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
curl-6 said:
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.

Even racing games don't bother me at 30fps, I never once thought "Man I wish this was 60fps it'd be so much more fun" while playing Driveclub lol. The only time I play games at 60fps is on my computer (Well, obviously if console games run at 60fps too), and that's only if they can reach it reliably, if a game struggles, say between 40-50fps or something, I'll happily cap it at 30fps if need be, it has nothing to do with the fun factor for me.



Around the Network

Back in the day going from the Pal version of sonic to NTSC was a noticeable difference, game felt slower, more sluggish and music played slower too, just from a 60fps to 50fps difference.

After playing most games at 120fps+ on pc these days, going back to 30fps is quite jarring, but i suppose if that's all you've known except for the occasional 60 fps title, you wouldn't really care.



Since I've switched to mostly playing in VR, yes absolutely framerate > resolution. Actually 120fps > 60fps, it makes a visible difference in VR. Polybius and Trackmania Turbo are so silky smooth at 120fps, while fences and close detail still seem to strobe by at 60fps in DC and Dirt Rally.

There's not much you can sacrifice in VR. Any 2D elements stick out like a sore thumb. Black bars are out of the question and you're stuck with 110 degree fov putting a lot of extra geometry in view. Multi res rendering helps, since the edges are already lower res due to the way the optics work (higher pixel density in center). RE7 uses dynamic res, it drops down quite a bit when you sprint. It also uses lower res at the edges on the base ps4.


On a 2D screen 30fps never bothered me. DC before VR played perfectly fine at 30fps. Of course, since the VR version I haven't gone back to racing on a screen. The downgrade back to screen is so severe, I doubt 30 or 60 fps will make the slightest difference...



NATO said:
Back in the day going from the Pal version of sonic to NTSC was a noticeable difference, game felt slower, more sluggish and music played slower too, just from a 60fps to 50fps difference.

After playing most games at 120fps+ on pc these days, going back to 30fps is quite jarring, but i suppose if that's all you've known except for the occasional 60 fps title, you wouldn't really care.

That's different though, instead of dropping frames, the entire game was slowed down, which is obviously much more noticeable.



I don't think there's a noticeable difference. I've been alternating between Uncharted 4 and Battlefront, both of which are at 60fps with Yakuza 5 and I can't say that I notice any difference.



Around the Network
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.

Ahhh okay : ) 



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.

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

"
A better designed game at 30 FPS will most likely be more enjoyable to play than a poorly designed 60 FPS title"

"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."

Where is the confusion coming from?

 

"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."

 

 

Bristow9091 said:
caffeinade said:

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.

60FPS is a better experience, even if you cannot or do not point out; you are still human, your brain still notices the the difference.

Framerate is not the same as game design, no game I know of even blurs the lines.



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

I disagree. The 7th Gen showed that three consoles can compete in the dedicated home console market with the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Wii doing amazingly well.

monocle_layton said:
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

The Switch *is* weak. It's a legitimate concern in regards to the device.

curl-6 said:

Plus tablets don't have efficient to-the-metal APIs like Switch does so in terms of real world game performance they fall short.

Actually... That statement is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(API)

The big issue with Tablets though is their controls... Or lack there-of.

One thing to keep in mind though is that the Switch isn't even using the most powerfull hardware for Tablet... But it's advantage shines through as  Developers need not concern themselves with a lower common denominator/low-end devices when building games.


curl-6 said:
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.

Yeah, it's very much down to the game in my opinion.
Twitch shooters, platformers, racers and so on benefit greatly from 60fps, Slower games like Skyrim are perfectly fine at 30fps in my opinion.


It's one of the reasons why I am a PC gamer though. I hate compromises, I shouldn't be forced to go whatever-way by a developer/publisher.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

SvennoJ said:
Since I've switched to mostly playing in VR, yes absolutely framerate > resolution. Actually 120fps > 60fps, it makes a visible difference in VR. Polybius and Trackmania Turbo are so silky smooth at 120fps, while fences and close detail still seem to strobe by at 60fps in DC and Dirt Rally.

There's not much you can sacrifice in VR. Any 2D elements stick out like a sore thumb. Black bars are out of the question and you're stuck with 110 degree fov putting a lot of extra geometry in view. Multi res rendering helps, since the edges are already lower res due to the way the optics work (higher pixel density in center). RE7 uses dynamic res, it drops down quite a bit when you sprint. It also uses lower res at the edges on the base ps4.


On a 2D screen 30fps never bothered me. DC before VR played perfectly fine at 30fps. Of course, since the VR version I haven't gone back to racing on a screen. The downgrade back to screen is so severe, I doubt 30 or 60 fps will make the slightest difference...

Foveated Rendering should help VR, and it should be relatively easy to do since you can have a camera right in front of the user's eyes.



Pemalite 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

I disagree. The 7th Gen showed that three consoles can compete in the dedicated home console market with the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Wii doing amazingly well.

curl-6 said:

Plus tablets don't have efficient to-the-metal APIs like Switch does so in terms of real world game performance they fall short.

Actually... That statement is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(API)

- I think that only worked cos Wii was nothing like PS3/360 though; never have three similar consoles all done well.

- I can't see a general purpose tablet API giving as good optimization as a device designed specifically for gaming and pretty much gaming alone. Switch has its own custom API, "NVN" built specifically for the hardware. Tablets don't have this luxury as even Metal has to work on numerous different hardwares and can't be tailored specifically to any single one.