I'm amazed at how many people don't "get" this.

60fps will produce a cleaner image than 30fps, and will on average decrease response time. If everything else stayed the same and the game wasn't locked at 30fps for artistic reasons, 60fps would always be better. It's no different than a higher render resolution, larger textures, better AA, longer draw distances, etc. Each one makes a cleaner image and ever so slightly can help with gameplay.

This is a great website that allows you to try out different framerates for yourself: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ Not perfect of course, but imo it does a much better job showing the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps than side by side gameplay gifs.

As you can see, a higher framerate is BETTER!

But... it's hardly ever worth it.

Resolution, special effects, etc. are far more important visually. Gameplay wise, resolution and draw distance are more important as well. It's incredibly silly hearing people say 60fps games are much better to play than 30fps ones. A frame in a 30fps game is only on screen for 33 milliseconds. A frame in a 60fps game is only on screen for 17 milliseconds. Thus the difference is 17 milliseconds. That sounds like a lot when monitors are advertised with 3ms response times, but it's actually pretty short. It's nothing compared to the amount of time it takes from pressing a button to seeing a resulting pixel on a TV screen.

I mean just switching to a low latency tv and a low latency next gen controller will shave off way more than 17 milliseconds from the game's response time.

We will never see a generation where 60fps is the standard, and that's a good thing.

Consistency is most important. A game that can put out 30fps, each frame taken at exactly 33ms intervals will feel smoother than a triple buffered 60fps game that's averaging the render time to 16ms by delaying certain frames.

Suppose the render time varies between 8ms and 30ms. You could try for 60fps, using triple buffering, soft lock with some tearing when too many expensive frames appear in a row.
Or you could aim for 30fps, forward predict the engine state 33ms and show the world exactly as it is when the frame appears on screen.

Triple buffered 60fps games completely negate the latency improvement of 60fps over 30fps, compared to rendering synchronized v-synched 30fps. Ofcourse still better than triple buffered 30fps.


60fps has advantages to image quality, twice the snapshots, twice the information (Although being able to see further into the distance at higher resolutions will help more) 60fps does make it easier to follow fast moving objects as they skip less space when traversing the screen.

Latency wise the advantage is negligible. Compared to input lag, display lag, human response lag, that 16ms is a tiny percentage. Consistency first, resolution second, 60fps third.

Yes, that's one genre that benefits immensely from the image and control fluidity which 60fps graphics can potentially provide.

I completely dissagree with what he said about the reivews at 15:15 min.

I think he is retarded in most of this video, I know its just his opinion but he was bagging on reveiwers and game delopers for something that is just his opinion. I dont think he knows if ready at dawn wanting a filmic look was a PR stunt. Anyways just my opinion.

Did you ever play let's say Battlefield 3 or 4 with 60fps and after some hours you tried it with 30fps (or maybe 40fps)? I really can't believe that people wouldn't recognize that. It feels almost bad if you are used to the 60fps version. Sure, if you never try it with 60fps you won't miss it but that's pretty much the same with better resolution. 

For some games it makes a nice difference in how the game feels to play but for other games it's not worth it in my opinion. A game like Beyond does really not need 60fps^^

Same here!

I'm tempted to make a joke about how Beyond isn't a game, but I like my record of not ever being banned/warned by moderators.

Yes, Beyond doesn't needs 60fps and it can be easily argued that additional effects would enhance the experience. The gameplay, however, can't be helped in any way, shape, or form (is that a subtle enough criticism?).

Gears was fine at 30. The order should be too.

I disagree with the framerate nonsense. especially with the whole more is better BS that most people will wanna have us believe.

I believe that there is a minimum amount of frames needed to make a game "responsive". You know, for there to not be a discernible perceivable difference between input and out come. And then the other side of this equation is that whatever said framerate is, it must be "consistent".

Responsive and consistency. Those are the two single most important things to framerates in games. For responsiveness, that depends on the genre of game you are playing. But the minimum should be 30fps. Certain genres, will be better at 60fps but not "need" to be at 60fps.

And with consistency, it actually surprises me that a lot of people that seems to talk about framerates never mention this. An unstable or inconsistent framerate is the technical equivalent of running a game at an overall lower average frame rate. And is most noticeable as judder. But why this is bad is that our brains adapt to the response times required for whatever game we have been playing only to have it suddenly go from running at 75fps to running at 40fps. It is beter to run a game ALL THE TIME at 30fps over a period of 20secs than to run it at 60fps and 50fps intermittently over a period of 20secs at 2 second intervals. That will look horrible.