-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The FPS debate--
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
Error Macro
Member
I think you mean "fps", because I came in here expecting a debate about First-Person Shooters.
Suburban Cowboy
Member
i really cant tell the difference unless i focus on noticing. However, i am expecting 60fps considering it was somewhat common this gen
drohne said:
You're dodging the question by saying "the consoles should handle enough graphics and be able to run 60fps!" and giving the nebulous "anything less than 60fps is inexcusable." I can play a racing game that runs 30FPS just as well as one that plays 60FPS, and don't notice any difference in controls--so where exactly is this major inexcusable sin?
ToyMachine228
Member
It all depends on the game for me. For instance, TimeSplitters is great because of it's speed and buttery smooth frame rate. But a game like Halo: Combat Evolved was only 30 frames per second, and even have amazing graphics, but it looked and ran good enough for me.
Error Macro
Member
Heh, Halo was only... eh, like 20 fps.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Depends on the game. Racing and faighting games and fast paced first person shooters should be 60, no ifs ands or buts. Platformers should also, but I can be little lenient there. Anything else can be 30, as far as I'm concerned. It better use that 30fps to the max though.
depends on the genre. racing and fighting games should always sacrafice to make 60 fps (though if they are 30, it doesnt destroy the game IMO). pretty much everything else could lock at 30 with more postprocessing effects and/or polys. i'd imagine this will be even more true this up-coming gen what with all the fancy motion blur tech being introduced into games.
AtomicShroom
Member
Depends on the game, but I tend to prefer 60fps.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
I want smooth frame rate in my games, I don't care if its locked at 60 or 30 FPS.
GitarooMan
Member
30fps with full graphic fidelity
Drinky Crow
Banned
Locked 60 fps with "full graphics fidelity". They taught me to avoid the "tyranny of the 'or'" in management training, so you can take your false dichotomy and shove it, Brutus!
60 fps + full graphic fidelity
This gen proves that it happens. A lot of the very best looking games all ran at 60 fps.
Right now, we've seen the MGS4 trailer, which is one of the most impressive looking next-gen displays thus far...and that runs at 60 fps.
IF a choice must be made (and it never is our choice), I would drop graphical features before losing 60 fps.
This gen proves that it happens. A lot of the very best looking games all ran at 60 fps.
Right now, we've seen the MGS4 trailer, which is one of the most impressive looking next-gen displays thus far...and that runs at 60 fps.
IF a choice must be made (and it never is our choice), I would drop graphical features before losing 60 fps.
Absolutely FALSE. Both Halo and Halo 2 hold 30 fps the vast majority of the time (Halo 2 especially). There is slowdown, but it is situational and not too common.
Yeah, like many others have said it's not a 60fps 'or' nice graphics situtation. Usually the games that achieve the 'best graphics' are also 60fps. For instance Ninja Gaiden is possibly still the best looking game on Xbox, and it runs at 60fps. So why aren't there games that look twice as good while running at 30fps? The answer is just that it's not as simple as a 50% tradeoff.
I'll take 60fps with the best graphics they can possible get while maintaining the framerate. I also don't really care if there are drops here and there when a ton of stuff is happening. As long as its a smooth 60fps most of the time, it'll be visually pleasing.
I'll take 60fps with the best graphics they can possible get while maintaining the framerate. I also don't really care if there are drops here and there when a ton of stuff is happening. As long as its a smooth 60fps most of the time, it'll be visually pleasing.
While that's kinda true, there is no actual value that can be equated to fidelity.GashPrex said:
It's not as if you can simply "double" your polygon count either. There are too many scene variations. You wouldn't just see visuals double in quality if you chopped your framerate to 30 fps.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
The only true answer in this thread.Drinky Crow said:
It just so happened that some of the best looking games on all the platforms were also 60FPS. There was no excuse this gen, there's going to be even less excuse next gen.
Having said that, I don't care as much for some genres (adventure) as I do for others (racing).
Smooth framerate, regardless of count. The 30/60 debate is hilariously meaningless except in extreme circumstances. 99% of gamers don't even know what framerate is or why it's different from "slowdown," so what devs choose to aim for and what the systems can do in next-gen is irrelevant to everyone but a small minority of nitpickers.
The only time framerate bothers me is when it's unstable or constantly dipping into the sub-20s. See: Advent Rising.
The only time framerate bothers me is when it's unstable or constantly dipping into the sub-20s. See: Advent Rising.
dynamitejim
Member
60fps. I don't like the choppiness of 30fps whenever there's a lot of movement.
dark10x said:
Sorry, maybe I'm getting it a little mixed up with that other thread. But Halo and Halo 2 are cited as examples in this thread, and I know what's assumed.
Japanese developers = Smooth animation, 60 FPS, GLORIOUS ART
Western devs = All the tech, 30 FPS
Now Japanese devs have the best of both worlds, no excuses, excellent hardware. All I was saying, really.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Locked at 60 with full graphics fidelity. Plenty of games this gen were able to achieve that.
I've tolerated some 30fps games this gen but next-gen I will start getting more picky because theres really no excuse for it anymore IMO.
I've tolerated some 30fps games this gen but next-gen I will start getting more picky because theres really no excuse for it anymore IMO.
The Faceless Master
Member
this poll sucks because as someone else already pointed out, many of the 60fps games also have the highest fideilty...
the 30fps 'higher quality' excuse is just that... an excuse by devs who suck, or are in a time crunch, or simply just don't want to do the hard work...
but if i had to hypothetically choose one, it would be 60fps...
the 30fps 'higher quality' excuse is just that... an excuse by devs who suck, or are in a time crunch, or simply just don't want to do the hard work...
but if i had to hypothetically choose one, it would be 60fps...
dark10x said:
Now who's making assumptions?
Most Japanese developers make games for the PS2.
The PS2 is inherently limited.
The next generation opens up loads of possibilities for Japanese developers to deliver above and beyond what they have already.
Prior to this coming generation, pushing the boundaries of PC graphics was primarily associated with Western devs.
My point is that 60 FPS is never enough, and it should never be a crutch that otherwise weak graphics can fall back upon.
So, given the choice between a rock solid 30 FPS game that delivers technically where the 60 FPS comes up short, I honestly can't pick the 60 FPS game. It's all the same to me, and the prettier game wins.
Now, if you REALLY, REALLY, don't know where I'm coming from, I'm sorry. I read something about a 30 FPSbox in another thread and I presumed that was the inspiration for this one.