genesisblock
Member
It was done by Bluepoint, I'm not so sure how involved From Software was involved in this. They did Flamelurker dirty, though.
I am so tired of the whole 30 fps this 60fps that discussion. You all lost the sight on what really matters and it's ruining console gaming
It was done by Bluepoint, I'm not so sure how involved From Software was involved in this. They did Flamelurker dirty, though.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
yeah that's what I am saying. Bluepoint did dirty on some art and music.
But also completely ruined 30fps mode making the choice false. The only good mode is 60fps.
30fps mode is very delayed
Billy Awesomo
Neo Member
Totally cool with 30fps, I just beat Doom 2016 on the switch for the first time and finally started on Doom eternal on the switch as well. (I wish the resolution was better though) but I got nothing against 30fps.
nkarafo
Member
Arcades was also what convinced me to prioritize fps over graphics. Even though arcades also had much better graphics than the console ports at the time, it was the frame rate that made the most difference.
Halving the frame rate for console ports was always the biggest sacrifice. But there were some ports that managed to keep the frame rate, such as the amazing Virtua Fighter 2 Saturn port. This particular game has aged better than any other Saturn game, i wonder why...
Shh
Member
I didn't realize framerate was the defining factor of whether a game was shallow or not.I will takes a 30 fps games with deeps interactions over a 60 fps shallownesses any days of the week
but if you can make a deep games at 60 fps then whys not?
GametimeUK
Member
People enjoy what they enjoy. If someone has moved past 30fps for modern games I don't really see the issue. Just play what you want to play.
The fact that most people on here can only talk about either FPS or graphics has convinced me that most of them don't even enjoy this hobby anymore. They probably did at some point, but somewhere along the way interests shifted without them realizing.
If I enjoy something, I don't care about details. I don't care what resolution, framerate or color depth something is running in. I'm just enjoying my time with it.
It's only when I'm not enjoying (anymore) something that I start nitpicking details.
I'm currently switching between completing Tears of the Kingdom on Switch, which is probably running at 720p/30ish fps, and Diablo IV, running at a rocksolid 60fps at 1440p and I'm enjoying both equally.
If I enjoy something, I don't care about details. I don't care what resolution, framerate or color depth something is running in. I'm just enjoying my time with it.
It's only when I'm not enjoying (anymore) something that I start nitpicking details.
I'm currently switching between completing Tears of the Kingdom on Switch, which is probably running at 720p/30ish fps, and Diablo IV, running at a rocksolid 60fps at 1440p and I'm enjoying both equally.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
my 2c:
that said... 4k120 vrr hdr is soooo good.
- a fun game is a good game, even w/ technical issues
- 30fps and even lower is acceptable depending on the game
- slowdown can be fun depending on the game
- oled @ 30fps is fine
- old consoles dont even look that bad on modern TVs
that said... 4k120 vrr hdr is soooo good.
Pedro Motta
Gold Member
I agree with you OP.
30/60/90/120, as long as it feels good to play, no frame timing issues, tearing, slowdowns etc.
30/60/90/120, as long as it feels good to play, no frame timing issues, tearing, slowdowns etc.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Example?
What shitty reading comprehension.
You basically have zero tolerance for anything but your own mindset and preference. Of course, 60fps is better than 30fps in an ideal scenario but these consoles have fixed specs, you want to push certain aspects of the design of your game 60fps might not allow it. You can go to the future and bring out a ps7 and there would be tech at the time that would still cause to console to struggle to push even 20fps. These are fixed hardware specs genius developers need to make decisions that involve finite hardware resources simply cutting back on resolution and effects does not scale to 60fps. The consoles during the ps3 generation were more advanced then the current ones in comparison to available pc hardware at launch and yet they needed to push 30fps to push the bar for new experiences. If a developer wants to deliver an experience that needs 30fps for e.g lets say destructible terrain and environments in a high fidelity detailed open world by your logic that is unacceptable and that developer should be barred from doing so.
Last edited:
Yeah what you're not getting is that along with the hardware advancements this generation the rendering techniques etc have also scaled with that, the ps3 and xbox360 were more advanced and impressive than these consoles relative to the available hardware at their launch and even they were pushed hard to deliver tha amazing experiences that drove that gen. You think they could deliver the same experience and systems in skyrim etc on those consoles at 60 fps not a chance. The logic is the same these boxes aren't some magic boxes.
Of course, 60fps is better than 30fps in an ideal scenario but these consoles have fixed specs, you want to push certain aspects of the design of your game 60fps might not allow it. You can go to the future and bring out a ps7 and at the time there would be tech that would still cause to console to struggle to push even 20fps. There's a reason this gen has been absolutely appalling in terms of pushing tech and delivering real advancements in systems and experiences because basically its basically become a chain for the devs.
Developers need to make decisions that involve finite hardware resources simply cutting back on resolution and effects does not scale to 60fps. If a developer wants to deliver an experience that needs 30fps for e.g lets say destructible terrain and environments in a high detailed open world by your logic that is unacceptable and that developer should be barred from doing so.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Shadow of Colossus on PS2 never bothered me for some reason. I think it even adds to the boss fights making them look more dramatic. That feeling was missing from the PS4 remastered. I'm not saying it's better than the remastered, obviously i would prefer it over the original any day. But i don't mind the different feel of the original either.
Other than that, i can't think of any other examples myself. Maybe some bullet hell games becoming more manageable with slowdown? Dunno.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
Like it or not 60 fps is the standard for this console generation. 75% of the games released on current gen hardware (not counting the series s) have an option for 60 fps. If a dev isn't creative enough to realize their vision on current gen hardware at that frame rate, they should just release on PC first where their fans can optimize the game for them.
I will hear no excuses for not having the option for 60 fps nor will I support any game (on console) without it.
Last edited:
Nice open mindset you got there..you simply cannot get your head around the possibility of 60fps being a constraint can you? Even the most creative and proficient devs will face situations where they cannot deliver certain experiences at 60fps.
The vast majority of releases so far have been cross gen releases with games designed around the ps4 which easily allows 60fps. The number of current gen only releases can be counted on one hand and we already have a few using 30fps. Give it a few more years and you will see 30fps games and you will be faced with a decision either play and enjoy those quality games or buy a pc..and I have a feeling like zelda youll be playing.
Let me ask you a question what would your opinion be if a 30fps game delivered less input lag and less frame pacing than a 60fps in another? Still unacceptable?
Last edited:
Fess
Member
Lucky you for being able to ignore that mess.
Many PAL PS2 games ran at 25fps or 50fps and the screen was squished, 480 pixels on a 576 pixels high resolution, so circles were ovals, and they ran at slower speed too making it look like slow motion.
It was awful.
Meanwhile Dreamcast PAL games ran at the original 60fps, using PAL60 mode which was 60hz and 480p, so circles were the same circles as on NTSC version and games ran at full speed.
It was glorious.
I was a quite devoted DC fanboy because of this. I never modded my PS2 to run NTSC imports like I did with PS1 which had the same crappy PAL versions. PAL60 eventually started appearing but not for all games.
March Climber
Member
March Climber
Member
It's not just this. As explained before in this thread by many, devs aren't making 30fps feel as smooth as they did during the 360/PS3 gen when they had to. It's why we keep getting modern 30fps games with such horrible stutter and frame pacing issues.
If they're not going to bother putting time into this, then they should just insert the 60fps mode.
Facism
Member
Sorry mate I typed it quickly in the middle of a bicycle ride. It was more an addition to the comment about complaining about pricey consoles whilst the cost of their games are 10's of euros more expensive than the equivalent pc release.
I'm Primarily PC so it's always given me a sensible chuckle when I've got the same PC versions of those games for half the price because of actual competition between digital storefronts selling keys etc. whilst getting double the fps ;_;
Still don't know if I'm clear because I feel the heat exhaustion setting in lol
Maybe i should just shut the fuck up :3
Roxkis_ii
Banned
If a game releases with a Performance mode at 60 frames, and a graphics mode at 30 frames, but the input lag is absolutely trash on the 60 frames mode, then I'm not playing the game.
It would be the same as if the game just had bad imput lag.
You keep bring up 60 fps being a constraint, but has there been a game released that didn't have constraints of some kinds (maybe outside of star citizen)?
I don't know why people think console players should just live with 30 fps forever. We have been to the promise land, and we don't want to leave.
Fess
Member
That's what I did.
I remember clearly how it all started. In short from anger after listening to bragging PC gamers saying I should play Skyrim on PC instead of 360/PS3. Ended with a ban but a seed was planted and about 3 years later I bought my first gaming PC. Could suddenly run everything above 100fps. It completely changed my gaming life.
I still play on consoles but PC is my main platform now and I avoid 30fps whenever I can.
Today I'm thinking - Why aren't devs simply including the full settings menu on consoles so people can make the choices themselves if they want to focus on performance or fidelity?
Why force people to cry on Twitter and boards?
People prioritize different things. Always have and always will.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
I am happy if you are happy. That's all that matters!
As long as you are not going and ruining someone elses fun
ShadyAcshuns
Gold Member
When I switch back n forth I don't notice a change in the way it plays, but perf mode tends to look much worse. My tv has vrr so maybe that's a factor?
RickSanchez
Member
Just because we were comfortable with something in the past, doesn't mean we should not demand progress now. 20 years ago we were ok without smartphones, 40 years ago without internet, 100 years ago without cars, 200 years ago without electricity or plumbing.
We have progressed, and with that progress the minimum performance bar has been raised and there is nothing wrong with that. I too have played Prince of Persia on a DOS machine at 15 fps, and had a great time, but it would indeed feel uplayable to me now. It is reasonable to expect higher standards today in modern games.
That said, i know demands should not be unreasonable and nobody is expecting 60 fps, with native 4K, all settings cranked up to ultra with ray tracing from a console. But the whole point of the current gen consoles was the next level of power. They were advertised like that. And then companies turn around and say 30 fps is a "creative choice" for a new game on a console which that same company claims is currently the most powerful. We can't just give such companies a pass. We need to hold them accountable. 1080p or 1440p, at 60 fps, with a supersampling technique should be very feasible on PS5 and XSX, even for complicated games like Starfield. That's what this console generation was supposed to do. Bring affordable graphical power to the masses. Not everybody has a 4090.
I don't want to get into a Microsoft vs Sony debate here, but Sony would have been dragged over coals if they said Spider-man 2 could only give 30 fps at 4k on the PS5.
We have progressed, and with that progress the minimum performance bar has been raised and there is nothing wrong with that. I too have played Prince of Persia on a DOS machine at 15 fps, and had a great time, but it would indeed feel uplayable to me now. It is reasonable to expect higher standards today in modern games.
That said, i know demands should not be unreasonable and nobody is expecting 60 fps, with native 4K, all settings cranked up to ultra with ray tracing from a console. But the whole point of the current gen consoles was the next level of power. They were advertised like that. And then companies turn around and say 30 fps is a "creative choice" for a new game on a console which that same company claims is currently the most powerful. We can't just give such companies a pass. We need to hold them accountable. 1080p or 1440p, at 60 fps, with a supersampling technique should be very feasible on PS5 and XSX, even for complicated games like Starfield. That's what this console generation was supposed to do. Bring affordable graphical power to the masses. Not everybody has a 4090.
I don't want to get into a Microsoft vs Sony debate here, but Sony would have been dragged over coals if they said Spider-man 2 could only give 30 fps at 4k on the PS5.
Kvally
Member
It's nothing to do with MS. If Starfield would have released on another console, it still would have been 30fps on that console as well. Bethesda wanted graphics over performance in their game.
Last edited:
Fess
Member
I hope I'm not doing that, it's a good reminder to be honest, performance talk can easily get kinda ridiculous. TOTK has been a good reminder for myself that a game can still be awesome even with unstable 30fps.
RickSanchez
Member
I know it was a choice by Bethesda. The debate is that it seems to be the wrong one. They wanted 4k fidelity at 30 fps on the XSX, and they didn't even think of the fact that so many people will be playing it on 1080p or 1440p screens.
I get that they want their game to look pretty but giving a 1440p 60fps option could not have been that difficult. They probably just didn't build it save time and are now hiding under the guise of 'creative choice'.
Kvally
Member
Or as shown in the screenshots above, they didn't want to lose assets, texture quality for their art direction they wanted.
I agree that choice is best for us, the gamer. But it seems like the developers chose their vision for what they wanted. It's the best selling game on Steam and Xbox now, so it seems like most people don't seem to give a shit.
Would be VERY cool if they could release a patch later that offers a 40 or 60 fps option.
HazukiSensei
Banned
Except my post isn't wrong and my understanding of why they do it, is more in line with the creators themselves.
People definitely have scoffed at sub 4k 30. Many have expected either 4k 30, or sub 4k 60fps. As I said earlier.
Your posts are consistent also, lacking nuance. Probably why you think Skyrim is the best Elder Scrolls because it made the most money. I said otherwise and it looks like you're still emotional over it. Move on
Fess
Member
VRR make the screen update with a variable refresh rate instead of strictly updating 60 times per second at all time even when there is no new frame ready to show. Doesn't help 30fps to look like 60fps.
But a coworker said TOTK ran smoothly. Turned out that his TV had some motion frame interpolation thing on by default which creates fake frames between real frames, essentially making 30fps as smooth as 60fps (with image problems and added latency).
Last edited:
Balducci30
Member
You're not gonna be supporting many games as the years go on then
Balducci30
Member
A game like starfield isn't about simply lowering resolution to get to 60. I agree that fps trumps image quality - but I believe there are other hurdles beyond that. Some are saying it's cpu limited
cireza
Member
I said this only in your imaginary world though. You seem to have a real issue not interpreting what people say.
Crayon
Member
The issue I'm talking about is flipping back to 30 after playing on 60 for even 10 minutes. The 30 looks wildly choppy back to back and can take a while for your brain to smooth it out again.
bitbydeath
Member
Nah, it wasn't an issue previously, now is an issue, shows eyesight problems.
Last edited:
Lupin25
Member
Everyone wants 60 fps, but everyone also wants the best graphic and image quality.
Maybe people were conditioned to believe most next-gen games will have those options going forward without much sacrifice to fidelity or overall performance, given the handful of next-gen games or last-gen games with next-gen upgrades. I don't know.
Maybe some devs need to stop chasing 4K and utilize better reconstruction methods to achieve more balanced results. I'm playing TOTK on 30 fps and it feels great, but that doesn't go for every game from every dev.
I'd say for those who nit-pick and want both, PC is the way. But if devs keep it up with shit ports like TLOU Pt. 1, Dead Space Remake, or Star Wars Jedi Survivor, a PS5 has never looked better.
Maybe people were conditioned to believe most next-gen games will have those options going forward without much sacrifice to fidelity or overall performance, given the handful of next-gen games or last-gen games with next-gen upgrades. I don't know.
Maybe some devs need to stop chasing 4K and utilize better reconstruction methods to achieve more balanced results. I'm playing TOTK on 30 fps and it feels great, but that doesn't go for every game from every dev.
I'd say for those who nit-pick and want both, PC is the way. But if devs keep it up with shit ports like TLOU Pt. 1, Dead Space Remake, or Star Wars Jedi Survivor, a PS5 has never looked better.
Last edited:
MikeM
Member
I'd easily take double the frames with 75% of the image quality.
Lupin25
Member
Absolutely.
It's just all about the sacrifices we're willing to take until the PS5 Pro / Xbox Series Y (?) release
. I don't care for 4K especially if the in-game assets look amazing and the frames are consistent.Rift Apart & Demon's Souls Remake looked incredible at 40-60 fps. We need more of that.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
"People don't care"
Yeah no, CoD got popular due to running at 60fps while other games were in 30fps. People might not put finger on it, but it plays better.
Not to say that 30FPS games aren't popular, but you have to offer much more, it is a handicap. And as Redfall proved, when you offer 60FPS as standard, going back is painful.
Not the mention pixel response time is way better than it was years ago, so the "natural blur" which made games looks more smooth is no longer there.
Yeah no, CoD got popular due to running at 60fps while other games were in 30fps. People might not put finger on it, but it plays better.
Not to say that 30FPS games aren't popular, but you have to offer much more, it is a handicap. And as Redfall proved, when you offer 60FPS as standard, going back is painful.
Not the mention pixel response time is way better than it was years ago, so the "natural blur" which made games looks more smooth is no longer there.
Sakura
Member
I think people would be more accepting of 30FPS if games looked they needed it.
Zelda is 30FPS but it is also clearly pushing the console to the limits, and we probably wouldn't even have the same game if they were aiming for 60fps.
But when you have games like Redfall coming out only offering 30FPS, I think it is kind of a deal breaker and that is understandable.
Zelda is 30FPS but it is also clearly pushing the console to the limits, and we probably wouldn't even have the same game if they were aiming for 60fps.
But when you have games like Redfall coming out only offering 30FPS, I think it is kind of a deal breaker and that is understandable.
systemr123
Banned
I sort of agree with your list, however, 30fps on an oled is absolute horrible horse crap garbage. Maybe not if your tv is like 42 inch but in my own experience of owning 55 and 77 inch oled TV's, 30 fps is so horrible for the eyes that it blinds you.
Weirdly enough 30fps is fine though on crappy lcd/led TV's because of their inferior motion processing and retaining pixels etc etc.
Long story short, all games should just have 2 options: 30fps all bells and whistles, 60fps just for that quick refresh rate.
I'd say frame rate matters most depending on the genre of game as well, playing cities skylines is perfectly fine using 30fps but Doom would be horrible e.g.
All that being said, people are over sensitive nowadays when it comes to frame rate. You know who you are if you played Zelda, Ocarina of time on the N64. One of the greatest games ever made, super fun to play, and it ran on the best moments maybe around 15fps even. With dips going under 10.
MALpractice311
Member
This right here. The jump from 1440p to 4k is so miniscule. It's not worth going to 30fps. Same goes for ray tracing. If it's going to halve the frame rate, give me an option to turn that shit off
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
That's why you need good motion blur to survive 30 on oled. Disabling it is a mistake
Roxkis_ii
Banned
People keep saying that, but games seem to keep coming out with that 60 fps option.
First it was just cross games, now street fighter and FF16 have performance options and their not cross gen. They even added it to Redfall, so despite all the problems that game has/had, at least it'll be 60 frames per second.
I think most companies like making money, so I have a feeling devs will continue to find a way to add the option.
darrylgorn
Member
Motion blur
