I don't think anyone wants a lesser experience. I think it's more that it's not a big enough of a deal for them that it's a deal breaker or literally unplayable like it is for some
So I’ve finally ‘discovered’ what 60fps feels like. I can’t go back.
- Thread starter Meus Renaissance
- Start date
Yeah, this happened to me a year and a half ago when I got my first gaming PC in like 15 years.
Once I started playing everything at 100+ FPS on PC, going back to 30 on consoles felt rough. I can still enjoy a game fine at that framerate, but it's pretty noticeable now compared to 60+.
Will be interesting to see how long consoles can hold onto 60 FPS this gen. I wonder if a lot of AAA games will go back down to 30 once they start pushing the hardware.
Once I started playing everything at 100+ FPS on PC, going back to 30 on consoles felt rough. I can still enjoy a game fine at that framerate, but it's pretty noticeable now compared to 60+.
Will be interesting to see how long consoles can hold onto 60 FPS this gen. I wonder if a lot of AAA games will go back down to 30 once they start pushing the hardware.
I can notice the difference when seeing things compared side by side. But when playing a game My eyes just adjust after a bit. Like recently I've been playing through Mario Odyssey ( 60fps) and also playing Doom 2016 on the switch ( 30fps). And I didn't really feel any noticeable difference between the two after like 2 minutes.
Okay I have a Series X. Is there a game on there that does 30fps in one mode and 60fps in another that should make the difference clear as day so I can stop being "blind".
this single stat alone drives to purchase PC versions of games if the console doesnt offer a mode. Sony said as much about why they made the PS4 Pro ( not neccessarily framerates but to fight people going to PC) . I think its why mid-gen cycles will be here to stay. 6-7years is too long for any tech to last at near top tier image + 60fps.
Because your experience is not universal?
I will always prefer a 60 fps game but if a game needs to be 30 fps to provide the best graphical experience for the biggest audience possible then that's ok too.
Maybe some people think the graphical hit needed for better performance IS the lesser experience (not my case though lol)
Like my favorite game ever is a 30 fps PS1 game from 20 years ago, so it's not like it's a new phenomenon.
I've felt the difference many times before, even with Miles, but I still decide to go for Fidelity as it looks amazing and after playing as much as I have it really doesn't matter.
Every game I've played on my PS5 so far has been 60FPS and it's been wonderful. It should be the standard moving forward. The difference in visual fidelity between graphics and performance mode is minimal, the difference in performance between them is significant.
This is frustrating. This is the case but that's not really saying something. We can adapt to anything if we continue doing it. I'd bet you adapt to it after awhile if the framerate was 20 also. But it still would feel way better and you would be a better player the higher the frame rate went.
There is a point of diminishing returns where higher frame rate does truly start to get less noticeable and 30 is probably the minimum threshold where things don't feel awful but I hate the idea of people just saying yeah I got use to 30 as if its just the same thing. I've played plenty of low frame games my entire life and they ALL feel better at a higher frame rate unless its literally an fmv kind of situation where mimicking a movie has some immersion level like a film. Even then playing the game would still feel better at higher frame outside of a cutscene.
If its some kind of choice thing where you get better graphics in the 30 versus 60 situation that's one thing. I still would pick 60 but I understand why somebody else might pick 30. But if its a straight upgrade path where all things are equal going back and playing all your old 30 fps games at 60 would feel better. It just would. It's not a knock to say you enjoyed them at 30 and they are crap or something. But in any video game where control is important your control at 60 is gonna be better than your control at 30.
Forza Horizon 4 felt great for me on an original xbox. It's an amazing game at 30 fps. Its an even better game at 60 fps, 90 fps, 120 fps etc.
Now I think its perfectly logical to make the decision that playing it at 30 on an og xbox at the cost expenditure I made was perfectly worthwhile and for me it was. But it also would feel better at higher frame rate on the series x or a pc. It doesn't mean I have to make spending that amount of money a priority but its the truth.
Last edited:
I mean if you play a few matches of cod then hop into destiny, you should be able to tell the difference instantly.
What a strange OP. I definitely get used to either one and don't tend to care either way (unless they experience is juddery and broken) but to say console gamers don't know the difference here is way off. The vast majority of console games were 60fps until the early 3D era came along in the 90s. And many, many games have hit this standard in the years since. .... But I guess tons of people still keep the weird soap opera mode turned on when watching movies or TV too, so...
Yet it's not. Also, the majority of the games often considered as the best games of all time were capped at 30 fps at their release. I'm pretty sure ND's end of gen PS5 game is going to be 30 fps and push the PS5 near its limit and it will be glorious. Yes 60 fps feels better or a smoother experience than 30 fps, but I rather see what developers do when they prioritize the fullest graphical capabilities, number of complex ai, destruction, physics, etc without having compromises to achieve a 60 fps target (on console that it is). If you want a constant 60 fps option across the board, then PC is the place for you.
Absolutely not.
Yeah I've only switched to PC five years ago but it's so weird seeing people say they couldn't tell the difference before. It's like they don't realize how crucial it was for games like the Devil May Cry series, and it's frustrating. Or how awful Metroid Prime would have felt at 30fps. Games like Zone of the Enders, people were blown away by how good it felt to play. It is not new and games who ran at 60fps on consoles have always stood out.
Are people really confusing the 12 fps animation style of the MIles Spiderman as 30fps here or am I crazy?
This isn't really an accurate depiction though because it's very rare that things are usually played at even intervals like that. Timing, blurring, and smearing make a difference and are usually used in these situations especially for 2D. FPS is taken into account and is planned for when animating. This is probably a better representation:
Sure there is a noticable difference but it's not anywhere near as stark as what you posted. The quality of the animation matters. It's why people think Akira is animated at 24 fps when it's not, the majority is 12 fps like almost all cartoons it's just animated well so you don't notice.
It's because of this it makes it hard for me to get over people parroting 60fps as gospel as little more than bathing in the propaganda. It matters more that it is running consistently and the input rate is high and accurate. But of course companies want you to want 60 fps, it's a way to trick you into buying something. But people don't even know what they are looking at most of the time. I don't hate 60fps but people are getting kind of ridiculous, especially when you consider 60fps has always existed and been an option and with regards to film it was often cheaper. That's why soap operas were filmed at 60 fps. Even shit like the NES or SNES usually ran at 60fps.
This isn't really an accurate depiction though because it's very rare that things are usually played at even intervals like that. Timing, blurring, and smearing make a difference and are usually used in these situations especially for 2D. FPS is taken into account and is planned for when animating. This is probably a better representation:
Sure there is a noticable difference but it's not anywhere near as stark as what you posted. The quality of the animation matters. It's why people think Akira is animated at 24 fps when it's not, the majority is 12 fps like almost all cartoons it's just animated well so you don't notice.
It's because of this it makes it hard for me to get over people parroting 60fps as gospel as little more than bathing in the propaganda. It matters more that it is running consistently and the input rate is high and accurate. But of course companies want you to want 60 fps, it's a way to trick you into buying something. But people don't even know what they are looking at most of the time. I don't hate 60fps but people are getting kind of ridiculous, especially when you consider 60fps has always existed and been an option and with regards to film it was often cheaper. That's why soap operas were filmed at 60 fps. Even shit like the NES or SNES usually ran at 60fps.
Yeah, you have to be deep in a Sony exclusive hole or something to have that mindset. 60 FPS games have always been plentiful on consoles, including obvious examples like many of the CoD games.
It's just one of those fraught topics that people get very weird about because some of the biggest games go for 30 FPS for better graphics, and they can't admit that it's a tradeoff. Lo and behold, OP gets the opportunity to switch to 60 FPS in a big exclusive and it's now the crown jewel of the gaming experience.
It feels a bit jarring now playing so many 60fps games to go back to a 30fps game but after about 2 or 3 minutes I get used to it and dont think about it.
...He's absolutely right. Not all panels are created equal. Go read a TV or PC monitor review.
You can go buy a TV right now that will put 120hz in the specs and not actually display anything like that, in a legitimate way.
I guess people have already forgotten 4th and older gens already.
Or Nintendo games post-N64, including a lot of stuff on the Switch. A lot of Japanese games, actually. Especially fighting games, stuff with arcade roots. Call of Duty in the west, Metroid Prime before that (on the Gamecube!). The "secret sauce" of why these games feel so nice isn't really secret at all, they run at high framerates.
Meh never felt that much of a difference in most games tbh, I can easily play a 30 game and go immediately to a 60 one and vice versa without trouble or noticing anything different,that's why when I get a PS5 I'll be choosing framerate on a game by game basis
Yeah looking at your gifs there I notice a slight difference but the 30 and 60 look pretty damn close to me.Are people really confusing the 12 fps animation style of the MIles Spiderman as 30fps here or am I crazy?
This isn't really an accurate depiction though because it's very rare that things are usually played at even intervals like that. Timing, blurring, and smearing make a difference and are usually used in these situations especially for 2D. FPS is taken into account and is planned for when animating. This is probably a better representation:
Sure there is a noticable difference but it's not anywhere near as stark as what you posted. The quality of the animation matters. It's why people think Akira is animated at 24 fps when it's not, the majority is 12 fps like almost all cartoons it's just animated well so you don't notice.
It's because of this it makes it hard for me to get over people parroting 60fps as gospel as little more than bathing in the propaganda. It matters more that it is running consistently and the input rate is high and accurate. But of course companies want you to want 60 fps, it's a way to trick you into buying something. But people don't even know what they are looking at most of the time. I don't hate 60fps but people are getting kind of ridiculous, especially when you consider 60fps has always existed and been an option and with regards to film it was often cheaper. That's why soap operas were filmed at 60 fps. Even shit like the NES or SNES usually ran at 60fps.
What? SNES and Sega Genesis mostly ran at 60 fps, so did the NES. SuperFX games ran like shit though, Starfox only ran at 20 and stuntrace FX was around 10. They had more limited animation frames in order to reach 60fps though if that's what you mean??
Which is part of my point, it kind of sucks that you have to sacrifice something in order to reach 60 fps. I can't find the source anymore but in a recent interview that Sony guy even basically admitted that if you want your games to be 60fps while also having detailed graphics then you should get used to enjoying walking down empty hallways and elevators. Because now they have to sacrifice gameplay to meet that demand.
Last edited:
As a PC gamer who typically plays games at 144Hz, I can definitely appreciate the difference. But I think if you only ever know 30fps and have spent most of your life playing games at a 30Hz refresh rate, it's not going to be a detriment to your game play. When I play competitive games, I love having that smoothness and low response time, but gaming on a couch playing story-driven or other single player games is simply a different experience that doesn't demand the greatest refresh rates.
We can get into a nuanced discussion about framepacing as well. Games like Horizon: Zero Dawn or God of War look and to an extent feel so much nicer than a poorly framepaced experience like Bloodborne. I think Bloodborne is the best game of these three by far overall, mind you. There's a reason people wanted a Pro version of Bloodborne so badly, so you could at least brute force higher framerates to mitigate the choppiness of the bad framepacing.
This distinction might be part of why a lot of people who mostly play stuff like those 30 FPS graphical showpieces don't always see what the big deal is about framerate. They're playing 30 fps games that are designed to feel nice at that framerate, a lot of effort goes into making them that way.
Forcing Bloodborne to run at 120+ FPS on PS5, even for a 60hz display, would make it feel much more responsive and less inconsistent. While if you play Horizon on PC, it looks and feels a bit better but it's not a massive gamechanger, because the "feel" at a consistent 30 fps on PS4 was already nice. It's an objective improvement, but not a revolutionary change like it would be for Bloodborne.
This distinction might be part of why a lot of people who mostly play stuff like those 30 FPS graphical showpieces don't always see what the big deal is about framerate. They're playing 30 fps games that are designed to feel nice at that framerate, a lot of effort goes into making them that way.
Forcing Bloodborne to run at 120+ FPS on PS5, even for a 60hz display, would make it feel much more responsive and less inconsistent. While if you play Horizon on PC, it looks and feels a bit better but it's not a massive gamechanger, because the "feel" at a consistent 30 fps on PS4 was already nice. It's an objective improvement, but not a revolutionary change like it would be for Bloodborne.
I'm saying that 60FPS was the norm back then. The transition to 3D and the 3D games they tried to have on 4th gen consoles via additional chips on carts (such as the SuperFX chip you mentioned) changed that though.
Agree with what you said for most part, but I'd say it's not just about competitive edge. 60fps simply feels better and more fluid and thus makes the gameplay better. Whether its swinging with spider-man or platforming with Lara.
I feel as though I first felt it with Spiderman Remastered on PS5. It is huge. Anything before this moment, I never noticed or was just close to 30 fps
. The ps5 games are amazing
. The ps5 games are amazing
I see this becoming a trend this generation. I have a feeling that console gamers have put up with such subpar performance the previous generation, that when they actually experience 60+fps in a significant amount of games, they will actually begin to distinguish the difference and find it harder and harder to go back. Imo games running slower than 60 fps don't look good regardless of the resolution or graphic fidelity. To me that fluid motion is the single most important thing.
I find it so bizarre that this even has to be pointed out in 2020. You can read ancient interviews about this stuff from people at Sega or Nintendo or whatever, talking about making tough decisions to keep framerates high for gamefeel purposes.
Even games like Fire Emblem, making conscious decisions on where to have 60 FPS (panning the battlefield) and when to sacrifice that for fancier graphics (battle animations). A turn-based game, and they're thinking about how 60 FPS can help the game feel better for players!
Yeah I totally agree that it feels much better. All I meant is that people who have never known any better probably don't care and it wouldn't truly affect their enjoyment of a game (unless they experienced 60 and went back to 30).
I have a sneaking suspicion that if next gen normalizes 60 fps, at least as an option, then you'll see a lot less people violently arguing 30 vs 60 fps online. This debate always felt strange to me, like there was something else going on. I think a lot of it boils down to people getting defensive over their console purchases when encountering PC gamers online.
Unless you're one of the extremely few people who get motion sickness from high framerates (I've come to doubt most people online who claim this, because higher framerates normally help with motion sickness) then there's no reason to champion 30 fps unless there's a significant visual downside like the potential loss of Mr. Ray Tracing.
Unless you're one of the extremely few people who get motion sickness from high framerates (I've come to doubt most people online who claim this, because higher framerates normally help with motion sickness) then there's no reason to champion 30 fps unless there's a significant visual downside like the potential loss of Mr. Ray Tracing.
This is just not true. Switching to 30 fps Demon's Souls on PS5 is incredibly painful and immediately obvious.
The thing is I get that if the argument is some PC player coming into a discussion about a console game and randomly just tossing off I can't play that because its 30 frame explain-a-brags for no good reason when its not part of the discussion.
But I don't get when the discussion is solely based around a console experience. Higher frame rate is just better. But on a console there will always be trade-offs with that based on graphic fidelity. So I get the nuance of the discussion. But I agree with what someone posted above. There is some extra weird thing going on where people feel the need to retro-actively go back and defend 30 fps games from the last few gens when that's not really the discussion. Nobody is saying those games sucked or something. People are just saying that 60 fps has opened their eyes to how important that benchmark is when it comes to control and fluidity going forward.
I'm not talking about people who normally care. I'm talking about the average person. The average person, and average gamer doesn't notice enough of a difference to care. Where as people like you can't stand that difference.
Like i said I'll download a game and flip back and forth but I've never felt pain playing a 30 fps game. I've also never played a 60 fps game and gone "man this is just light years better".
To reiterate.
Those are just as glaring as eachother?
Maybe with a trained eye. But if you show that to the average person?
My theory of why its so jarring with miles is that this might be one of the first major open world games that offer 60fps on console with a toggle to 30. Traversing open world games is a HUGE difference from 30 to 60.
The other factor is for the most part last gen on the pro consoles, the 'performance' mode wasn't a locked 60, but mostly 40ish to w/e, which feels better than 30, but a lock 60 generally feels better.
I pray that games this gen do keep offering a locked 60fps mode. It truly makes playing a game more enjoyable regardless of genre (even navigating menus feels nicer in 60!).
The other factor is for the most part last gen on the pro consoles, the 'performance' mode wasn't a locked 60, but mostly 40ish to w/e, which feels better than 30, but a lock 60 generally feels better.
I pray that games this gen do keep offering a locked 60fps mode. It truly makes playing a game more enjoyable regardless of genre (even navigating menus feels nicer in 60!).
The bottom animation is a terrible example because there's hardly any visual information at all to go on or to discern a difference from. That much is obvious to me and I can hardly believe the thought hasn't occured to you. Almost anyone could tell the difference if you show then a video-game with a full screen's worth of information. A moving background and a traversing character is often more than enough to give it away. And not just enthusiasts, but indeed, the average player who's been talking up Call of Duty for its percieved smoothness for 15 years, could tell the difference.
Unfortunately, as the consoles age and new graphics tech arrives and devs want robust visual boundaries, the consoles will revert to 30fps.
It's always going to be the way with consoles.
Except your point is not true at all. For people who give a shit and the trained eye it's maybe a glaring difference.
People have literally shown me videos of side beside with "here is a clear as day difference" where it's not clear as day at all.
There is more visual information in the second gif than the first, so why is the first more glaring than the second? Your point is false.