30fps enough for you?

ReyBrujo said:
80% voted no back last year. But maybe GTA6 at 30 changed some minds.
Click to expand...


To be fair, "what setting do you use" and "is 30fps enough" aren't the same question.

100% of the people who voted 60fps in the first poll will happily play GTA VI at 30fps if that's the only option and they want to play GTA VI next year.
 
Liopleurodon said:
For me, I love 60fps like any other person, but 30fps never stopped me from enjoying the game if it is good.
Click to expand...

Yup, same here. I'd prefer 60 fps, but I've been playing 30 fps games forever, so I'm accustomed to it. It's never gotten in the way of me enjoying a game. Now, sub-30 fps or unsteady framerate that is sometimes 30 and sometimes 10, that's different... But steady 30, I don't have a problem with that.
 
adamsapple said:
To be fair, "what setting do you use" and "is 30fps enough" aren't the same question.

100% of the people who voted 60fps in the first poll will happily play GTA VI at 30fps if that's the only option and they want to play GTA VI next year.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Topher said:
ftfy
Click to expand...

Picturized: Topher happily playing GTAVI at 30fps

q12G01u.jpeg
 
It just completely depends on the game. But I will admit, I'm usually prejudiced against games under 60fps. So something has to be quite damn special to grab my attention at 30.
 
I prefer 60fps but consistent 30fps is acceptable for me. 30fps never affected my enjoyment of playing games. Variable fps is a different story.
 
Last edited:
I find the smaller the screen size, the more I can handle 30. When I play 30hz on my 55" TV, I get motion sickness. When I play on my steam deck, it's just fine.
 
I can't think of a time it has ever been a problem. I also think it's pretty stupid for such a thing to be a bigger deal than if a game is actually any good.

Simply crazy that is the first thing people ask about instead of gameplay or story.
 
rodrigolfp said:
If that is true why stop at 30?? Why not 20? 15? 10 (SotC on PS2)??
Click to expand...
because 30fps has been consolidated in the industry since the PS1, other consoles of the period were 20fps consoles, so the public chose 30fps as their sweet spot.

the graphical visual gain of 20fps is relatively small compared to 30fps but depending on the game 20fps can be acceptable as long as it is variable between 30-20.

SotC on PS2, Ocarina of Time N64, Burning Rangers, Crysis 3 PS3, HL2 OG Xbox awesome 20fps games or not?
 
Last edited:
If there is no 60 fps option, I'm completely fine with 30 fps. If there is a 60 fps option alongside a 30 fps option, then my tism brain breaks and I keep swapping back and forth to determine if the graphical sacrifices are worth the extra motion clarity.
 
I'll put up with it, especially for turn-based games...but there is no good reason anymore for it to exist in new games as the only option.

Graphics are hitting diminished returns, and devs aren't pushing physics or AI in any innovative way to need the horsepower.
 
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher said:
SotC on PS2, Ocarina of Time N64, Burning Rangers, Crysis 3 PS3, HL2 OG Xbox awesome 20fps games or not?
Click to expand...
Not.

And the public didn't chose anything. They were forced.

MikeM

Thread 'Sony Reveals 75% of Players Select Performance Mode'

Looks like the cat is out of the bag now. This is a massive stat that shows majority of gamers choose frames over fidelity. Maybe this is a turn towards a 60+ fps standard.
  • Like
  • Strength
  • Fire
  • LOL
  • Love
  • Thoughtful
  • Praise the Sun

See? 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
I used to love me some Perfect Dark on the N64. Ran at something like 24 fps with lows dipping into the -2,400,500 FPS.

Now if I play at 30 fps I almost wanna puke. Can't do it anymore, man.
 
2025 and we are still getting these threads every few months.

My opinion.

No, 30fps was never good enough.

Will I endure it for a good game...yes...

Will i be happy...no. lol
 
30fps is basically a photograph.

It's ok for games which don't really rely on the fluidity of the loop between the game and your eyes and your hands anyway, but for games which do it gives me a headache.
 
I'm sure I would adapt if I didn't have access to better options than 30fps. But I do. I have a 180hz monitor, so I'm aiming for at least 120fps where possible.

I don't care about RT.
I don't care about 4k.
I care about smooth motion.

I pay a premium to be on PC because that's the experience I want in this optional entertainment.

And now we even have framegen that you can apply to older games to smooth those out when there aren't fan patches. It's a beautiful thing.

I even find, FF7 improved by a higher framerate.
 
Last edited:
When given the option, I'll always take higher frame rates. In today's games, 30FPS is something that has to be earned. If your game is doing A LOT of cutting edge stuff, sure, 30FPS is acceptable. But if your game looks like an upscaled last-gen game and isn't doing anything all that new, I'll skip the console releases and get it on PC where I can brute force higher frames.
 
I experienced early 3D gaming on PC in the early 90s when there was no GPU, as well as N64 and PS1 games with unstable sub 30 fps. So I'm tolerant. 30 is the minimum for something to look smooth. I'd rather have this than unstable 60.
 
30fps on an OLED is unplayable for me so I usually go with the performance mode. Some games are starting to introduce 40fps modes which feels and appears less jarring and is my preferred way to get better fidelity as well when available! 👌🏻👌🏻
 
Mr Moose said:
Depends on the 30fps. Some are fine, others not so much.
Click to expand...
This.

Not having a solid 30fps and having stuff like heavy motion blur can really make the experience awful.

Plague tale requeum is one example.

When it came at launch it only had 30fps mode.

The motion blur was agonising, turned it off night and day difference.
 
Last edited:
When I'm working on performance improvements for low-spec platforms, I often have to slow frames down to a crawl to debug the time-slicing (which is when you could dedicate 1 entire frame worth of time to rendering but for better performance you instead spread it out across 16 frames so you can spend time in each frame processing things other than just rendering) and I noticed that the unintentional motion blur that is created as a natural consequence of a lower frame rate often softens the edges of moving objects in a way that makes them look more natural and appealing to me. I find it's a similar effect to applying CRT shaders to pixel-perfect 2D games, where the blur improves the image by adding visual distortion. It's my long-winded way of saying that I always enable quality mode on the PS5 for that reason, but I understand why most people prefer a crisp image at high frames, it's just not my own preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become Phil Spencer
2
91
466
AeonGaidenRaiden replied
There's one thing DK Bananza hasn't gotten enough credit for...
2
88
243
Kacho replied
you guys think 8 cores will be enough for the next 6-7 years ?
30
2K
Wilhelm_85 replied
Digimon Story: Time Stranger will run at 30fps on all consoles
News 
35
666
Mibu no ookami replied
Took them long enough to realize lossless scaling is garbage.
Clickbait 
30
262
Three replied
Top Bottom