What do you think? | |||
| Anything less is unacceptable | 20 | 16.26% | |
| It's very important | 40 | 32.52% | |
| It's nice, but 30fps is still fine | 44 | 35.77% | |
| It's not important | 19 | 15.45% | |
| Total: | 123 | ||
Depends on the genre. But generally I consider a 30fps experience in anything other than a singleplayer story game to be compromised.
If push came to shove, I also think lower framerates like 24-30fps are also acceptable so long as they're relatively stable. Citations being GTA V on 360.
| Illusion said: If anybody has played Ocarina of Time on the original hardware, you can see how a 20-30 fps game can be built in a way that the framerate feels perfectly natural and the game basically plays flawlessly. A game like Pokemon Stadium 2 probably chugged at around 10 fps but it allowed for advanced visual effects and 360i resolution on the N64 hardware and camera movements were slowed down so that it still felt really smooth. |
And what about those games that run perfectly at 60?, where's that advantage then?.
It feels a lot like a weird advantage to have, having a game locked at 30fps vs 60fps and above.
I have played games for decades, and I do not see 30fps feeling better than 60 and above, not in any subjective or objective sense (the latter I'm sensing from you).
Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.
| Chazore said: And what about those games that run perfectly at 60?, where's that advantage then?. It feels a lot like a weird advantage to have, having a game locked at 30fps vs 60fps and above. I have played games for decades, and I do not see 30fps feeling better than 60 and above, not in any subjective or objective sense (the latter I'm sensing from you). |
It depends on how well the characters are animated. Do they have key frames for 30 or for 60 fps. Games designed around a 30fps target, don't feel better at 60fps. It's like the fake interpolation tvs do to 24p movies. Granted, some people like smooth motion, but imo it's worse than dealing with the judder.
It's the same when running games at higher res. If they were balanced for 480p or 720p, they are going to look disjointed when rendered at higher resolutions. Low res textures and polygons are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Same thing again with movies, With Dark crystal on blu-ray you can clearly see the puppet strings, breaking the immersion.
And now we have fake HDR added on top as well, both to games and movies.
Anyway, it's all optional and sometimes the results aren't bad. I did enjoy plenty ps2 remasters on ps3 even though they looked very unbalanced.
Just as most everyone else already stated, it depends on the game. But if I had my choice, I would like to keep it at 60 or above.
...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.
For anyone who's interested. The guy does FPS tests on Overwatch on multitude of settings ranging from 60FPS to 360FPS.
Now imagine running at half the frame rate, with VSync on top of that :P
Last edited by hinch - on 25 May 2021
| hinch said: For anyone who's interested. The guy does FPS tests on Overwatch on multitude of settings ranging from 60FPS to 360FPS. Now imagine running at half the frame rate, with VSync on top of that :P |
I truly wonder anything above 60 feels like, since that frame rate already feels incredibly smooth.
My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.
As someone who almost exclusively plays retro games on a CRT, I voted not at all. I didn't even know what a "frame" was back when I was playing games as a kid. No one I knew did, either. The magazines didn't mention it. The developers didn't mention it. The console manufactures didn't mention it. It was of absolute zero importance to pretty much anyone... at least publicly, and on the console side of things (I don't have much experience with PC, so I don't know if PC gamers cared or not). So when I see frames per second being used as a be-all-end-all sort of thing now, I just can't relate because it doesn't matter to me.
SvennoJ said:
It depends on how well the characters are animated. Do they have key frames for 30 or for 60 fps. Games designed around a 30fps target, don't feel better at 60fps. It's like the fake interpolation tvs do to 24p movies. Granted, some people like smooth motion, but imo it's worse than dealing with the judder. |
It's for these reasons why I don't buy remasters. Yes, they're a lot easier to find. And yes, you get all the bells and whistles of modern gaming... but those experiences were never meant to be had on newer tech. They were designed to be played using composite cables (or even RF adapters) on old CRT sets. And unless it's a game where the original example was just a horrible mess (which would probably never happen because remasters are usually games that were beloved and well-received back in the day), a remaster is going to heavily reduce the original's experience; or at the very least, alter it to the point where it feels like something else entirely.
So for me, if I want to play something classic, give me classic. Don't give me something classic trying to be something modern. If I want modern, I'll buy modern.
Metallox said:
I truly wonder anything above 60 feels like, since that frame rate already feels incredibly smooth. |
Its all about latency, the more frames your system can consistently put out the more smoother and more consistent your experience will be. Running a game at 120hz would be a very large jump indeed over 60. Above 144hz and you start hitting diminishing returns.
Its why people are raging for high refresh rate phones rn. People moving from 60hz to 90,100, 120hz screens as it looks better and is more responsive and nicer to use.
| Illusion said: If anybody has played Ocarina of Time on the original hardware, you can see how a 20-30 fps game can be built in a way that the framerate feels perfectly natural and the game basically plays flawlessly. A game like Pokemon Stadium 2 probably chugged at around 10 fps but it allowed for advanced visual effects and 360i resolution on the N64 hardware and camera movements were slowed down so that it still felt really smooth. |
Also Final Fantasy VII in battle which was 20fps. The caveat though is that these games visually suited a lower frame rate. The blocky, retro graphics almost gives a stop motion feel. More detailed models and animation would be more out of place
This is slowed a bit but it shows how a lower fps can work with specific artstyles and animation
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
