-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does some people still believe that 60 is not mandatory for next gen consoles?
- Thread starter Cloud-Strife
- Start date
30fps will continue to be the standard next gen. Anyone thinking otherwise is setting themselves up for disappointment.
Yes, I'd prefer this is left up to the developer personally.
If they feel their game is best played at 30fps with higher resolution and lots of bells and whistles than I'm okay with that.
If they feel their game is best played at 30fps with higher resolution and lots of bells and whistles than I'm okay with that.
I'll never understand the obsession for 60fps. Sure, it makes the experience better but 30fps is perfectly fine to play. IMO, only a nitpicky minority really seems to bother that much with FPS.
With Raytracing and 4k already seemingly the focus of the next gen "wow" factor, we probably won't be seeing consistent 60 fps games outside of the pc space for a while unless devs are willing to stick to 1080p.
I've played games at 120fps and can go back to 30fps on consoles instantly without issues. I never saw a "slideshow".
I wish it was mandatory, but I don't think it should be. Let developers do whatever they want so long as it passes cert.
I play PC stuff at 60 fps cuz my rig can handle it, but I literally have zero problem hopping onto my console and playing games that run at 30.
Hell, I've played plenty of games with legit framerate issues and it has never bothered me enough to put me completely off something.
I fucking played AND enjoyed Drakengard 3 for fucks sake.
Hell, I've played plenty of games with legit framerate issues and it has never bothered me enough to put me completely off something.
I fucking played AND enjoyed Drakengard 3 for fucks sake.
I remember seeing Melee before 2001 and being blown away by how it looked. Then when I played it, I couldn't figure out why it looked even better than I originally saw in trailers and marketing.
Years later other games had this same effect, then I finally realized it -------- it was the 60FPS. So you see, you can have both -- great graphics and 60FPS, which in my situation made the game look even better when I actually played it.
I think this anecdotal experience is something people lose when saying things like "the masses don't care about framerate.. they only care about how pretty it looks." But this argument completely misses the point that graphics these days are already really. freaking. good. and also not considering the impact framerate has when the masses actually get their hands on the game.
Years later other games had this same effect, then I finally realized it -------- it was the 60FPS. So you see, you can have both -- great graphics and 60FPS, which in my situation made the game look even better when I actually played it.
I think this anecdotal experience is something people lose when saying things like "the masses don't care about framerate.. they only care about how pretty it looks." But this argument completely misses the point that graphics these days are already really. freaking. good. and also not considering the impact framerate has when the masses actually get their hands on the game.
People say this before every gen and they just set themselves up for disappointment.
"The Xbox 360 and PS3 have loads more horsepower than the Xbox and PS2, they'll definitely deliver 1080p60!"...nope, most of the time we were lucky to get 720p30.
"PS4 and Xbox One are way more powerful than Xbox 360 and PS3, they'll definitely deliver 1080p-4K@60!"...nope, most games shot for 900p-1080p@30 before the Pro/X1X came along, and even then it was usually a tradeoff between 1080p@60 or 1440p-4K@30.
And here we go again. "PS5 and Xbox [______] are way more powerful than, PS4 and Xbox One, they'll definitely deliever 4K60!"...nope, they largely won't. Some will shoot for 4K, some will shoot for 60; few will deliver both.
30fps is here to stay. And, honestly, for most games/genres...that's fine. (As long as it's a solid 30, anyway.)
Developers will continue to push the envelope regardless of how powerful the hardware in front of them is. This isn't a bad thing.
This is hilariously insulting to actual accessibility issues.
You're response is hilariously insulting. Please explain how accessibility for people with debilitating migraines or epilepsy isn't important. I'll be waiting for anything resembling a well thought out, logical explanation.
This.
60 fps doesn't sell games to the masses as much as pretty graphics do. Couple that with the fact that a lot of casual gamers can't identify or don't care enough to identify the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps and it pretty much guarantees we will always see some 30 fps games on consoles. I believe we will see more 60fps games next gen but it will never be the standard.
30fps is really fine, especially for slow-paced games like RPGs. I prefer 60fps for multiplayer games and shooters. But saying there is no difference between 30 and 60 fps is absurd, it's really night and day.
How do you manage to watch movies at 24 fps?
How do you manage to watch movies at 24 fps?
I use motion interpolation on action movies to prevent migraines/nausea. But luckily most movie cinematographers know better than to employ fast panning shots, and if they do there's a more or less stationary point of reference on screen. Games have them constantly, with no stable point of reference, there's really no comparison between film and games in this regard.
I mean, PS4 and X1x are literally computers. If a company can make a game on PC with 100 options i don't see why they can't while optimizing a game in developing figure out a way to implement a performance mode. Even the Nioh devs could do that on a not COD budget.
In all my time working with general practitioners and in the emergency deparment have I ever seen someone present with "I got a migraine/seizure because the framerate was too low".
You should pay more attention to patients when they describe their activities leading up to the events, then. Your lack of observation only says something about you, not the patient.
I have nothing else to say. Very few console games will actually target 60FPS. Fewer still will maintain that target consistently. If you want 60FPS on consoles, then I hope all you play is Fortnite, Call of Duty, and fighting games not made by CyberConnect2. There's obviously more than that, but those are the standouts based on my own experiences with playing console games. It's part of why I invested a bunch more money into my rig this year, to keep it up to date for the next console gen, and to maximize performance in the current gen.
After 6 pages, I felt this needs to be a ResetEra tradition. :^)
There was a brief time before ray tracing hit where it seemed like next gen have enough spare power that you could get to >50% of titles running at 60, because there wasn't a whole lot else to do, but ray tracing killed that. You're going to get games running at 4K with ray traced lighting and you'll get whatever frame rate they can get that running at.
You are putting words in my mouth as I never claimed as such. What I meant by being insulting is pressing 60fps as an accessibility standard. Epilepsy related frame time issues can range from 3 to 60 fps, and a majority of recommended solutions has to do more with avoiding strobes, high contrast and using filters.
We already have a high friction from developers(games and otherwise) to adopt current standards. It is also highly possible to see devs claiming their game is 60fps and therefore meeting epilepsy accessibility standards but still causing problems due to the aforementioned factors.
No, they actually just have real causes for their symptoms.
I put no words in your mouth, I repeated your words back to you and explained why you were being insulting.
Yes, like flashing images at a frequency that their brains don't read a fluid motion and it triggers their migraines. (Fun fact: I'm one of the patients you obviously don't pay attention to.)
I apologize, it was a caustic response. Just gets me when people think that cranking it up to 60 will solve problems. Usually not that simple.
Works for me and my migraines. Bad frame-paced 60fps can still be iffy, depending on how stuttery it is, but perfectly framepaced 30 is always a one way ticket to a dark room with an ice pack on my eyes and nausea for at least the next 6 to 8 hours.
Of course, how close I am to the screen, how tired or exhausted I am, and even if I've eaten recently can also play a role in my tolerances.
I'm also one of the weirdos who has motion interpolation on as a precaution. Only on low or medium, just enough to smooth things out at around 60hz without introducing additional judder or artifacts like the high setting (120hz) does. It's always a better experience when the game is 60 and I can turn it off and not have crazy input lag.
Last edited:
Most movies are not shot in first person view with tunnel fov. The ones that have FPV scenes with shaky cam make me throw up in 5 min.
Strongly disagree. Playing a game at 60fps is a completely different experience than playing it at 30fps.
An experience I've never noticed.
Chalk me up as someone who doesn't care. I'm just happy if the game runs and is fun.
I did said it was a different experience. But it doesn't bother me at all playing in 30fps, anywhere the unplayable garbage as some try to paint here, actually. It'll only bother me if the fps is so low that cause severe slowdowns and compromise gameplay. Of course, I'll always prefer 60fps, no doubt about, but, if it's 30fps, I'm fine with and won't pass on playing because of that.
This. Watching movies might be excruciating for those people who hate 30fps so much, lol.
I honestly don't get statements like these because the difference is quite obvious. I mean I get it if 30fps doesn't bother people, but I don't see how they can say they've never noticed a difference between 60fps and 30fps. 60 and 120 or 120 and 144 is more understandable, but 30 and 60 are vastly different.
Oh I certainly don't think 30 is unplayable. It's just not something I'd have any interest in going back to after experiencing higher framerates. It just doesn't feel good after you've gotten a taste of 60/120/144.
only noticeable if you play 2 games of the same genre one after another. First time I really noticed the difference, to the point that I felt like gameplay lost quality due to the difference, was playing Driveclub after playing GT Sport. That looked awful, some sort of slow mo but in real time lol. I finished and loved every second of Drivelcub a year earlier though. Making it 60fps would mean worst graphics and effects so no, I am fine with it being 30.