I agree with him that when simply comparing 60fps to 30fps, 60fps is always the better option. That said, i completely disagree with his claim that 30fps is ALWAYS, no matter the benefits or situation, a bad thing.

If we were talking about a PC game then yes, playing at 30fps is like having your balls scratched off by a particularly pissed off cat, but that isn't the case on consoles. By the time you go through the game's imput lag, your TV's, your brain's own 200ms delay and the sluggishness of an analogue stick vs a mouse, the effect is considerably smaller (not gone by any means, but certainly less of an issue). By that point 30fps + the gained resources is often a better option than 60fps alone.

RAD's PR statement is total BS though 30fps for no reason other than to feel more "cinematic" it utter nonsense. They should just be honest and say why it's 30fps; because they believe that the benefits of the resources gained from choosing 30fps over 60fps better suited the game they wanted to make.

Zekkyou said: RAD's PR statement is total BS though 30fps for no reason other than to feel more "cinematic" it utter nonsense. They should just be honest and say why it's 30fps; because they believe that the benefits of the resources gained from choosing 30fps over 60fps better suited the game they wanted to make.

its exactly what they are saying, just in bs pr talk.

People need to understand the difference in PLAYING a 30fps or 60fps game.. Not watching a 30 or 60 fps video.. There is a noticable difference.. 60 fps for the win!

He doesn't know about Infamous SS, I'm disappointed.

Even though Nintendo dissapointed me lately, I will give them this, about most of their games run in 60fps making it really playable. That's probably why many consider Mario Kart 8 the best version.

Even though Nintendo dissapointed me lately, I will give them this, about most of their games run in 60fps making it really playable. That's probably why many consider Mario Kart 8 the best version.

60fps is more noticeable visually and you can feel the difference in a higher input lag, but a game that's 16ms over 32ms, most people, even those who notice the differences aren't really going to be effected by such a miniscule amount.

Most people play on HDTVs and the average HD television is over 30ms. Then you add the input lag from the new consoles and you're probably already at 70ms before you even factor in the game. So 16ms or 32ms really isn't going to make much of a difference because what's already there is already rather high and most people don't even notice that.

Stable framerate > 60fps. Stable 60fps is great but only 99% of games would be at least slightly improved by it, not 100%. The 1% consists of games deliberately designed to be fancy and slowly raise expectations as to what we want/expect from video game graphics.

It depends on the game. For Battlefield 720p and 60 FPS is better and for a game like Uncharted 30 FPS to 1080p is better

Battlefield at 60 FPS and Battlefield at 30-45 FPS is night and day. I have played the PS3, PC, and PS4 version of BF4 and the 60 FPS makes a huge difference. An FPS should always target 60 FPS