Support NeoGAF

[Minsc]

Maybe that's why I don't see a difference, I don't play racing games

What about pinball games? You'd notice there 100% for sure. 30fps in pinball is a death sentence.

 

[Vick]

No it’s not motion clarity is just insane.

It is, because higher frames are necessary to compensate for the fact you're playing on technology inherently introducing blur absent in the source.

You would actually need 1,000fps@1,000hz to simply achieve the motion clarity of a 60fps on CRT.

Old CRT TVs had minimal motion blur, LCDs have a lot of motion blur, LCDs will need 1,000fps@1,000hz in order to have minimal motion blur as CRT TVs

I bet for a lot of you this is going to be entirely new information because it was for me when I first read this article back in 2018 https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ Read this article if you truly want to know what...

www.neogaf.com

A late Panasonic plasma also has a naturally and completely blur-free image (and full native motion res), reason why 60fps signals on them look so insanely perfect.

This user is right:

Outside VR and competitive gaming, more than 60 is a waste of resources.

Sacrificing gaming to make up for insane limitations of modern panels is sad. If majority of gamers weren't playing on LCD everyone would agree more than 60fps is a waste.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm fine with a quality/perf mode because some games don't really need 30fps. It's like the myth that most old 3D games were 60fps. Bunch of liars lol, I grew up with early 3D and 60fps was a pipe dream.

The original PlayStation had quite a bit of 60fps games, shockingly. N64 on the other hand, you were lucky to see 20-25fps from most 3rd parties.

PC suffered as well, which introduced 3D accelerated cards to alleviate those 15fps.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

But what if 60fps seriously compromises game design? E.g. Could Tears of the Kingdom exist on the Switch at 60fps?

I played it on Yuzu that way and it made for a FAR FAR FAR superior experience than what was provided on the Switch. 60 fps made it a completely new game.

I know that is not what you are saying, and no. 30 fps should be allowed for any developer if they choose. But I can choose to not play it, which is why I don't buy Nintendo.

People like me have begged Nintendo for years to put out a higher more expensive console to play their games with higher rez and FPS. The best part is that they wouldn't need to have hardware specs anywhere near as high as PS or Xbox to achieve that on their games.

 

[Minsc]

It is, because higher frames are necessary to compensate for the fact you're playing on technology inherently introducing blur absent in the source.

You would actually need 1,000fps@1,000hz to simply achieve the motion clarity of a 60fps on CRT.

Old CRT TVs had minimal motion blur, LCDs have a lot of motion blur, LCDs will need 1,000fps@1,000hz in order to have minimal motion blur as CRT TVs

I bet for a lot of you this is going to be entirely new information because it was for me when I first read this article back in 2018 https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ Read this article if you truly want to know what...

www.neogaf.com

A late Panasonic plasma also has a naturally and completely blur-free image (and full native motion res), reason why 60fps signals on them look so insanely perfect.

This user is right:



Sacrificing gaming to make up for insane limitations of modern panels is sad. If majority of gamers weren't playing on LCD everyone would agree more than 60fps is a waste.

Don't OLEDs fix motion clarity tremendously? They have like 1,000,000 of a second response time and similarly fast screen redraws. One of the biggest improvements I notice from most LCD devices moving to OLED is definitely motion clarity. But I think that perfect motion clarity OLEDs can give also causes low framerates to stand out more, at least that's my theory.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

To be fair, when those consoles were mainstream the displays weren't the sample-and-hold ones of today that suffer the lower the fps is.

Thank you. I hate when people bring this up. 30 fps on CRTs are vastly superior experiences than 30 fps on LCD. CRTs have been gone for a long while so it's for people to not know/forget this.

 

[clarky]

The original PlayStation had quite a bit of 60fps games, shockingly. N64 on the other hand, you were lucky to see 20-25fps from most 3rd parties.

PC suffered as well, which introduced 3D accelerated cards to alleviate those 15fps.

You have not lived unless you played 4 player slaps only Goldeneye at 12fps

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Don't OLEDs fix motion clarity tremendously? They have like 1,000,000 of a second response time and similarly fast screen redraws. One of the biggest improvements I notice from most LCD devices moving to OLED is definitely motion clarity. But I think that perfect motion clarity OLEDs can give also causes low framerates to stand out more, at least that's my theory.

OLEDs actually make 30 fps worse than LCDs because the fast response times make the sample and hold that much more obvious. It looks like a stutter fest. After a while your eyes do adapt and it does get better, but LCDs at times can handle 30 fps better, due to the natural blur.

Of course, they can also look absolutely godawful, too.

Blak Frame Insertion can make 60 fps content on an OLED look quite smooth...but it drastically affects the brightness and the flicker can cause headaches.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Don't OLEDs fix motion clarity tremendously? They have like 1,000,000 of a second response time and similarly fast screen redraws. One of the biggest improvements I notice from most LCD devices moving to OLED is definitely motion clarity. But I think that perfect motion clarity OLEDs can give also causes low framerates to stand out more, at least that's my theory.

Naw and their fast pixel response means they have even more stutter than modern LED TVs.

 

[Minsc]

The original PlayStation had quite a bit of 60fps games, shockingly. N64 on the other hand, you were lucky to see 20-25fps from most 3rd parties.

PC suffered as well, which introduced 3D accelerated cards to alleviate those 15fps.

This thread actually brought back memories of running Voodoo 2's in SLI and the Matrox Millenium and other GPUs from the past! Good stuff.

 

[Topher]

People like me have begged Nintendo for years to put out a higher more expensive console to play their games with higher rez and FPS. The best part is that they wouldn't need to have hardware specs anywhere near as high as PS or Xbox to achieve that on their games.

Same here. I stopped buying Nintendo entirely because the games did not play well on my TV. I ripped my copy of BotW and tried playing with Yuzu, but couldn't get the 60fps to work for some reason. Finally just gave up and sold all my Nintendo stuff.

 

[Topher]

This thread actually brought back memories of running Voodoo 2's in SLI and the Matrox Millenium and other GPUs from the past! Good stuff.

Hercules Stingray 128 with Voodoo Rush. What a disappointment that was. I wish I could say I learned from that experience not to buy unproven tech, but well.........I can't.

 

[Vick]

Don't OLEDs fix motion clarity tremendously? They have like 1,000,000 of a second response time and similarly fast screen redraws. One of the biggest improvements I notice from most LCD devices moving to OLED is definitely motion clarity. But I think that perfect motion clarity OLEDs can give also causes low framerates to stand out more, at least that's my theory.

Compared to some LCD, yes, but nowhere near ideal or on par with what we had in the past.

Last I checked native motion res was some absolutely laughable figure like 300p, on 4K panels (!)..
This is absolutely ridiculous compared to the full motion res you get on a Panasonic plasma for instance.

 

[midnightAI]

Isn't it weird that watching TV/films at anything more than 24/30fps feels really strange yet games are much better at 60 compared to 30. I guess our brains are just used to seeing TV/film at 24/30 so anything other than that causes us to think anything more than that is weird.

(My TV has an annoying habit of turning on motion smoothing whenever I turn off the TV and turn it on again even though the settings say it's off. It's noticeable straight away)

 

[The artful mincer]

I played it on Yuzu that way and it made for a FAR FAR FAR superior experience than what was provided on the Switch. 60 fps made it a completely new game.

I know that is not what you are saying, and no. 30 fps should be allowed for any developer if they choose. But I can choose to not play it, which is why I don't buy Nintendo.

People like me have begged Nintendo for years to put out a higher more expensive console to play their games with higher rez and FPS. The best part is that they wouldn't need to have hardware specs anywhere near as high as PS or Xbox to achieve that on their games.

Lol I'am not one of those muppets that can't tell difference.

I can tell the difference it's Massive.

I will say though that after the adjustment I'am honestly fine though for some games anyway.
Fast pace games I need 60!

 

[Hrk69]

It really isn't.

Go play Halo on the OG xbox or the old COD's then come back and say its fine.

I really think it is. I recently bought a Switch Lite and I've been playing a lot of games @30 fps. And I own a good gaming PC.

30 fps is noticeable at first but that's about it. Calling it 'unplayable' is just pure hyperbole.

Most of you are overreacting.

 

[Minsc]

Compared to some LCD, yes, but nowhere near ideal or on par with what we had in the past.

Last I checked native motion res was some absolutely laughable figure like 300p, on 4K panels (!)..
This is absolutely ridiculous compared to the full motion res you get on a Panasonic plasma for instance.

Yeah, I get a bit lost on how it's rated, but something like this on rtings, they score 9.9 for motion scores on basically every category. I don't think that's unique either, I imagine most of the 4k 240hz monitors score incredible on motion there. "The CAD at 120Hz is outstanding. Pixels transition to their target RGB level almost instantly, so there isn't any blur trail or noticeable inverse ghosting" But I wouldn't be surprised if it's still inferior to Plasma. I loved my Kuro until I decided I wanted HDR/Dolby Vision haha.

 

[ReyBrujo]

I can accept a minimum of 40 fps on my Steam deck.

Double standards ftw!

 

[M.W.]

Agreed. However, 60fps is almost unplayable for me nowadays.

 

[Topher]

I really think it is. I recently bought a Switch Lite and I've been playing a lot of games @30 fps. And I own a good gaming PC.

30 fps is noticeable at first but that's about it. Calling it 'unplayable' is just pure hyperbole.

Most of you are overreacting.

This is why there should be options. What is "unplayable" for someone else may be perfectly fine for you.

 

[peek]

100%

I basically skip any game on console that doesnt run at 60 (or at least stays near 60 with few dips here and there)

Sadly this means I miss out on the lots of the newer releases lately! Oh well, got me a backlog still of tons of ps4 games i bought but never played yet on my ps5 lol.

 

[Minsc]

I really think it is. I recently bought a Switch Lite and I've been playing a lot of games @30 fps. And I own a good gaming PC.

30 fps is noticeable at first but that's about it. Calling it 'unplayable' is just pure hyperbole.

Most of you are overreacting.

I have yet to see anyone claim it's hyperbole for pinball! Cause it isn't! You need to be able to time your shots so precisely, and at 30fps you couldn't target the angles and have the accuracy you'd have at higher framerates, and very often you'd tap to activate the flipper, but at 30fps you'd have a delay before the flipper responded and you'd lose the ball or just miss the timing and end up losing the ball/goal.

Even just following the balls around a busy screen of flashing lights and fast motion with 3-5 ball multiball on the table at 30fps sounds like a nightmare.

 

[SlicedBread3]

But this idea is that higher frame rates are getting in the way of "ambitious game design" is just false for the vast majority of games. But yeah, if a game dev comes out and says they are making a physics based game and due to CPU limitations 60 fps is not possible then I have no problem with that. But it needs to be something more than just lowering fidelity, imo, to take away that option. Lowering fidelity is merely adjusting settings and resolution to get higher frames. Stuff PC gamers do all the time. On consoles, performance mode is just a preset of those same exact settings.

I don't think anyone is disputing that if a game can run at 60fps on console just by lowering fidelity that it should also offer a performance mode. Very little reason not to in those cases.

The problem is people like the OP declaring it should be mandated for ALL games. Because, as has been said it puts limits on how ambitious games can be. A lot of PC gamers don't seem to realise the reason they can get 60FPS on just about every game is because most games are targeting consoles, so their high end rigs have a lot of untapped power not being used.

 

[nkarafo]

30 fps with Samsung's game motion plus is also tolerable.

Wait what?

Game + motion plus? In that, it doesn't add input lag?

 

[SScorpio]

I'm fine with a quality/perf mode because some games don't really need 30fps. It's like the myth that most old 3D games were 60fps. Bunch of liars lol, I grew up with early 3D and 60fps was a pipe dream.

60? 30 was a pipe dream. Those Voodoo 1 cards were the black magic that made it possible. Before that 15-20 fps was our "smooth" game play.

 

[Vick]

Yeah, I get a bit lost on how it's rated, but something like this on rtings, they score 9.9 for motion scores on basically every category. I don't think that's unique either, I imagine most of the 4k 240hz monitors score incredible on motion there. "The CAD at 120Hz is outstanding. Pixels transition to their target RGB level almost instantly, so there isn't any blur trail or noticeable inverse ghosting" But I wouldn't be surprised if it's still inferior to Plasma.

Not native, interpolated. It creates some bothersome issues when you're too used to native motion.

I loved my Kuro until I decided I wanted HDR/Dolby Vision haha.

I feel you.
My KRP-500M however, while obviously better than what we get nowadays, still has some noticeable blur in motion. Kuro is not 100% blur free.
Panasonic is the only company that achieved motion perfection outside of CRT.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Wait what?

Game + motion plus? In that, it doesn't add input lag?

It adds very little lag yes but nowhere near as normal motion plus does. I'm still able to pull off timely parries and dodges in Sekiro/Souls/Bayonetta games.

Game Motion Plus is a Samsung thing, I don't know if other brands have motion interpolation for game mode now.

 

[clarky]

I really think it is. I recently bought a Switch Lite and I've been playing a lot of games @30 fps. And I own a good gaming PC.

30 fps is noticeable at first but that's about it. Calling it 'unplayable' is just pure hyperbole.

Most of you are overreacting.

Certainly there are titles that are ok at 30fps but Racing, Fighting, FPS & Platform titles like mario then 60 is a must if you ask me.

So most genres I play really. Are they playable at 30 ? Yes. Are they vastly superior at 60+ absolutely.

Its not hyperbolic

 

[ABnormal]

You have not lived unless you played 4 player slaps only Goldeneye at 12fps

Ah, good times... four player split screen couch slaps, throwing knifes and watch bombs. Played for years with my friends. Also Turok 2.

 

[Topher]

I don't think anyone is disputing that if a game can run at 60fps on console just by lowering fidelity that it should also offer a performance mode. Very little reason not to in those cases.

The problem is people like the OP declaring it should be mandated for ALL games. Because, as has been said it puts limits on how ambitious games can be. A lot of PC gamers don't seem to realise the reason they can get 60FPS on just about every game is because most games are targeting consoles, so their high end rigs have a lot of untapped power not being used.

Actually there are at least a couple in this thread that have been adamant that no one should have a choice for a performance mode. Bizarre takes, I agree, but they exist.

I don't know how 60fps would ever be "mandated" but I read the OP has saying folks shouldn't choose anything lower than 60fps. Of course, just his opinion. On PC, there is no way to mandate anything really. I think consoles should have a performance mode 90+ percent of the time except in specific situations. Don't think that is unreasonable, but somehow we get folks on the fringe in topics like these.

But no, I don't think 60fps should be mandated either.

 

[brenobnfm]

Should be the maximum too, anything after 60 is diminishing returns, just put all resources on visuals.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Should be the maximum too, anything after 60 is diminishing returns, just put all resources on visuals.

Naw, the motion clarity of 60 fps is still way too blurry.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

At 240 fps it starts to become normal.

 

[The artful mincer]

But this idea is that higher frame rates are getting in the way of "ambitious game design" is just false for the vast majority of games. But yeah, if a game dev comes out and says they are making a physics based game and due to CPU limitations 60 fps is not possible then I have no problem with that. But it needs to be something more than just lowering fidelity, imo, to take away that option. Lowering fidelity is merely adjusting settings and resolution to get higher frames. Stuff PC gamers do all the time. On consoles, performance mode is just a preset of those same exact settings.



You can too. Buy a PC and you can increase the fidelity to whatever level you want, frame rates be damned.



I agree with you that it shouldn't be dictated either way. Devs should choose, but since 3/4 of gamers choose higher performance, I think the market has already made it clear what they want.

All I'm saying is people should have the option to choose for most games.

Is it not the amazing 1 in 100 games we all want to play and not the vast majority?

It did seem in last generations at least the best games tended to be 30fps on console some even chugged below.

If we're past that's both cool and bit sad as it suggests we're past seeing any groundbreaking game design.

But yes I think it's reasonable to expect a performance mode in the majority of games

It's funny you think I'am a graphics whore lol. I'am really not I could easily afford a PS5 pro or gaming PC but I'am too tight fisted for Pro and too much of an idiot to make a Gaming PC!

 

[Vick]

Naw, the motion clarity of 60 fps is still way too blurry.

..on our LCD monitors.

 

[DoubleClutch]

Welcome to DoubleClutches TED talk everyone.

Not quite sure who you are talking to though.

Because there’s a lot of different discussions occurring within this thread. I can’t tell the difference between X and Y, etc.

Higher framerate is always better, it’s not even a debate. The higher the refresh rate the closer to real life, and the better the motion stability and clarity overall.

Let’s also not forget input lag. 30 fps is 33.33ms, whereas 60 fps is 16.67, 120 fps is 8.33ms, 240 fps is 4.12ms…

Going from 30 fps to 60 fps reduces input lag by 16.67 ms. That’s a lot.

 

[Topher]

It's funny you think I'am a graphics whore lol. I'am really not I could easily afford a PS5 pro or gaming PC but I'am too tight fisted for Pro and too much of an idiot to make a Gaming PC!

Oh great.....we got a cheap ass idiot telling us how we should play games.....

lol....kidding bro

 

[brenobnfm]

Naw, the motion clarity of 60 fps is still way too blurry.

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

At 240 fps it starts to become normal.

I have a 165hz monitor and at least to me anything past 60fps doesn't improve fluidity that much, not nearly to the same extent of 30 to 60, of course on PC you have unlimited power and can push beyond that, but on consoles i just find a waste of resources.

 

[XXL]

I have a 165hz monitor and at least to me anything past 60fps doesn't improve fluidity that much, not nearly to the same extent of 30 to 60, of course on PC you have unlimited power and can push beyond that, but on consoles i just find a waste of resources.

30-60fps is by far the biggest difference.

60-120fps is noticeable.

60fps should absolutely be standard going forward.

 

[brenobnfm]

30-60fps is by far the biggest difference.

60-120fps is noticeable.

60fps should absolutely be standard going forward.

Yes, 4k (1440p PSSRed) 60fps with possible some ray tracing implementation seems great for the rest of the generation on the PS5 Pro.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Give me 20fps

 

[rkofan87]

i dont feel sorry for people who game on 120fps above.

You are basically setting the standard too high , not worth it.

this 60fps is enough for me.

 

[onQ123]

After playing the latest and greatest 60fps should be a minimum 120 the standard and 240hz the best seriously if you say I’m crazy you have not played on a 240hz OLED screen it’s just glorious!!!! I cannot even imagine how smooth a 360hz monitor and higher would look in person.

And what percentage of Steam users have 120hz monitors?

They pulled out the Steam charts on me when I talked about 4K & I know 120hz user base has to be smaller than 4K lol

 

[Myuni]

Concerning motion clarity, I agree, 60Hz should be the bare minimum.
But I am also fine with a clean baseline 30FPS game with minimal game-internal input lag, like most Nintendo titles. Let the GPU interpolate to the maximum output of the display then: 120/240/480Hz, the higher, the better!

 

[vkbest]

It could be 100% of players.

What i said is still fact. Framerate requires everything else to be dumbed down. And games run at sub 720p in 2024.

Garbage

Even if the standard is 20fps we would get 720p games. Most developers optimize their games to the minimum possible to launch the game faster. It’s simply the most developers who began to develop their games 4 years ago didn't expect 60fps being a standard today.

 

[DryvBy]

60? 30 was a pipe dream. Those Voodoo 1 cards were the black magic that made it possible. Before that 15-20 fps was our "smooth" game play.

First paycheck I got was a Voodoo. Terrific card.

 

[Lootlord]

Ever since i got my first 144Hz display like 4-5 years ago (with a 2070S back then, now 4090) anything below ~90ish FPS feels just sluggish to me.

 

[RCX]

Yes.

Next up: prioritize frame pacing.

 

[hinch7]

Willing to accept 40fps for consoles and portables if it means for a smooth experience and better fidelity. Pretty much all TV's and monitors nowadays can handle 120hz so it shouldn't be an issue for the majority of gamers. 30fps shouldn't be a thing in 2024 going into 2025.

Otherwise going 60fps should be a priority in most action and especially sports titles and shooters as a minumum. 120fps+ to hz even beter. With frame generation technologies; double that up, or more to reach max refresh rates for an even smoother experience.

 

[Bernardougf]

After playing the latest and greatest 60fps should be a minimum 120 the standard and 240hz the best seriously if you say I’m crazy you have not played on a 240hz OLED screen it’s just glorious!!!! I cannot even imagine how smooth a 360hz monitor and higher would look in person.

Yeah this gen should've take the hit and make all games play smoothly at 60 fps.. and then upgrade the graphics from there in next gens...

 

[Preseznik]

Yeah. Lets sacrifice every single aspect of our game - Lets make everything objectively worse. Lets cut NPC counts in half. Lets lower shadow quality, lower texture quality, eliminate ray tracing completely. Sounds great! While we're at it, lets drop the fucking resolution down to 540p in 2024, who cares if it looks like smeared Vaseline all over the TV screen. 300fps baby!

Lol

Framerate Warriors man, you've completely ruined this generation with your absolute nonsense.

JUST BUY A PC

And you've been ruining it for the past two generations, from our perspective.
Don't worry, we have PCs as well We do feel for our console-only brethren who also can't stand 30 fps but perhaps can't afford a monster PC, or don't want one for other reasons.