What do you prefer? | |||
| Framerate | 139 | 62.05% | |
| Resolution | 48 | 21.43% | |
| Other | 37 | 16.52% | |
| Total: | 224 | ||
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.
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. |
Ahhh okay : )
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. |
"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:
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:
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:
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.
Actually... That statement is false. |
- 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.
| caffeinade said: It is a fact that the higher a framerate means a more enjoyable, more controllable, this is not up for debate. |
Whether or not something is more enjoyable or not is entirely subjective. You might as well claim that anchovies on pizza make it better tasting 100% of the time, and claim it is a fact.
curl-6 said:
- I think that only worked cos Wii was nothing like PS3/360 though; never have three similar consoles all done well. |
Well. That's just moving goal posts. :P
I mean. You aren't wrong though, I doubt the Wii would have succeeded if it was just another Playstation 3/Xbox 360-type machine.
| curl-6 said: - 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. |
That's not a fault of the API though. The API works just as efficiently regardless of how many platforms it is on.
The issue is developers need to contend with varying types of hardware and their intrinsic capabilities, which as I elaborated prior, is where the Switch's strength ultimately lays.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Pemalite said:
Well. That's just moving goal posts. :P |
So, can't we say that we have 3 successful consoles now then, with the PS4, XB1 and Switch? If the 7th gen counts despite the Wii's technical disadvantage, then surely the Switch would too.
Pemalite said:
Well. That's just moving goal posts. :P
That's not a fault of the API though. The API works just as efficiently regardless of how many platforms it is on. |
Wasn't that the original position of my "goalposts" though? That there has never been room for 3 similar consoles? I don't think I ever said there's never been room for 3 at all; there is as long as they're not all fighting for the same audience. Wii and Switch are different enough that they can co-exist with the others without directly clashing.
I admit I'm no expert on APIs but it seems to me that one that was to work on numerous platforms won't be quite as low level as one custom tailored to a single platform, in the same way a suit that has to fit 100 different guys won't fit as well as one that was measured and tailored just for me?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
