a PC and a big crazy graphics card too, but some of you guys act like the only reason you spent a bunch of cash on this stuff was to grind other people into the dirt, which is exactly what the OP was complaining about.

@shagge said:

As a DOS game enthusiast, the whole resolution argument takes me right to Giggletown. Let's talk about some 320x200. Aw yeah.

Even that 320x200 resolution ran at 70Hz back in the fledgling days of the PC master race. It's only since TFTs replaced CRTs that we've been capped at 60.

Avatar image for the_nubster
#40 Posted by The_Nubster (3157 posts) -

That's a pretty silly reason considering it's not even close to being an accurate statement.

@d-man123 said:

I had a friend who went out of his way to not play The Witcher 3 because he found out it ran at the same framerate and resolution as the PS4.

Yeah I'm lost here too. His friend didn't play Witcher 3 because they're both the same resolution? I mean, you can adjust that in the PC version. And the console versions certainly don't maintain framerate as well as the PC version does. So I don't totally understand this statement.

Avatar image for agentm
#41 Posted by AgentM (7 posts) -

I would rather developers put more resources into good art direction rather than fighting tooth and nail to keep frame rates up to the max. I mean sure 60 FPS is nice to have, but it's not a deal breaker at least for me, as long as the overall experience is reasonably smooth.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#42 Posted by OurSin_360 (4466 posts) -

If a game is designed around 30fps and has stable framerate I can get around it, but for action games it's usually a no go. Uncharted 4 did play really well at 30 fps though, after a while i barely noticed it. Resolution isn't as important to me, but if your going to run at 720p maybe go for a striking art style as 720p upscaled looks terrible on most tv's/monitors.

Avatar image for joe423
#43 Posted by Joe423 (255 posts) -

We're at the point where TVs are starting to transition from 1080p to 4k. If a video game isn't running at 1080p in 2017, about 12 years after 1080p TVs started to become available, then something is wrong.

Avatar image for liquiddragon
#44 Edited by liquiddragon (1699 posts) -

If people around you talk a lot about this kinda stuff, it just means you're knee deep in this shit. It happened to be when I was studying film as well. I just couldn't avoid conversations about what gear were being used to shoot and bunch of technical stuff relating to spec. Personally, I care way more about the content. This stuff matters to an extent but it bores me. People can lose sight of what's really important and it becomes a numbers game. It's annoying but something you have to deal with 'cause you're in that bubble where people really care about games, all aspects of it. That said, I do really appreciate a really polished game. If a game is technically messy, it doesn't reflect well on the developers. You can see the craftsmanship on a polished game.

Online
Avatar image for monkeyking1969
#45 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (6226 posts) -

Maybe, 6 years ago you could say, "Why does everyone care about that 1080p @ 60 spec?"

But, today 1080p in the neighborhood of @60 is considered minimums spec even if not everything hist that on all gaming devices. Even people on Steam running various sub-1080 resolutions probably recognize 1080p as the minimum even if they don't quite hit it. They see it that way because they recognize that even 2 years ago a $550 PC could hit that, and now years later it can hit that on Ultra settings with a Z170/Z270 budget rig. Even consoles people who's games are really 900p at 60fps recognize that 1080p @ 60 is the operational standard.

By the way if you want to see someone "cheering on a lower spec" and "budget gaming" you should watch RandomGaminginHD. He considers anything above 40 fps playable and is gleeful to test out used hardware that he can make play semi-modern games.

Avatar image for jinoru
#46 Posted by Jinoru (401 posts) -

But how do you feel about 4K.

Avatar image for ezekiel
#47 Edited by Ezekiel (1695 posts) -

@ds9143 said:

Also, the 21:9 aspect ratio example, if it's not supported by the game then the guy will play with black bars on the sides, which can be distracting, so I understand.

I DON'T understand. All aspect ratios are arbitrary, so it's stupid to expect everything to fill your unusual screen. What's wrong with pillarboxes (black bars on the sides) anyway? You hardly notice them when you're looking at the picture. Besides, in a sidescrolling game like Little Nightmares, an ultra wide aspect ratio might reveal more than the player is meant to see. Why ignore a game completely because of such a minor thing?

I mean, are you gonna ignore all the great movies that were filmed in 4:3 and similar ratios just because there are pillarboxes on your screen? 4:3 has its own benefits, such as being closer to the ratio of human vision and allowing the cameraman to shoot more even compositions and dramatically tall shots. Many PC users have 16:10 monitors for similar reasons. Widescreen doesn't give them enough verticality. Why do you think paintings and photos are almost never that wide?

Avatar image for marz
#48 Posted by Marz (6018 posts) -

i'll always take a framerate boost over a graphical fidelity boost. 30 -> 60fps is very noticeable to my eyes.

Avatar image for luchalma
#49 Posted by Luchalma (130 posts) -

I'd never even thought of frame rate or resolution before, like, 2008, when console gamers started going on about them too. Nobody was saying "I'm not playing that game on PS1 because it runs at a sub-480 resolution". (Or I didn't hear about it, not being on the internet as much). I didn't care about it then and I don't really care about it now. There's a line, where resolution or frame rate can be too low that it affects enjoyment of the game. But console games generally do not release in such a state. It's a problem of PC gaming when you don't have a good PC.

Avatar image for renegadedoppelganger
#50 Posted by RenegadeDoppelganger (573 posts) -

As long as it's not a slideshow or jumping wildly between framerates I don't give a shit. People like what they like but to me the people making the 1080p60 or die argument come off as a little entitled.