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
CrazyGamer2017 said:
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.

He did said that the ipad is more powerful than the Switch.



A handheld gamer only (for now).

Around the Network
CrazyGamer2017 said:
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.

The iPad also does not have a fan so the CPU and GPU do throttle after a few minutes of heavy use (like gaming; where you will notice frame rates will drop as the iPad becomes hotter), that retina display is excellent for reading content (but in terms of PPI it is not that much higher than what is in Switch, as I will explain below) but few games actually run at the native resoultuion of those diplays (if you have ever gamed on a retina iPad like I have, you should expect a good deal of jaggies because the games run at a far lower resolution than what the display offers), and the iPad costs more. In addition, the Switch is 233 PPI which is very close to what Apple considers to be retina on its iPads (266 PPI for the 9.7 inch iPad), the difference is that the vast majority of games run at the native resolution of the Switch's screen. Also, the battery number you state is only for things like web browing at medium brightness settings, the moment you run a game on the iPad you will get a battery life that is lower than that of the Switch (source: http://bgr.com/2017/02/28/nintendo-switch-battery-life-comparison/). Again, for the price, there is nothing on par with the Switch in the handhed catagory. Even the much more expensive iPad Pro, despite having more powerful hardware, will throttle because it does not have sufficient cooling, making it less than ideal to use as a games console. 



nemo37 said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

 

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.

The iPad also does not have a fan so the CPU and GPU do throttle after a few minutes of heavy use (like gaming; where you will notice frame rates will drop as the iPad becomes hotter), that retina display is excellent for reading content (but in terms of PPI it is not that much higher than what is in Switch, as I will explain below) but few games actually run at the native resoultuion of those diplays (if you have ever gamed on a retina iPad like I have, you should expect a good deal of jaggies because the games run at a far lower resolution than what the display offers), and the iPad costs more. In addition, the Switch is 233 PPI which is very close to what Apple considers to be retina on its iPads (266 PPI for the 9.7 inch iPad), the difference is that the vast majority of games run at the native resolution of the Switch's screen. Also, the battery number you state is only for things like web browing at medium brightness settings, the moment you run a game on the iPad you will get a battery life that is lower than that of the Switch (source: http://bgr.com/2017/02/28/nintendo-switch-battery-life-comparison/). Again, for the price, there is nothing on par with the Switch in the handhed catagory. Even the much more expensive iPad Pro, despite having more powerful hardware, will throttle because it does not have sufficient cooling, making it less than ideal to use as a games console. 

This.



nemo37 said:

The iPad also does not have a fan so the CPU and GPU do throttle after a few minutes of heavy use (like gaming; where you will notice frame rates will drop as the iPad becomes hotter), that retina display is excellent for reading content (but in terms of PPI it is not that much higher than what is in Switch, as I will explain below) but few games actually run at the native resoultuion of those diplays (if you have ever gamed on a retina iPad like I have, you should expect a good deal of jaggies because the games run at a far lower resolution than what the display offers), and the iPad costs more. In addition, the Switch is 233 PPI which is very close to what Apple considers to be retina on its iPads (266 PPI for the 9.7 inch iPad), the difference is that the vast majority of games run at the native resolution of the Switch's screen. Also, the battery number you state is only for things like web browing at medium brightness settings, the moment you run a game on the iPad you will get a battery life that is lower than that of the Switch (source: http://bgr.com/2017/02/28/nintendo-switch-battery-life-comparison/). Again, for the price, there is nothing on par with the Switch in the handhed catagory. Even the much more expensive iPad Pro, despite having more powerful hardware, will throttle because it does not have sufficient cooling, making it less than ideal to use as a games console. 

Plus, because tablet games have to run on a wide range of different models, they're not as specifically optimized to the hardware as Switch games, giving the latter an advantage.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Bristow9091 said:

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. 

I was simply answering the question in the OP, basically a "What if" situation for me, since I WOULDN'T sacrifice those for 60fps since 30fps is fine for me.

caffeinade said:
Bristow9091 said:

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.

So what you're trying to push along as a fact, is that a terrible game at 30fps, will be more fun to play at 60fps? And despite this being a forum, which is a place for discussion and debate, you're not letting anyone debate this with you? If so... why even make this thread in the first place?



Around the Network

Well its easier to hit 60 frames than 4k with the upgraded hardware however the one main reason why they bump the Res and not the Frames is due to compeititive play with consoles. Playing a FPS game against someone playing at 60 and you are capped at 30 gives a major disadvantaged. Unlike with PC where you have settings that can help achieve this. Consoles you dont.
We need a new a gen where the old games arent in the ecosystem anymore. However in doing so ruins Backwards compatitable and shrinks your library by a good margin.
I honestly hate starting again every gen with no games. Why i love PC gaming and my prefered choice.



Bristow9091 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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. 

I was simply answering the question in the OP, basically a "What if" situation for me, since I WOULDN'T sacrifice those for 60fps since 30fps is fine for me.

caffeinade said:

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.

So what you're trying to push along as a fact, is that a terrible game at 30fps, will be more fun to play at 60fps? And despite this being a forum, which is a place for discussion and debate, you're not letting anyone debate this with you? If so... why even make this thread in the first place?

Other way, a good game at 30 is better than a bad game at 60.

The point of this thread is not to debate 60 > 30 or inverse; rather: assuming 60 > 30 as fact, what are you willing to sacrifice to reach it.
We don’t need to have the same conversations over and over again.



Azzanation said:
Well its easier to hit 60 frames than 4k with the upgraded hardware however the one main reason why they bump the Res and not the Frames is due to compeititive play with consoles. Playing a FPS game against someone playing at 60 and you are capped at 30 gives a major disadvantaged. Unlike with PC where you have settings that can help achieve this. Consoles you dont.
We need a new a gen where the old games arent in the ecosystem anymore. However in doing so ruins Backwards compatitable and shrinks your library by a good margin.
I honestly hate starting again every gen with no games. Why i love PC gaming and my prefered choice.

Well you lost me there, you said the reason they bump the resolution instead of the frames is due to a competitive play with consoles...

But that's not a reason, that's actually an ANTI reason, cause it sounds like you are saying they bump res and not frames to specifically give a disadvantage to console players. Why would they want to do that?



.

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

caffeinade said:
Bristow9091 said:

I was simply answering the question in the OP, basically a "What if" situation for me, since I WOULDN'T sacrifice those for 60fps since 30fps is fine for me.

So what you're trying to push along as a fact, is that a terrible game at 30fps, will be more fun to play at 60fps? And despite this being a forum, which is a place for discussion and debate, you're not letting anyone debate this with you? If so... why even make this thread in the first place?

Other way, a good game at 30 is better than a bad game at 60.

The point of this thread is not to debate 60 > 30 or inverse; rather: assuming 60 > 30 as fact, what are you willing to sacrifice to reach it.
We don’t need to have the same conversations over and over again.

But I already said I wouldn't find a good game better at 60fps than 30fps, since I find games fun based on the actual game itself and not things like framerate and resolution, likewise if a bad game plays at 30fps, I won't find it any more fun if it's at 60fps... a game, to me and I'm sure many other people, wouldn't feel any less fun if it were played at 30fps rather than 60fps... my favourite game is Final Fantasy X, I'd happily play it at 15-20fps and still find it equally as fun as any other time I play it.

And what do you mean "Other way"? You literally said it was a fact that games would be better enjoyed at 60fps rather than 30fps, which would imply that a terrible game at 30fps would be more fun if played at 60fps, or a good game at 60fps would be less enjoyed if played at 30fps... I don't really think that enjoyment and framerate are tied together.



Bristow9091 said:

or a good game at 60fps would be less enjoyed if played at 30fps

I can think of quite a few 60fps games that I definitely would not enjoy as much at 30fps; Splatoon 2 and F-Zero GX immediately come to mind.