Quantcast
What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

What do you prefer?

Framerate 139 62.05%
 
Resolution 48 21.43%
 
Other 37 16.52%
 
Total:224

It is a fact that the higher a framerate means a more enjoyable, more controllable, this is not up for debate.
Some of the best games (BotW) do run at 30 FPS, but they would be better enjoyed at 60, fact.

I know most of the people here are console gamers, who are limited by what hardware is made available to them so I have this question.
What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?


One technique that could be employed is the splicing of 2D elements into a 3D world:
Super Mario Odyssey does this for far away NPCs in New Donk City.
For example instead of using polygon weapons in a first person shooter, you could use a 2D sprite.
It does not have to be a still image, you do some high quality animated renders of the polygonal weapons from a 30 FPS version of the game.


Another technique is letterboxing:

The PS4 Exclusive, The Order 1886 runs at 1920*800p (1.53MP, about the same pixel count as 900p in a 16:9 aspect ratio, which is 1.44MP).
Personally, I think this is a nice approach to reduce the load on a system's GPU, without reducing the image quality at the centre of the screen.

Fog / low draw distance:
Dropping the engine's load by restricting how far away objects are rendered.

Multi res shading and other, similar techniques:

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/shadow-warrior-2/shadow-warrior-2-nvidia-multi-res-shading-interactive-comparison-001-off-vs-conservative.html
Things like multi res shading, where you render the middle portion of the screen at full resolution and the outer portions at a lower quality.

Dynamic res.
Rendering at a lower resolution when the GPU load gets too high.


What are you willing to put up with if it means 60 FPS?



Around the Network

I'd be willing to use an emulator to achieve 60fps

God, I make such great sacrifices just for my beloved framerate



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I'd be willing to use an emulator to achieve 60fps

God, I make such great sacrifices just for my beloved framerate

Someday I will be able to play BotW at 60FPS.



Depends ...

If the game depends on having fast reaction then higher framerate is ideal, if not and if game depends more on draw distance/big maps and has lot's of very thin geometry then I'd prefer higher resolution in that instance ...



Framerate > resolution, all the way.

I'd take 720p/60fps over 1080p/30fps.

With 60fps you get that smooth, snappy sensation that just makes games feel better.

Having said that, 30fps isn't a dealbreaker; I certainly wouldn't want to play Splatoon or F-Zero GX at 30fps, but in slower paced games it's fine. Obviously 60fps would always be better, but sometimes that's not possible due to gameplay rather than just graphical considerations; Breath of the Wild for instance couldn't be 60fps even if it was 480p because of the demands of its physics-driven open world.



Around the Network

1080p 60fps, that should now (2017) be the standard reference for video games. Unfortunately it is everything but.

The Switch is way too under powered which as the latest 2017 system out there should have no excuse for its lack of performance. Too much needs to be sacrificed to reach 60fps

The base PS4 does way much better but 1080p 60fps games on that system are more the exception than the norm. The Pro improves the situation as more and more games seem to reach the target but still a lot needs to be done.

The Xbox One and the S are not powerful enough either though there too you got some games reaching the target. The soon to be released X is the one that is the most likely to reach target but Microsoft is making the mistake of putting the system's power into 4k high resolution rather than on 60fps when it's either one or the other that can be chosen.

So we are not there yet when by now we should so more patience is required to get there I guess.



.

I'm in the zone, don't bother me!

CrazyGamer2017 said:
The Switch is way too under powered which as the latest 2017 system out there should have no excuse for its lack of performance.

It's a handheld. That's not an excuse, it's simply a fact that it's not viable to squeeze PS4 levels of power into such a small case with today's technology.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
The Switch is way too under powered which as the latest 2017 system out there should have no excuse for its lack of performance. Too much needs to be sacrificed to reach 60fps

Actually, no.
The SNES Classic is the latest 2017 console currently out.
It hits 720p60 in most of its games.



As long as the game is at a minimum 720p,60 fps all day.Resolution is not a game changer anymore.

4K is more of a luxury than something that fundamentally changes the experience.



CrazyGamer2017 said:

The Switch is way too under powered which as the latest 2017 system out there should have no excuse for its lack of performance. Too much needs to be sacrificed to reach 60fps

No excuse? It's a portable console. That's enough of an "excuse" for many.