• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Shouldn't 60fps be a standard next gen?

I mean we've seen some gorgeous games this gen, but they all ran @/below 30fps.. and I think by next gen we shouldn't accept games that run below 60fps IMO..


fps > graphics


what do you think?
 
I say a rock-solid 30fps with zero v-sync tearing should be the absolute minimum. While 60fps would be ideal, it's not necessary for most types of games, IMO. Making everything 60fps is still not realistic for the entire generation, as later on there will be the inevitable 'need' to keep up with the eventually superior visuals and capability found in the PC market. Most people want better visuals at a solid framerate, not sacrificed visuals at a constant 60fps.
 
30 fps without framedrops are good enough for some games but racing games for example really benefit from 60 fps, so it depends i guess...

anything below 30 fps is unacceptable in my opinion
 
Just gather all the 60 FPS games from this generation into a pile and play them again. No need for fancy new graphics, right?
 
I've got no problems with 30fps, provided that are stable and without drops. I don't think we'll ever see 60fps becoming a standard: developers like to create great graphics, and sometimes this meas sacrifying framerate for adding polygons and effects.
 
With motion blur like Project Offset and DOA4 there is less and less a need for 60. Developers can do 30 with more detail and still have it look smooth and natural.
 
almokla said:
I mean we've seen some gorgeous games this gen, but they all ran @/below 30fps.. and I think by next gen we shouldn't accept games that run below 60fps IMO..


fps > graphics


what do you think?

Every 4 years I swear....
 
olimario said:
It's the same tradeoff as last gen.
60 with less detail
30 with more

Exactly...it's not a "feature", it's a choice.

That said, I love me some 60fps!!! And while certain games don't need it, I say if the game isn't really pushing the system to the gills with a lot of effects and raw numbers(high poly counts, etc), then it should be 60fps...X-Men Legends for example is hardly a taxing game, yet not only was it not 60fps, it had several moments of sluggishness throughout the game. That just sucks.
 
almokla said:
no .. he has good eyes

o9hi0bu.jpg
 
Its kind of strange that Metroid Prime, Starfox Adventures and F-Zero GX all look great yet run at 60 fps. The latter two even have widescreen modes. I am currently struggling to complete Starfox (had it over a year but I really dont like it) and when you see such pretty graphics running so smoothly it is very impressive.
 
That's because there's more to graphics than just tech...and none of those three is some kind of poster child for cutting-edge graphics technology, either. Strong art design is as important as the tech that supports it.
 
almokla said:
I mean we've seen some gorgeous games this gen, but they all ran @/below 30fps.. and I think by next gen we shouldn't accept games that run below 60fps IMO..


fps > graphics


what do you think?

Well..thats a balancing act between programmers, and art designers ya know. Yeah these new systems are far more powerful than this generation, but they can also fill the screen with far more information. You can bring any system to its knees if you push it enough.
 
It'll always come back to 30 fps no matter how advanced the hardware is. The standards for picture quality is always rising, and to achieve them the developers will eventually end up going for 30 fps sooner or later in every generation. It's the standard for movies, most people are used to it and don't see it as a major thing.
 
Film and games are two different beasts...the light from the projector in a dark theater causes an "after-image" which blurs the image in between movie frames
 
mckmas8808 said:
NO. Better Graphics -> 60fps

no .. NOOOOOOOOOOOO NO NO NON O NNOOOOOOOO

WRONG...



Developers are just lazy... 60fps >>> graphics if I had to choose.. but I think Metroid Prime x 4 or even 5 will be awesome...
 
60 fps will be a standard when something can produce real life graphics. In other words, maybe in a couple hundred years. Just imagine the power needed to create something like NYC down to it's most tiny details. Impossible by today's standard. No doubt, someone will ask the same question when PS4, PS5, PS6, PS7, and etc. comes out.
 
Well, for PS3 @ 1080p, there is no standard for 60 fps, meaning that HDTVs won't even be able to display a 1080p at 60 fps. So no, if you want higher resolution, you can't even get that high framerate.
 
Timen said:

:lol :lol :lol

GAF as a whole needs more use of these owls! They're priceless.


Oh and as much as I'm a whore for 60fps, I'll agree that for certain game types, it's not as important. But as much as possible, and especially for racers, give me 60fps. Thanks.
 
Oh man, for some games, 60FPS is just godly. Imagine playing Burnout 3 on 30FPS. Well, just look at NFSU, you don't have to imagine much. The bigger the screen you have, the better advantage of 60FPS you see on it.

And please don't bring the "movies are 30FPS" BS, because it's a completely different thing.

Well, for PS3 @ 1080p, there is no standard for 60 fps, meaning that HDTVs won't even be able to display a 1080p at 60 fps. So no, if you want higher resolution, you can't even get that high framerate.
I don't think too many games on PS3 will be 1080p.
720p and 1080i can be 60FPS no problem.
 
Marconelly said:
Oh man, for some games, 60FPS is just godly. Imagine playing Burnout 3 on 30FPS. Well, just look at NFSU, you don't have to imagine much. The bigger the screen you have, the better advantage of 60FPS you see on it.

Well some games need 60 fps and some don't plain and simple. I thought everyone knew that by now.
 
I dunno, but I went batshit insane when I found out MGS3 was only at 30 fps. MGS2 at 60 fps is so fucking smooth, 30 fps can shove it.
 
GhaleonEB said:
On general principal, I'm boycotting any game not at a solid 60.
good for you.

I would be much happier with better graphics and a solid 30fps framerate without any framedrops rather than 60fps. Most devs will do that anyway, there will only be a couple who make games with 60fps.
 
Sholmes said:
I dunno, but I went batshit insane when I found out MGS3 was only at 30 fps. MGS2 at 60 fps is so fucking smooth, 30 fps can shove it.
God I hated that. After MGS2 I was expecting MGS3 to be just as smooth and although the framerate was steady throught most of the game there wrere times during MGS3 when it was awful, it would be so sluggish. MGS4 is one game the definately needs to have the framerate upped.
 
TheDuce22 said:
Most people cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps .
In a racer, I bet everyone could see a difference between Burnout and NFS game on a big screen.

Not all games benefit from this of course, but racers sure as hell do.

Do games HAVE to be 30 or 60 fps? Wouldn't a constant 40 fps be good enough?
You can't have a constant 40updates per second on a screen that refreshes 60 times per second. That would look pretty jerkyriffic, or have massive tearing all over the screen. You can have 60, 30, 20 or 15, 10, 5 constant FPS. Basically all the even divides of 60.
 
You oughta try playing games on my crappy pc.
You'd need to send in Indianna Jones and that grey fat head father of his to find such a holy grail.
 
Actually, the effective standard for film is 24fps. Because of flicker, they show each frame twice though, so the actual frame rate is 48fps. Persistance of vision allows one to perceive motion as low as 16fps.
 
People that think 24fps is fine in games because it's fine in films are just ignorant bastards. Quick, panning takes in films look like blurry pieces of ass. Doesn't quite work out in a high-speed game.

60fps *should* be the standard in video games next-gen, alas, some developers are lazy fucks regarding framerate(and from what I've noticed, this applies to western devs more than japanese ones).
 
Top Bottom