Preseznik
Member
60 is fine for singleplayer games, especially third person. I thoroughly enjoy these types of games at 60.
First person, however, I've not settled for less than 120 since about 2020.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
60 fps is the minimum game should aim for.
- Thread starter OverHeat
- Start date
First person, however, I've not settled for less than 120 since about 2020.
darrylgorn
Member
60 fps should be the target that you develop the entire game around.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
chokotoureiki
Member
This is why graphical fidelity is more important than art direction. There are ppl in here who would refuse to buy a game if it doesn't run on a certain frame rate or if there are graphical glitches like stuttering or poor depth of field. Bc it DOES affect gameplay, whereas art direction is just glitz and glamor.
Kataploom
Gold Member
See, I'll even accept it in some games if the game have a quality frame generation with virtually not input lag is added (like in AFMF 2) if there's no alternative and the FG technology is good enough.
The reason is: Not always it's a matter of better input lag, my eyes can't stand the choppiness of 30 fps, I have to make a conscious effort in order to play some masterpieces like Zelda or Xenoblade on Switch, then it won't effect me too much but I'll still see the choppy frame rate and think it looks horrible.
Yeah, it LOOKS horrible to me, it's a matter of visual appeal, give me a decent resolution and lower the graphical complexity, if that means the game can run at 60 fps minimum with great art, I'll be happy.
Some of you may say that games have always ran at 30 fps before this gen, but that's only true for console games, even then mostly for non-Nintendo gamers, those like me playing on PC and Nintendo since forever are very used to motion fluidity, it's like what "games are supposed to look".
The reason is: Not always it's a matter of better input lag, my eyes can't stand the choppiness of 30 fps, I have to make a conscious effort in order to play some masterpieces like Zelda or Xenoblade on Switch, then it won't effect me too much but I'll still see the choppy frame rate and think it looks horrible.
Yeah, it LOOKS horrible to me, it's a matter of visual appeal, give me a decent resolution and lower the graphical complexity, if that means the game can run at 60 fps minimum with great art, I'll be happy.
Some of you may say that games have always ran at 30 fps before this gen, but that's only true for console games, even then mostly for non-Nintendo gamers, those like me playing on PC and Nintendo since forever are very used to motion fluidity, it's like what "games are supposed to look".
Same here. I had Tomb Raider before I got it. I had to turn the resolution down to play it and it was still choppy. Got the Voodoo and cranked it up to 640x480 (no PSX 320x240) and it was silky smooth.
Ya, Nintendo and there solid framerates in their popular Zelda series. You were pulling 15fps on the N64, and BotW on Wii U was 30 with dips in the 20s. Or Mario Sunshine on the Gamecube at 30?
Kataploom
Gold Member
Well, for me playing at 30 fps feels like it feels to play in 720p game in a 4K display with no antialiasing, that's from a visual appeal perspective, the difference is that no graphics improvement can make it feel justified, of it's choppy, it's choppy and very distracting, specially when moving the camera
Kataploom
Gold Member
Yeah I already mentioned Zelda, but those are exceptions, Zelda on Switch is very solid and camera isn't that much of a problem because of the slow pace, except for when you use certain skills, yet I can't stand how awful the running animation looks at low frame rates... Srsly it looks like 3 frames for the entire thing or something like that, cannot unsee it
Every single game running at 30 can only be better at 60, even if just as a matter of graphical appeal.
proandrad
Member
Yeah. Lets sacrifice playability of our game - Lets make everything run objectively worse. Lets double NPC counts. Lets add ray-traced shadow quality, over budget vram texture quality, add path-tracing. All while ignoring motion clarity, input lag, and physics, 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. Full ray-tracing baby!
Lol
Graphic Whores man, you've completely stagnated the progression of gameplay with your absolute nonsense.
JUST BUY A PC
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
The Last of Us Part 2
Gear of War
Bioshock
SSX
MIDNIGHT CLUB
GTA 5
Zelda TOTK
ELDEN Ring
Etc etc etc
All just unplayable huh? Most of the best games ever made were released at 30fps. Not a soul complained. The fucking golden age era of gaming when games were 30fps and everyone just shut up about it. Devs were spending extra time making the GAME better… instead of slaving away wasting time and resources on absolute garbage performance modes that add months to dev time.
Performance modes have taken away from POLISH time. It’s why we see so many garbage unfinished games at launch
this new age of frame rate warriors are ruining everything. We were playing games like this perfectly fine for decades. LOL
And a game running at 30fps has a better chance at pushing physics than one at 60fps.
Zelda Totk, 30fps, best physics arguably ever in a game. Why didnt they push for 60 huh
It’s no coincidence Nintendo is known for their polished games upon release. They don’t waste time with 2 modes. One mode. Their games are designed around 30fps from the very beginning. Leaves more time for polish near the end of development… instead of trying to figure out what to dumb down to make their game run “smoother”
Last edited:
proandrad
Member
Wrong, I complained. Fam you lost the war, gamers agree 30fps is trash. Get a PC if you want to push graphics.The Last of Us Part 2
Gear of War
Bioshock
SSX
MIDNIGHT CLUB
GTA 5
Zelda TOTK
ELDEN Ring
All just unplayable huh? Most of the best games ever made were released at 30fps. Not a soul complained.
It’s just this new age of frame rate warriors ruining everything. We were playing games like this perfectly fine for decades. LOL
And a game running at 30fps has a better chance at pushing physics than one at 60fps.
Zelda Totk, 30fps, best physics arguably ever in a game. Why didnt they push for 60 huh
Pegasus Actual
Member
60fps is the roughly 800x600 (or let's just say 480p for you p-people) of frame rates. Accept that fact and you will make better decisions in all facets of your life.
Ironman_Bad
Member
60fps should be default locked or unlocked then adjust all other graphics around it
XXL
Member
I've played almost all those games at 60fps or above (between PS5 and PC) and they were ALL better for it.
You forgot RDR2, which again is much better at a higher framerate.
Max Payne 3 is another great example, I played that at 120fps+ and holy shit it's sooooooo much better.
Last edited:
Kataploom
Gold Member
It's ok, I'd wait until original design is possible at my desirable frame rate, that can make you get into the argument of "but at 15 fps is even less compromised!".
Also, these days the bottleneck isn't even power but money and human resources.
PianistaMacabro
Member
Yeah you are crazy.....some games are better at low framerates, some genres demands high FPS. Its a funcional and aesthetics matter, not a universal law.
Kataploom
Gold Member
I wish the added input lag and artifacts didn't bother me so much so I could use it in Zelda and Xenoblade
hinch7
Member
Yeah a good sweet spot if a machine can't reach 60 fps. There really should be more 40fps modes on consoles if not become the defacto standard going forward.
DF comparisons at 2:55
Input lag and responsiveness would be a vast improvement with it being right in between 30 and 60fps in frame times.
Last edited:
Fortuneelsewhere
Member
I don’t buy games is they are only 30fps.. I have an OLED TV and 30fps is just unplayable in an OLED screen.. 40fps is the bare minimum and 60fps should be the norm.. I’ve played BMW in performance mode on a PS5 and despite all the artifacts, stutter and massive slowdowns some sections of the game have (specially some boss fights) I still enjoy it given the motion clarity that 60fps brings to the table.. so now I’m even a believer in frame generation.. devs should use it more even coming from a baseline of 30fps because the experience is so much better even if the input lag is not great..
Calico345
Gold Member
I just want locked 60fps. I’m in the camp of console gamers who is more than happy with how games look. Diminishing returns have been a thing for awhile on console. Ray Tracing isn’t necessary on consoles. Games look amazing as they are. All of this DSS and PSSR or whatever is white noise to me. None of it really matters to making games better. I’m not trashing the people who like the highly technical graphical fidelity stuff. I just think it’s a colossal waste of time on consoles.
Last edited:
Rayjin
Neo Member
yeah no, devs should be free to do what they want, you cant push graphics at 60fps, let alone on unreal engine with crappy overhead wich everyone seems to switch to, some fast paced games require 60fps that make sense and 120 if you have the hardware on PC ( i play on PC before you schyzo even ask ), but 30 is fine IF the graphics/gameplay/physics are pushed
i want those console to burn and start their jet engine, i want next gen physics and gameplay, but none of that is possible at 60fps, if you're fine playing PS4 looking games from 2013 at 60fps thats you're thing, but not for everyone, and dont try to impose that
i want those console to burn and start their jet engine, i want next gen physics and gameplay, but none of that is possible at 60fps, if you're fine playing PS4 looking games from 2013 at 60fps thats you're thing, but not for everyone, and dont try to impose that
Last edited:
Pedro Motta
Member
Fess
Member
I don’t need high framerates for responsiveness, I just want it to keep things in motion looking detailed and not like a blurry N64 game. Plus 30fps stutter make me nauseous.
But the talk about 120,240,360 fps is completely unrealistic even on a monster PC. Unless you plan to only play AA and indies you need to at least accept 60-80fps occasionally.
But the talk about 120,240,360 fps is completely unrealistic even on a monster PC. Unless you plan to only play AA and indies you need to at least accept 60-80fps occasionally.
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
LazyParrot
Member
The average gamer whose interaction with the hobby is limited to actually playing games (as opposed to, you know, spending most of their time arguing about them online) doesn't care if a game is 30 fps and will take prettier visuals over higher frame rates (assuming they even know what that is) every time, so it's not going to happen.
Trilobit
Member
Animal Crossing being only 30fps really messed with my mind. I think that was the first time in my life that I really hated anything being under 60fps.
The artful mincer
Member
This is another reason why I'm okay with games being 30 on baseline consoles.
With more power and time those games will eventually be 60fps. Stuff like level design can't be changed with more power and if devs have to compromise that to hit 60fps it's unfortunate and personally it's a trade off I'm happy with.
An extreme example of this Blightown very ambitious level design that chugged on PS3/ 360 is now playable at any framerate you desire. ( I don't want games to have framerates like Blightowns just making a point!)
15fps is definitely unacceptable. Rock solid 30 is my minimum threshold.
Kabelly
Member
BOTW is not 30fps because of it's "amazing and crazy physics". BOTW is 30fps because the Switch is a weak system and beside BOTW is at it's heart a Wii U gam and that version runs even worse. Switch version is a port.
Splatoon has better lighting and physics and it's in 60fps. Obviously the levels are smaller but BOTW is a low texture ugly open world. Art design is amazing, but the actual overworld is a low texture mess.
edit: more ontopic. i can always accept and tolerate 30fps because I do still play older games and also Animal Crossing New Horizons which has one of the worst framerates for a game I actively play. Dip to probably 15 sometimes.
I will never agree with people that 30fps with all the bells and whistles looks better than "lower" settings to reach 60fps. All those beautiful high res textures you're getting hardly can be seen the moment you move the camera. 60fps you're at least able to see way more detail in moment to moment gameplay. People will post a frozen screenshot of their game running at 30fps to prove something.
Red Dead Redemption 2 at 4k 80-100fps is probably one of the top most peak is gaming media to experience.
Though if you're on console you get what you're given. So people only accept 30fps because you have no other choice. On pc you get what you pay for. i paid for 4k minimum 60fps on my games and I have not been let down in having my gaming experience transformed.
Splatoon has better lighting and physics and it's in 60fps. Obviously the levels are smaller but BOTW is a low texture ugly open world. Art design is amazing, but the actual overworld is a low texture mess.
edit: more ontopic. i can always accept and tolerate 30fps because I do still play older games and also Animal Crossing New Horizons which has one of the worst framerates for a game I actively play. Dip to probably 15 sometimes.
I will never agree with people that 30fps with all the bells and whistles looks better than "lower" settings to reach 60fps. All those beautiful high res textures you're getting hardly can be seen the moment you move the camera. 60fps you're at least able to see way more detail in moment to moment gameplay. People will post a frozen screenshot of their game running at 30fps to prove something.
Red Dead Redemption 2 at 4k 80-100fps is probably one of the top most peak is gaming media to experience.
Though if you're on console you get what you're given. So people only accept 30fps because you have no other choice. On pc you get what you pay for. i paid for 4k minimum 60fps on my games and I have not been let down in having my gaming experience transformed.
Last edited:
Complistic
Member
I won't play a 30fps game, so 60 is already my minimum?
Hrk69
Member
I don't disagree with you actually. 60 fps is superior in every way
But I'm fine with 30 fps, that's all.
But calling 30 fps unplayable is 100% hyperbole and nobody can change my mind
Rivdoric
Member
My humble opinion as a solo experience player with a 4090 + 120Hz 4K oled screen :
- 100 FPS stable is the best experience possible. Higher is pure bonus.
- 80 FPS is the limit for a smooth experience
- 60 FPS is the minimum required for a game to not feel choppy
- 30 FPS to experience "the creator intent"
- 100 FPS stable is the best experience possible. Higher is pure bonus.
- 80 FPS is the limit for a smooth experience
- 60 FPS is the minimum required for a game to not feel choppy
- 30 FPS to experience "the creator intent"
Last edited:
TheStam
Member
I don't like playing games on PC below 90 fps. After 120 fps I have a hard time noticing any difference. I can overclock my monitor to go from 144 hz to 165 hz but I don't notice anything different. Going to 240hz is more of a jump and is probably more noticeable.
But to say that anything above 60 fps is a waste is silly and reminds me of the old saying how the human eye can't see above 30 fps. I do run the heaviest of games at 60-90 on PC, but I really wish I could have 90+ in everything. I feel like 90 is the minimum to make a game really feel good and responsive. In some fast moving games like Forza Horizon and especially Rocket League 60 fps feels terrible in comparison.
But to say that anything above 60 fps is a waste is silly and reminds me of the old saying how the human eye can't see above 30 fps. I do run the heaviest of games at 60-90 on PC, but I really wish I could have 90+ in everything. I feel like 90 is the minimum to make a game really feel good and responsive. In some fast moving games like Forza Horizon and especially Rocket League 60 fps feels terrible in comparison.
Last edited:
King Dazzar
Member
I find high 40's to 50fps is when things start to be come smooth for me (40fps doesn't cut it). But of course that requires VRR. So 60fps locked minimum sounds great to me. I've enjoyed 120fps too, but getting out of the 40 and below area is what is most needed for my enjoyment.
proandrad
Member
30fps to push graphics only makes the marketing teams and a small portion of gamers happy at the result of pisses everyone else off. If 60fps becomes the minimum standard this generation, in a couple of years when new hardware comes out, you get the leap in graphic at 60fps and everyone is happy. Wanting to tank framerates at this point of the generation for graphics is just selfish.
Last edited:
West Texas CEO
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
I want a minimum of 240 fps
RickMasters
Member
You’d be surprised how easy it is to get a build up to this cost.
My X299 build costed me about that much back on 2019. Same year I built a Z390/ core i9 build to the tune of around 7k.
That’s how I’ll never understand how people are building 700 dollar PCs and being happy with the performance. The PSU, keyboard, mouse, and just one of my cheaper LED screens cost more than that. My ASUSpro art screen costed me 1400. My UAD audio interfaces costed me between 2400-3000 and I have three of those hooked up to the X299 build…. My Z390 build uses an avid carbon and HDX interfaces that would but me Atleast five 4090s.
PC building can get expensive… depending on what you use them for and how well you want it to do those things ( can do a lot more than gaming on PCs…. I certainly do) but for me it’s always a satisfying end result. For me a cheap build would be 2 grand but I would still feel like I cut corners somewhere.
RickMasters
Member
I always thought that low powered consoles Atleast showed devs how to optimise for low powered PC hardware builds. But then again there are so many variations of even low end PC hardware I’d imagine it must be a nightmare for devs to optimise for every Low end GPU. In the case of low end consoles it’s just switch and series S.
I’m no dev so I can be wrong.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
i hear you. my build cost me $2k three years ago and ive had to cut corners and have resorted to playing at 30 fps to enjoy all the new fancy ray tracing features.
in some games, i have to turn off ray tracing altogether because my cpu cant handle it despite being a 16 thread 5.0 ghz cpu that cost me $350 just 3 years ago.
Kataploom
Gold Member
It's been theorized that it's using FG to achieve 60 on consoles for to higher input lag, so why not?
