Is 60 FPS killing overall graphical fidelity?

The artful mincer said:
If it's a matter of just reducing the resolution or other graphical feature's then fine I agree. (Although RT can affects gameplay as it gives you more spatial awareness)

The issue is you don't know what else is being left on the dev cutting floor to get that framerate.

Take Shadow of the Colossus long held to be classic but rightly criticized for not being able to hold even 20 frames on PS2. My question is what would the game have been if it tried to hold 30 frames or even 60? Would the Colossi have been as big, complex and detailed would the land have been as vast and majestic? Would it still be a classic if the Colossi had to be heavily comprised just to meet the framerate?

I not a dev so I'm just guessing but I think it would have been an entirely different game had it been a 60fps. Keep in mind that it took 2 generations until it could hit 60 without compromise's.

Like I mentioned Low Framerate can eventually be solved with better hardware but if the Colossi were much smaller and less complex they would be like that forever.

While it's great that developers are offering more choice's with framerate and resolution nowadays I imagine it requires more resources so MANDATING all devs must a have a 60fps option is piling even more work on games that are already taking too long to make.
Click to expand...

I think if Ueda had been more realistic and put out SOTC on PS3, and hadn't tried to make TLG work on obviously inadequate hardware, he'd probably still be at Sony now making brilliant if slightly less technically ambitious titles.

Instead we got 2 games that were basically broken on release and Sony Japan is closed and we're all worse off.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but what happened to Team Ico, perhaps the single most creative developer in the industry at that point, is maybe not the best way to illustrate it.
 
I don't want every game to look like an arcade shooter. Some games look and play better when they look closer to movies.

When Uncharted Collection came out, the games lost all of their charm and they looked way older when running so fast since it basically shows how easy the game is to render, but for some reason, watching those same games run on an actual PS3 system look more impressive.

Sometimes it really is also an artistic choice. The new Life is Strange is 30fps by choice, not because the game technically is too complex to run at 60.
 
Dunky said:
The title should be

Is 4k killing overall graphical fidelity


60 frames per second has to be standard. If you can't see the different you need to get your eyes tested!
Click to expand...
Yep, as they keep increasing resolution they'll need better HW to do so.

Before PS4 Pro and XB1X consoles couldnt even run most 1080p games at 60fps.

When the pro models come out they make it all about 4k.
 
Last edited:
Please pack this shit in or just play on a PC with hardware that can push both Quality & performance to the apex of what this current generation can offer.

People need to remember that the new boxes are still going to be limited greatly and so compromises still need to be made for the Balance that is required for those machines.
 
Dust-by-Monday said:
I don't want every game to look like an arcade shooter. Some games look and play better when they look closer to movies.
Click to expand...
Can you name a game that actually "play" better at 30fps Vs 60fps? That's extremely hard to believe unless your definition of playing is wildly different to mine.
 
Hunnybun said:
I think if Ueda had been more realistic and put out SOTC on PS3, and hadn't tried to make TLG work on obviously inadequate hardware, he'd probably still be at Sony now making brilliant if slightly less technically ambitious titles.

Instead we got 2 games that were basically broken on release and Sony Japan is closed and we're all worse off.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but what happened to Team Ico, perhaps the single most creative developer in the industry at that point, is maybe not the best way to illustrate it.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand your point? My point is demanding 60fps for all games likely compromises game design not just graphics. Shadow of the Coloussus is the best example I could think of. (At least up to now maybe these consoles have enough power that the majority games can be 60 frames without major compromises.)

Whatever happens to the devs after the games ship doesn't seem relevant. Team Ico (not sure why your bringing up Sony japan) could have still been disbanded if they shipped stable games devs can go under for all kinds of reasons.

There are plenty of examples of mega successful 30 frame rate ( or under) games that likely couldn't be 60 frames on consoles without compromising the gameplay e.g. dark souls, skyrim, witcher 3, last of us, mgs3, gta5 etc. In fact the vast majority of successful single player games have been 30fps.

Basically unless a dev decides to do 2 different games targeting 30fps and 60fps its impossible to know what's left out.

Kojima is good example mgs2 60fps and mgs3 30fps and mgs5 60fps and death stranding 30fps. Personally I enjoyed his 30fps games more.

Overall I feel just focusing on framerate can be rather shallow. Yes the games feel smoother and you get better reactions but there is a lot more to game design than that.
 
Bulletbrain said:
Can you name a game that actually "play" better at 30fps Vs 60fps? That's extremely hard to believe unless your definition of playing is wildly different to mine.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess we just have different preferences. I tried playing Miles Morales at 60fps RT, but the increased smoothness just made the game look... well, like a video game at an arcade whereas 30fps mode not only increases the resolution, but now it looks more like a high quality movie and I didn't really get the sense that the controls suffered much at all. The animations looked way better at 30fps as well whereas the animations at 60 looked off-putting to me.
 
Bulletbrain said:
Can you name a game that actually "play" better at 30fps Vs 60fps? That's extremely hard to believe unless your definition of playing is wildly different to mine.
Click to expand...
Well I am kinda of arguing for something different but I will give you my take.

MGS3 was much more fun to play than MGS2. The 30 framerate cap allowed much more ambitious level and game design like-

Bigger more complex maps
More guards patrols
More animals in the levels (important for the eating mechanic)
To render a convincing jungle environment(important for the player to be able to easily identify various gameplay tools like long grass,animals, camouflage fruit, waspnests.

It was a slow paced stealth game so I feel it didn't need super responsive controls.

Obviously MGS2 had better game feel but had super bland level design in comparison.
 
Last edited:
The artful mincer said:
Well I am kinda of arguing for something different but I will give you my take.

MGS3 was much more fun to play than MGS2. The 30 framerate cap allowed much more ambitious level and game design like-

Bigger more complex maps
More guards patrols
More animals in the levels (important for the eating mechanic)
To render a convincing jungle environment(important for the player to be able to easily identify various gameplay tools like long grass,animals, camouflage fruit, waspnests.

It was a slow paced stealth game so I feel it didn't need super responsive controls.

Obviously MGS2 had better game feel but had super bland level design in comparison.
Click to expand...
While possible, it's a bit of a stretch to think what allowed the enhanced scope was restricting the FPS. Maybe the developers just got better at making the game between titles. Got more confident. Got better tools. I get what you are trying to argue tho.

I too love to see better scope and deeper gameplay systems and better AI. The thing is, developers have prioritized pushing graphics instead of gameplay. But now we are getting off topic a bit.
 
Bulletbrain said:
Can you name a game that actually "play" better at 30fps Vs 60fps? That's extremely hard to believe unless your definition of playing is wildly different to mine.
Click to expand...
While certainly the 'playing' part is better at 60fps, what he (and I) mean by this, is that we can enjoy certain games more if they have this cinematic feel instead of the gamey feel.
A game can be a wider experience than something you just "play". And a cinematic feel can give you a more closer experience to the usual 24fps movies we are used to, hence the increased
immersion. 60fps is constantly reminding you you are "playing", and that's is counterproductive when you are trying to immerse yourself in the world.
 
Now that most console games offer 60 fps games are unplayable for me in 30 fps. I can never go back. I will take 60fps any day over shiny graphics and sub 30 fps.
 
The mandatory "4K" sticker and bad "raytracing" is what is killing quality.

unknown.png



1080p60 or 1440p60 with good AA any day. Fuck the stupid "but it's 4K!!".
 
Last edited:
FukuDaruma said:
The mandatory "4K" sticker and bad "raytracing" is what is killing quality.

unknown.png



1080p60 or 1440p60 with good AA any day. Fuck the stupid "but it's 4K!!".
Click to expand...
RT is the new flavour of the day. Before that it was number of strands of hair. Way back it used to be bloom and lens flare effect.

Still waiting for devs to say "Hey, we got an awesome game engine improvement with great physics and AI"..... (to be fair Frostbite open map destruction is great).
 
Last edited:
FukuDaruma said:
1080p60 or 1440p60 with good AA any day. Fuck the stupid "but it's 4K!!".
Click to expand...
but...1080p and 1440p looks like shit on 4k TV compared to real 4k 444 rgb quality.
We need mainstream TVs with 1440p native resolution(1600p would be better spot imho) if we want to refuse from 4k standard.
 
carsar said:
but...1080p and 1440p looks like shit on 4k TV compared to real 4k 444 rgb quality.
We need mainstream TVs with 1440p native resolution(1600p would be better spot imho) if we want to refuse from 4k standard.
Click to expand...
Most console games that are not running in 4k does upscaling through checkerboard or other techniques. IMO its really hard to tell the difference. Sure the picture maybe a bit softer but the performance upgrade is too vast.
 
Last edited:
What is the real definition of fidelity anyway?

A game running at 60 fps looks smoother, doesn't need motion blur, and panning camera is tight and not choppy if it turns too fast. To me, these advantages of 60 fps are fidelity improvements.
 
FukuDaruma said:
The mandatory "4K" sticker and bad "raytracing" is what is killing quality.

unknown.png



1080p60 or 1440p60 with good AA any day. Fuck the stupid "but it's 4K!!".
Click to expand...

Its weird hearing people say "it has 4k graphics" .. as if resolution magically increases graphical fidelity, it doesnt, it even makes it worse when graphical fidelity is poor
 
Bulletbrain said:
While possible, it's a bit of a stretch to think what allowed the enhanced scope was restricting the FPS. Maybe the developers just got better at making the game between titles. Got more confident. Got better tools. I get what you are trying to argue tho.

I too love to see better scope and deeper gameplay systems and better AI. The thing is, developers have prioritized pushing graphics instead of gameplay. But now we are getting off topic a bit.
Click to expand...
Well sure I'am not a developer I'am just guessing but why did they feel the need to lower the framerate?

The graphics were about the same between the 2 games especially the character models but the scope increased substantially in 3.

Isn't it generally well known that having lots of npcs, enemies and physics and be costly to framerate?

From my humble observations it seems like all big open world games with lots of AI's are nearly all 30fps. The only acceptation I think can of is MGS5 a game many felt had a sterile and lifeless open world.

Anyway sorry to go off topic but I think this is a more interesting conversation 🙂
 
This forum is a real eye opener. I can't believe some people are saying 30 frames is better than 60. I don't know anybody in the real world that likes 30 over 60 surely this is fanboy nonsense?
 
Dunky said:
This forum is a real eye opener. I can't believe some people are saying 30 frames is better than 60. I don't know anybody in the real world that likes 30 over 60 surely this is fanboy nonsense?
Click to expand...
I dunno. I played Shadow of the Tomb Raider on PC with Max Settings at 30fps because I thought it looked better than 1080p/60. That was my choice.
 
Dunky said:
This forum is a real eye opener. I can't believe some people are saying 30 frames is better than 60. I don't know anybody in the real world that likes 30 over 60 surely this is fanboy nonsense?
Click to expand...
It's you struggling to understand a different point of view. Nothing to do with nonsense or knowing world.
 
Last edited:
TaiLopezFan said:
Recently we saw GT7 and let's be real it looks worse than Driveclub. Guess which one is 30 (Driveclub) and which is 60 (GT7). Halo Infinite recieved huge backlash for it's graphics and again it was 60 FPS. Jusy look at RDR2 graphics how jaw dropping the lighting is and compare it to a next gen 60 FPS like Far Cry 6. I mean clearly there is a pattern.
Click to expand...

It's just you bud lol
 
I've always been a "fps first" kinda guy, but I'm pretty sure even 30fps would be okayish for me if I had a small 40" tv in my living room. But I have a 83" so even 60fps seems a bit choppy in fast movements. Screen size is a big factor on what framerate one percieves as smooth or "good enough".
 
Last edited:
TaiLopezFan said:
Recently we saw GT7 and let's be real it looks worse than Driveclub. Guess which one is 30 (Driveclub) and which is 60 (GT7). Halo Infinite recieved huge backlash for it's graphics and again it was 60 FPS. Jusy look at RDR2 graphics how jaw dropping the lighting is and compare it to a next gen 60 FPS like Far Cry 6. I mean clearly there is a pattern.
Click to expand...
Seriously OP? You tell us to guess but the answers are in parentheses...

Lame.
 
Three said:
Games that you have likely played in the past at 30fps: Forza Horizon, RDR, GTA, Driveclub, Infamous, The Last of Us, Uncharted, Gears of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo.

Now 30fps is unplayable though. The only reason we have this push for 60fps is because it's by far the easiest upgrade between generations and specs. It's because it requires investment and great risk to make a single platform engine pushing amazing visuals on a single next gen platform at 30fps 1080p because then you can't make similar versions for xbox one, Switch, and PS4, or maybe even mobile, easily. Generations are dead and people want their cake and to eat it too.
Click to expand...
Well, finally they realized it, I've been saying that for eons now. BTW, I'd say it's otherwise regarding OT premise: Visual fidelity killed 60 fps.
 
Gunslinger said:
Now that most console games offer 60 fps games are unplayable for me in 30 fps. I can never go back. I will take 60fps any day over shiny graphics and sub 30 fps.
Click to expand...
Ya can go back. It's all in the brain. You can get used to everything. You just don't want to
 
FPS > Visual settings > Resolution > RT

- FPS is most important because a game running at 5 fps is unplayable and will always be.
- Visual quality is more important then resolution, if you have to reduce visual settings that make your game look like a potato just to get a bit shaper pixels u losing more visual quality then u gain.
- Resolution is important in order to make a picture crisp looking, but even low resolutions with upscale techniques are perfectly fine and acceptable these days which makes resolutions the least interesting.
- RT, while great its still extremely demanding and not done right can actually destroy the visual fidelity which u saw with 240p RT in GT7. Also effects all the other outputs above here if pushed to the extreme. Only used if you got performance left over.
 
Last edited:
WTF we finally have a console generation where you have choices between resolution, framerate, and graphics options. And people are still whining?

If that's not enough for you, join the PC Master Race and you won't have to trouble yourself with console problems.
 
rofif said:
Ya can go back. It's all in the brain. You can get used to everything. You just don't want to
Click to expand...
Of course, everything is relative. You can also get used to eating vegetables for the rest of your life after being a meat eater for 30 years. Everything is possible. But it just ain't the same....
 
waquzy said:
Nah, I game on a 77" LG C1 with VRR turned to the max and Riky holding my joystick. It's pure heaven
Click to expand...
30fps is a bit rougher looking on OLED.
Good motion blur is your friend (yes, even at 60).
VRR to the MAX ? on ps5 am I right....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Graphical fidelity I expect next gen
27
3K
Hobby USA replied
Far Cry 4 now runs at 60 fps on PS5
2 3
100
1K
LakeOf9 replied
The difference between 60 and 120 fps is... pretty massive
2 3
139
7K
rofif replied
  • Poll
Do you think GTA 6 will have a 60 fps mode?
2 3 4
188
1K
asdasdasdbb replied
Lossless Scaling allows you to play any 30/60 fps locked game with a 60/120 fps without breaking game logic
2
63
3K
evanft replied
Top Bottom