-
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.
Is 60Fps better than 30 in every occasion?
- Thread starter Mcjmetroid
- Start date
Settle it? Good luck with that. We'll keep getting responses that didn't fully read the OP 'till this falls off the first pages or gets locked.
Hey now, there's more to the OP than that last line. More than one question was asked.
Yes it is. I believe that the majority of players prefer higher framerates as well, otherwise we would have major backlash at remakes and remasters being 60 fps instead of their original framerate.
Of course, you might prefer to have a game with prettier graphics and resolution at 30 FPS instead of 60, that's totally fine. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't prefer the same graphical features at 60 FPS.
Of course, you might prefer to have a game with prettier graphics and resolution at 30 FPS instead of 60, that's totally fine. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't prefer the same graphical features at 60 FPS.
Oh gosh, you seem to be the one who is confused.
I am fully aware that some things in a pixel based game may have less frames of animation than a sprite...but they typically do not have MORE.
reaction time is limited by...and I know this sounds crazy, the animation of the sprite you are controlling.
Lets say your sprite has 4 frames of animation for shooting a projectile....no matter how many FPS your game is outputting at, his reaction time will always be those 4 frames ( or 4 unique frames and 4 copied frames at double the fps), and those 4 frames will always take the same amount of time. So when said sprite uses 24 frames of animation per second, to get him to suddenly shoot something will take 4 frames, or 4/24th of a second. The speed that this occurs will never change. And because the reaction time at both 30 and 60fps exist below 1/24th of a second, you will not have a faster reaction time playing at 60fps, or even 144fps than you do outputting at 30fps.
I have no idea how many different ways I can say the same thing.
Playing at a higher FPS wont magically make your character go through its animations faster. The speed of animation is set by the developer, not by your fps count.
Why is this beyond some people?
At this point it's pretty obvious you are either trolling or incredibly misinformed, but you just keep coming back with more ridiculousness.
Yes, obviously it's every single other person in this thread besides you who is missing the point.
I mean, If it was between getting God of War and Horizon at 30fps, or not exist at all... I'd rather get the 30fps games
You're wrong.
- physics/interaction rate
- Animation rate
- render rate
Are three different things.
When a (story-driven, non action-based) game constantly switches between cinematics and gameplay, I like the gameplay framerate to match the cinematics one. It greatly helps me get immersed. And most of the time 30 fps it is.
Maybe. I get the idea that a higher framerate is better for almost every game out there.
But if a developer intentionally wanted to make a retro-inspired early 3D title by capping the framerate, wouldn't that be considered a better experience than leaving it at 60fps or higher.
Saying 60fps is always better than 30fps is like saying a crisp 4k image is always better than having low-res pixel art or low-poly models.
I'm sorry pal. Your response alone tells me you aren't grasping what I'm trying to say.
It's OK. I've accepted that a few of you have hit the ceiling of comprehension with regards to this.
You should be a comedian. You're so willfully wrong it's cheering me up.
User Warned: Hostility and antagonizing another members
Not everyone. Just a few of you. Where what I'm saying is "oranges are orange" and you are all coming back with "you're wrong because bananas are yellow "
It's like...none of what y'all are saying is exactly wrong....but you clearly aren't grasping what I'm talking about because you keep arguing unrelated things.
It's very sad and confusing. It's like you just take what you know and assume it adapts to everything.
Also...the 4 or 5 of you who are "disagreeing" with me don't really constitute the dozens who have posted in this thread. So not only are you confused, but now you can't count.
Yeesh
I'm certainly not going to try and argue against the nonsense you are spouting. It will just encourage you to post more.
Even with hardware limitations I would pick fps over few prettier shadows.
I play a game, I dont watch a series of photos.
I'm pretty you're trolling to elicit an angry response, so I'm simply reporting you and moving on. I suggest everyone else does the same.
I remember that joker from the other place. Certainly seems like a similar schtick.
The same game is always, objectively better at 60fps than 30fps. However, I'd rather devs target 30fps to get the most out of a system.
That seems like such an odd thing to be nostalgic for. Out of the thousands upon thousands of indie retro games (many including PSX / N64 retro visuals) I can't think of a single on that does this, whereas there are games that successfully use pretty much everything else (from crashing to desktop to visual glitches to deleting your savegame). This suggests that the odds of successfuly harnessing this particular "feature" as a positive are low, to say the least.
If something is better for literally every game currently in existence, and could only, theorethically, maybe, subjectively be a negative in an hypothetical game that doesn't exist and probably will never exist, I'm going to go on a limb and call it "better in all cases". I'm sure you can imagine hypothetical games that turn pretty much every and anything into a positive, but I don't think that proves anything except that you're quite imaginative.
No, of course it's not, on account of there being thousands of games that harness the latter, but none (that I know of, at least) that harness a lower framerate. A better comparison is "saying that 60fps is always better than 30fps is like saying that shorter loading times are better than longer loading times". I'm sure you can imagine a game that has a minigame during loading screens that is more fun than the core game (and that, unlike the linked example, forces you to the main game upon load completion), but again, the fact that you have to imagine that game as a thought experiment tells you how grounded in reality it is.
No. Most everything you've said is either just completely wrong or misapplied. People have presented examples and someone even created a video specifically to illustrate just how utterly wrong the exact point you attempted to make that started all this was. In no way are that argument or video "unrelated".
A video which you have completely ignored, by the way. I wonder why that is?
I can't believe this thread is approaching 700 posts when post #2 gave the correct answer.
I can't believe there is back-and-forth on this topic. Every time I come back into the thread, I hope its just people saying "Of course, 60 is better", but nah. Pretty funny.
I just can't imagine choosing 30 over 60, even in relatively static games like JRPG's. Animations will always look nicer in 60, same with effects. The lick of flame and the changes in lighting during a thunder strike will always look better with more frames involved. Its just more time to frame in slight changes that you might not process on a concious, in-the-moment level, but it definitely makes things tastier.
I just can't imagine choosing 30 over 60, even in relatively static games like JRPG's. Animations will always look nicer in 60, same with effects. The lick of flame and the changes in lighting during a thunder strike will always look better with more frames involved. Its just more time to frame in slight changes that you might not process on a concious, in-the-moment level, but it definitely makes things tastier.
This might be controversial--and maybe based more on nostalgia--but Shadow of the Colossus just doesn't feel right at higher framerates. The Colossi themselves seem to lack weight and presence at higher framerates, and the controls were simple enough that mid-20s fps didn't get in the way of the game play too badly either.
Granted, when it would drop to 15 or fewer fps, the game could be frustrating.
Granted, when it would drop to 15 or fewer fps, the game could be frustrating.
This is definitely not true -- I outlined earlier in the thread that most games calculate all of their data based on when the screen draws. The more frequently you draw the screen (read: the higher the framerate), the more frequently the state of the game updates.
Faster framerates mean the game is less likely to drop controller inputs. Faster framerates means physics are more accurate. Faster framerates mean the AI can think faster.
It's POSSIBLE to untether the logic refresh rate from the video refresh rate. For example, Microsoft and Turn 10 Studios has long boasted that in the Forza games, vehicle physics update at 240fps, even though the game on our televisions only displays at 60fps. But that's probably more to do with the fact most displays weren't and largely still aren't capable of displaying more than sixty frames per second.
Either way, the logic still holds: the faster the framerate, the better. The more opportunities the game has to check the state of the game and modify it, the higher quality all of the interactions inside that game will be.
Whether or not a game NEEDS higher quality is a different story. After all, plenty of games do actually play just fine at 30fps. But that's not what this thread is about -- this thread is about whether or not 60fps is always better than 30fps, and that answer is definitively yes.
It isn't, literally you are the only person arguing that more FPS = the game plays faster. As I said before, that only happens in really poorly coded games or stuff like fighting games that by necessity build around locked 60 FPS.
However smoother animation travelling/gameplay (which is what increased FPS does to the animations!) lets you react much better/more accurately.
This vid literally shows you that the increased FPS makes playing the game much easier to play in. The projectiles travel much more smoothly across the level due to the increased frame rate, allowing you to more easily dodge them.
The 180 FPS section of this video is so transparently better to play in than the 30 FPS one.
If you agree that more FPS = increased smoothness, then congrats you both agree with what everyone else is actually telling you, agree wit the point of the thread that 60 FPS is providing a better experience than 30 FPS, and also rendering your original point about how more FPS in ETG provides no benefit moot, as more smoothness (especially in a bullet hell) is a benefit.
Last edited:
increased FPS = Increased "smoothness" - Agreed 100%
"60 FPS is providing a better experience than 30 FPS" - Disagree 100% added smoothness does not make something "better". A great example:
Just look at those hideous "smoothing" filters being used for the Mega Man X legacy Collecton. Objectively, the original pixels are "worse" but I personally enjoy the unfiltered pixels much more. I think they are "Better"
Am I the only person who doesn't find this "better"?
I think lunch is "better" than breakfast, even though there are a lot of metrics out there to say that breakfast is a far more important meal.... But frig that, if you ask me, Lunch is where it is at. Its more of a social meal and goes great with Caesars
Just a question for those who think everything bigger/more is better:
Why do you think there is still such a huge market for pixel-art in the games industry? Why do you think that these obviously "inferior" lower resolution games resonate so well with folks?
Jumping from framerate to like vaseline filters is a masterclass in bad faith apples to oranges nonsense.
I mean you're arguing with at least 2 people that have actually worked in the technical side of games or have extensive modding history while talking down to them, so I'm not surprised, but it's still an impressive leap.
I mean you're arguing with at least 2 people that have actually worked in the technical side of games or have extensive modding history while talking down to them, so I'm not surprised, but it's still an impressive leap.
Yay progress, sort of.
I don't agree with that example being great though, a smoothness filter has nothing to do with added smoothness from frame rate - what this topic is about. Graphical changes from smoothness filters etc are pretty subjective since they are directly changing how the game looks graphically (usually in a very inorganic/bad way), however added input/movement/gameplay smoothness garnered from increased frame rate is something that is rather objectively an improvement (again, as long as the game is coded well to where upping the framerate doesn't make stuff explode). Going back to the 180 FPS ETG footage, you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone that's worse than the 30 FPS gameplay.
I was listening to a gaming podcast a few weeks ago. I can't remember which one, but it was likely Game Informer.
A woman I had not heard before was talking about ...well, games, and she said she prefers 30 FPS "because it's more cinematic."
I stopped listening to that episode.
A woman I had not heard before was talking about ...well, games, and she said she prefers 30 FPS "because it's more cinematic."
I stopped listening to that episode.
30 FPS> 60 FPS
The earth is flat
Vaccines cause autism
Pineapple on pizza is the best pizza
Steak should be cooked well done and eaten with ketchup
Come at me bros!
The earth is flat
Vaccines cause autism
Pineapple on pizza is the best pizza
Steak should be cooked well done and eaten with ketchup
Come at me bros!
The only instance that comes to mind where I opted for a lower framerate was replaying Diablo a year or two ago. I hadn't touched it in 15 or more years and loading it up at 60 FPS just looked like a different game. Too smooth compared to what my brain was telling me it was supposed to look like. I think I ended up capping it in the mid 40s which looked more acceptable. Nostalgic feelings I suppose but I'm not sure why this particular title stood out amoung everything else I've replayed at better frame rates.
But yeah I'll take 60 every other time regardless of compromises.
But yeah I'll take 60 every other time regardless of compromises.
It was never my intention to convince anyone that it is worse, simply that it isn't necessarily "better". As long as the 30fps and 180fps in question are perfectly stable, I really see little more than a slight visual improvement that adds very little ( if anything) to how the game actually plays.
Especially a game like EtG, where, just like Mega Man, rote-memory is a huge factor in your success.
The thing is by admitting that the 180 FPS gameplay is better which you automatically did by saying there was a slight improvement (even if I, and I wager anyone else in this thread with 2 eyes, disagree with you that it's only a slight improvement lol) you're automatically saying the 30 FPS is worse.
If something is better (even slightly) than another thing, that other thing is worse than the thing better than it. That's like, how better/worse work.
This thread is raising my bp, but I just can't look away - it is a horrifyingly beautiful abomination and I can't let it go...
I can't imagine that the same kind of nostalgia that pixel art enjoys also applies to 30fps, because the look that framerate creates is neither iconic or unique. If anything, 60fps is more evocative of gaming because no other visual media routinely operates at that framerate.
Hahaha
I do think this one has that one beat, not only in the persistent foolishness and sheer stubbornness.
I said "improvement" to mean the same way this is an "improvement" ( hint: I don't think either are an improvement)
Seriously, if you are just going to try to resort to "gotcha" tactics, then this conversation has run its course. It was fun.