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
caffeinade said:

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.

Is this not up for debate either? Because I wouldn't enjoy a game more or less if it went from 30fps to 60fps, it wouldn't affect how much I enjoy the game whatsoever, 30fps is completely fine with me, and if I enjoy it with that, yes, I'll enjoy it at 60fps but not because of the framerate increase. Likewise if a 60fps game played at 30fps I wouldn't find it less fun whatsoever, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. 

However, keeping on topic of what I'd actually sacrifice in order to reach 60fps, I'd drop the resolution and reduce the effects, maybe texture resolution, but only if the art style of the game would allow it, by which I mean only if the game has an art style that wouldn't necessarily be compromised and ugly to look at as a trade off for the increase. 



Around the Network
CrazyGamer2017 said:
curl-6 said:

Nintendo are no longer making dedicated home consoles; there isn't room on the market for three similar consoles to do well, there never has been. On the other hand, making an alternative product, the Switch, is clearly paying off. Plenty of Switch games are 1080p60 actually, and given the success of titles like Zelda gamers don't seem to mind too much if a game doesn't hit an arbitrary pixel count.

 

Well if the future of Nintendo is decided by people who lower their standards gen after gen then I fear that you might be right: There may never be a home system by that company again. Also the rest of the industry seems to steer towards norms (1080p, 4K, HDR, 60fps etc.) It seems strange to me that Nintendo is the only one that does not go that way. It's of course good news for the company as it means no need to invest money in advancing components and technology, just work on different concepts and voilà, people will flock to you. But as a consumer who wants a decent product, I am not too happy about this turn of events.

I'll cross fingers and hope one day to play BOTW on some future home system that will do justice to the new generations of televisions we see in the market today but if not then, I will have to send my divorce papers for Nintendo to sign.

There is a good deal of people that like portable systems, because that is the only thing we have time to play. For me it does not really matter if Sony manages to put a super computer inside the next Playstation, if I do not have the time to play it. Also, the norms you describe (minus HDR) are for people with big TV screens, 4K on a 6" screen really does not make much sense. In addition, handheld systems (just like phones and tablets) do progress in terms of power and capability, so it is not like Nintendo will remain with what is in the current Switch forever; the thing with these smaller devices is that while they progress they will be visually worse off than their stationary counterparts, simply because of size and power constraints. The benefit, of course, is that you can play them anywhere, even if the games are not as visually advanced as their stationary counterparts. But then again this is something that console gamers are used to and do not seem to really care about (outside of petty console wars fighting); after all, when the PS4 and XONE came out PCs were easily able to reach 1080P at 60 FPS in many of the games that those systems could not run at full resolution and/or 60 FPS. A gaming PC from 2015 with a modest CPU and a good GPU can do 4K at least at 30 FPS.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
curl-6 said:

I don't think it's so much a matter of lower standards but rather of different standards. A lot of people simply don't mind if a game is 1080p, 900p, or 4K, so long as it is fun. Gameplay is more important than pixel count for many.

It's strange you point out 60fps though, as Nintendo is actually pushing this standard far more than Sony or Microsoft; the majority of their first party titles are 60fps, while most big Playstation and Xbox titles run at 30fps.

Yeah but the question is how many people is "a lot of people" right?

Cause technically if what you said is right, then Why even release new hardware? Why not stay with the Wii and the 3DS, both being very successful and since people don't care about higher norms, why not simply keep releasing on those successful systems...

As for games at 60fps on Nintendo, my point still stands, a weak hardware means either no 60fps or if they do, it means lowering elsewhere, like lower definition, no anti-aliasing, no extra effects etc... Cause there is NO WAY a game on the Switch can have the complexity of a game on the other systems and still go at 60fps. And at the end of the day, complex games that still run at 60fps on the Pro or the future X will be legion compared to those on the Switch, it can't be otherwise.

Well, new hardware can accomplish things that the old cannot beyond just increasing pixel counts; Switch's hook for example, the ability to play it either on the go or on a TV. Couldn't do that on Wii or 3DS. Plus consumers just get bored of old hardware after a while and want something new.

By design, the Switch was never meant to deliver the same kind of experience as the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X; it was designed to allow for more flexibility with regards to gameplay rather than more pixels. If Pro and X are Formula 1 racing cars, the Switch is like an ATV; a completely different thing built with a different purpose.



I know it's supposed to matter but I bought Arkham City for Xbox One this week since it was super discounted with all DLC. I bought it for PS4 back on day one. One is 60fps and one is 30fps. I swear they both look equally impressive. If I didn't know one was better, I'd never be able to tell.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Bristow9091 said:
caffeinade said:

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.

Is this not up for debate either? Because I wouldn't enjoy a game more or less if it went from 30fps to 60fps, it wouldn't affect how much I enjoy the game whatsoever, 30fps is completely fine with me, and if I enjoy it with that, yes, I'll enjoy it at 60fps but not because of the framerate increase. Likewise if a 60fps game played at 30fps I wouldn't find it less fun whatsoever, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. 

However, keeping on topic of what I'd actually sacrifice in order to reach 60fps, I'd drop the resolution and reduce the effects, maybe texture resolution, but only if the art style of the game would allow it, by which I mean only if the game has an art style that wouldn't necessarily be compromised and ugly to look at as a trade off for the increase. 

Why would you compromise stuff if you don't get more enjoyment out of better framerate?

That makes no sense. You are admitting to not seeing a discernable difference. 



Around the Network

Framerate... since that actually has somewhat of an impact on how you play the game.



 

 

CrazyGamer2017 said:
curl-6 said:

Nintendo are no longer making dedicated home consoles; there isn't room on the market for three similar consoles to do well, there never has been. On the other hand, making an alternative product, the Switch, is clearly paying off. Plenty of Switch games are 1080p60 actually, and given the success of titles like Zelda gamers don't seem to mind too much if a game doesn't hit an arbitrary pixel count.

 

Well if the future of Nintendo is decided by people who lower their standards gen after gen then I fear that you might be right: There may never be a home system by that company again. Also the rest of the industry seems to steer towards norms (1080p, 4K, 60fps etc.) It seems strange to me that Nintendo is the only one that does not go that way. It's of course good news for the company as it means no need to invest money in advancing components and technology, just work on different concepts and voilà, people will flock to you. But as a consumer who wants a decent product, I am not too happy about this turn of events.

I'll cross fingers and hope one day to play BOTW on some future home system that will do justice to the new generations of televisions we see in the market today but if not then, I will have to send my divorce papers for Nintendo to sign them

"No monry into advancing components"

Are you fraking kidding me? This thing is literally THE most powerful mobile device ever, not counting laptop level stuff. Only the ipad  prob matches it in performance and thats a 1000$ machine.



What's up with this 'Switch is weak' bullshit argument? The thing is $300, less than 1/20th the size of a PS4, and yet plays games at 720/60 fps to 1080/30 with no issue.

If you want to keep whining then go play on the competition then. For fuck's sake, it's a hybrid. It's gonna be weak as a home console. What, did you want Nintendo to somehow shove a GTX Titan Xp up the Switch's ass?



TheBraveGallade said:

"No monry into advancing components"

Are you fraking kidding me? This thing is literally THE most powerful mobile device ever, not counting laptop level stuff. Only the ipad  prob matches it in performance and thats a 1000$ machine.

 

Sure, too bad the part I care about is the part where I use the system to play at home on my TV...

Also and going slightly off topic here but to answer your statement, the Switch is definitely not the most powerful mobile device ever. The Ipad goes way beyond, not only it has (the Ipad) a screen of way higher definition (Retina) but it has a battery that lasts up to like 12 hours or so.

So I'm going to assume you meant the most powerful portable system (among dedicated gaming systems, like the Vita, the PSP, the 3DS etc) NOT including other mobile devices.



.

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

Bristow9091 said:
caffeinade said:

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.

Is this not up for debate either? Because I wouldn't enjoy a game more or less if it went from 30fps to 60fps, it wouldn't affect how much I enjoy the game whatsoever, 30fps is completely fine with me, and if I enjoy it with that, yes, I'll enjoy it at 60fps but not because of the framerate increase. Likewise if a 60fps game played at 30fps I wouldn't find it less fun whatsoever, it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. 

However, keeping on topic of what I'd actually sacrifice in order to reach 60fps, I'd drop the resolution and reduce the effects, maybe texture resolution, but only if the art style of the game would allow it, by which I mean only if the game has an art style that wouldn't necessarily be compromised and ugly to look at as a trade off for the increase. 

Framerate is not like game design (though the two often clash, and are forced to co-exist).

A terrible game at 60 FPS is still a bad game.

Even the most framerate oblivious people would still find the lower response time, smoothness and overall "feeling" provided by 60FPS to be better than 30.

Even when we don't have the tools to express or understand why is happening 60 FPS is more enjoyable.

A better designed game at 30 FPS will most likely be more enjoyable to play than a poorly designed 60 FPS title though, but more in the way that makes you cry out in praise: "Gee I sure am having fun".

Doom (2016) will run at 30 FPS on the Switch, and people surely will enjoy it in that incarnation, they are not wrong to do so.

They may find it more enjoyable than playing it at 4k240 on a monster PC, be that due to: the Switch logo, portability or some other reason.

Given a 60FPS version on the Switch, with the same graphical fidelity, they will enjoy themselves more, even if they don't know it, or understand the difference.

At that point it is more of a subconscious thing.

Think of it like this: lip sync in movies, you can still watch a movie with a half second (or in 30 vs 60 FPS, ~ 16.7ms) audio delay, and hell you personally may not even be able to discern a difference, but at some non active level your brain will be able to tell the difference.

I am sorry but it is not up for debate, but that does not mean you are wrong for being okay with 30 FPS.

It is a topic that is hard to talk about without stepping on feet, so I am sorry if I have offended you in any way.

There goes VGC ruining my formatting... sigh.