gaming 30 fps is NOT acceptable

[Hell Patrol 41]

So, we're a week or so into the "next generation", and we continue to see that 30 fps has been the normal choice by developers. The reason is obvious, they want to max out the graphics as high as they can so they'll take 30 fps since the average consumer is too stupid to know the difference, but will know the difference between 10x lens flare AA and 50x lens flare AA.

 

Look, I'm not a console gamer, this shouldn't bother me. But I would LOVE to play console games more if the framerate allowed it. Instead we see countless times that 30 fps is the norm on console for most games. 30 fps in the year 2013 is NOT acceptable, 60 fps is objectively better in every possible way, 60 fps should be your focus before graphics. Because 60 fps has an extremely positive effect on gameplay compared to the dull, choppy, and unresponsive nature of 30 fps. A pretty game is meaningless without the gameplay to match.

 

Also, this is edited in. But a part I'd really like to add is that this isn't some PC elitism thread, if you're a strictly console gamer (and I was until VERY recently), you should also be unhappy with this. Developers are treating you like an idiot who wants pretty lens flare over smooth gameplay.

 

Discuss.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Hell Patrol

[Mutemutt 773]

I really do hope they start to move towards 60 fps. I pretty much play strictly on console and 30 fps is workable, but 60 fps is better. I can't see a huge difference visually, but the higher frame rate makes for better responsiveness in game at the very least. 

 

It's kind of funny though, fighting games on consoles are already running at 60 fps; I've been having the 60 fps experience that PC users brag about for while now. 

[caramba2654 602]

Doesn't 60fps mean that videos will be twice as larger, because it's gonna have double the frames? Because there's no point in recording a 60fps game with a 30fps recorder.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

If you want my opinion on this, I really don't care. But, when it's 30FPS, it's super noticeable. The slow down of the game makes button inputs unresponsive and it can sometimes slow the game down.

30 FPS isn't acceptable nowadays. We live in the year 2013 and they can make a game look exactly like real life, but they can't get it to run at a smooth rate? Gave me a freaking break.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

It depends on the game, 30FPS is fine if the game was optimized to run well at that speed. I know 60 FPS is awesome and all but below that is by no means unplayable, I find even in games meant to run fast even around 40FPS+ is usually fine. 

Edited November 23, 2013 by Shoboni

[Scootalove 10,689]

It really depends on the game. If a game runs slow at 30 FPS, then it would be considered unacceptable but if you have a console or a PC that can only run at 30 FPS but sometimes whatever you own can't handle that much. There will come a time when the consoles are able to handle 60 FPS.

[Hell Patrol 41]

Doesn't 60fps mean that videos will be twice as larger, because it's gonna have double the frames? Because there's no point in recording a 60fps game with a 30fps recorder.

 

Youtube ONLY runs at 30 fps.

 

CoD runs at 60 fps.

 

What you'd be saying is that it'd be pointless to make CoD videos on youtube, but clearly people can and do accomplish that, most record at 30 fps to save video space clearly. Video is fine at 30 fps.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Hell Patrol

[The Ponyville Critic 304]

30 FPS is not a big deal, I don't see how it affects gameplay, it certainly is not unresponsive, and it's pretty hard to not see this as some PC gamer rant. We've survived without 60 FPS for so long, why should it be any different now?

[long gone 8,929]

30FPS shouldn't even be an option. I've played plenty of games in 30FPS and the lag - which happens often, mind you - strains my eyes and I have to stop playing because my eyes hurt too much. How people find this acceptable is beyond me.

 

Then there's the problem with people saying that the human eye "cannot see past 30FPS." I'm sorry, but what? The eye doesn't work that way. It does not perceive things as individual frames, it receives a constant photon stream. Personally, I CAN tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS, and imo, 60FPS should be standard, not 30FPS. It's night and day, really.

 

 

 

There will come a time when the consoles are able to handle 60 FPS.

Probably in 2020. I'm seriously disappointed that the "next generation" consoles have yet to push the boundaries beyond 720p and 30FPS while the PC is now just starting the push into 4K 60FPS gaming. Or, at least, 1440p 60FPS gaming. 1080p 60FPS has been standard on the PC for ages.

[FractalMoon 378]

Youtube ONLY runs at 30 fps.

CoD runs at 60 fps.

What you'd be saying is that it'd be pointless to make CoD videos on youtube, but clearly people can and do accomplish that.

You can make 60 fps videos on YouTube, but there's no real point because it eats up unnecessary processor cycles for what is an ultimately negligible boost in quality.

That said, I believe a stable 30fps is perfectly acceptable. Especially when the transition to 60fps would negatively impact other parts of the game. The reason a PC can pull off 60 on games a console can't is because a console is constrained to older hardware. As AI routines and engine calculations get more complex, something has to give. 30fps and 45fps are almost indistinguishable if you aren't looking for a difference, so they cut the framerate in order to make other aspects shine.

[Milk Wave 454]

Here's a thought. The Xbox one and such are around 500+ Dollars, but you have to remember, that's cheap in a PC price. So to be fair, building a PC that is 500 Dollars wont run a lot of games at 60 fps, so that would be the same with consoles. If you made a console that could run Crysis 3 at 60 FPS, it would run you around about $1000 instead of a nice and easy $500. There in turn, people would buy it less, and Sony/Microsoft would make less money.

 

See where i'm getting here?

[The Ponyville Critic 304]

 

30FPS shouldn't even be an option. I've played plenty of games in 30FPS and the lag - which happens often, mind you - strains my eyes and I have to stop playing because my eyes hurt too much. How people find this acceptable is beyond me.

 

Then there's the problem with people saying that the human eye "cannot see past 30FPS." I'm sorry, but what? The eye doesn't work that way. It does not perceive things as individual frames, it receives a constant photon stream. Personally, I CAN tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS, and imo, 60FPS should be standard, not 30FPS. It's night and day, really.

 

 

 

Probably in 2020. I'm seriously disappointed that the "next generation" consoles have yet to push the boundaries beyond 720p and 30FPS while the PC is now just starting the push into 4K 60FPS gaming. Or, at least, 1440p 60FPS gaming. 1080p 60FPS has been standard on the PC for ages.

 

 

I don't know if you've noticed but PCs aren't exactly mass market, do you know why? Because they're so damn expensive.

[FractalMoon 378]

Here's a thought. The Xbox one and such are around 500+ Dollars, but you have to remember, that's cheap in a PC price. So to be fair, building a PC that is 500 Dollars wont run a lot of games at 60 fps, so that would be the same with consoles. If you made a console that could run Crysis 3 at 60 FPS, it would run you around about $1000 instead of a nice and easy $500. There in turn, people would buy it less, and Sony/Microsoft would make less money.

See where i'm getting here?

PCGamer did a build where they kitted out a living room machine that could run Crysis 3 at 60+fps, it cost $700. A GTX 650 Boost will run most games on medium at a stable 50-60fps, and an i5 build with one will run you scarcely more than an xbox one, with the option to do everything else a pc can do.

[Milk Wave 454]

@, 

 

Good for them if they did that, but would $500 get you to run Crysis 3 at 60 frames per second?

I doubt it.

So to be fair, it's just a rant for something that can't possibly happen unless they up the price in the PS4 and Xbox one, which i'm sure they won't be doing that anytime soon.

[long gone 8,929]

I don't know if you've noticed but PCs aren't exactly mass market, do you know why? Because they're so damn expensive.

@, 

 

Good for them if they did that, but would $500 get you to run Crysis 3 at 60 frames per second?

I doubt it.

So to be fair, it's just a rant for something that can't possibly happen unless they up the price in the PS4 and Xbox one, which i'm sure they won't be doing that anytime soon.

 

There, max out any game you want to. You can keep your current mouse, keyboard and monitor if you want.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

I don't know if you've noticed but PCs aren't exactly mass market, do you know why? Because they're so damn expensive.

 

I actually had someone shoot be a $550 build that can even play COD Ghosts on respectable quality when I asked for planning ideas, and even that build had places that you could cut costs without affecting the system performance(a cheaper case and a 1.5TB HDD instead of a 2TB)

[FractalMoon 378]

I actually had someone shoot be a $550 build that can even play COD Ghosts on respectable quality when I asked for planning ideas, and even that build had places that you could cut costs without affecting the system performance(a cheaper case and a 1.5TB HDD instead of a 2TB)

Nothing can play Ghosts at respectable quality, it's a poorly optimized mess, or at least it was the one time I tried playing it.

[long gone 8,929]

Nothing can play Ghosts at respectable quality, it's a poorly optimized mess, or at least it was the one time I tried playing it.

Yeah, CoD: Ghosts probably isn't a good example. Why not something like Borderlands 2 or Chivalry: Medieval Warfare?

[FractalMoon 378]

Yeah, CoD: Ghosts probably isn't a good example. Why not something like Borderlands 2 or Chivalry: Medieval Warfare?

Probably because both of those will run without problems on the build that the previous post provided. It really was a usable build.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

Nothing can play Ghosts at respectable quality, it's a poorly optimized mess, or at least it was the one time I tried playing it.

 

By respectable I mean it can at least get the 40FPS+ mark on decent settings.

 

For comparison here's a build that's actually a little bit slower than the one I was referring to running it:

 

[long gone 8,929]

Probably because both of those will run without problems on the build that the previous post provided. It really was a usable build.

You know? That actually makes a bit of sense.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

Yeah, CoD: Ghosts probably isn't a good example. Why not something like Borderlands 2 or Chivalry: Medieval Warfare?

 

It was the only "next gen" game I could think of so I was using it a as kinda of a benchmark. It also has that "if it can work out this mess, anything else should be fine" benefit. 

[long gone 8,929]

It was the only "next gen" game I could think of so I was using it a as kinda of a benchmark. It also has that "if it can work out this mess, anything else should be fine" benefit. 

Pretty sure there are better examples coming out soon.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

Pretty sure there are better examples coming out soon.

 

I was going by was on the market I could find test footage of. 

[long gone 8,929]

I was going by was on the market I could find test footage of. 

Ah, I see. I do know that Call of Duty is popular on the PC, although not as popular on the consoles.