-
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.
It is going to be rough to play Switch Games at sub-30fps now that XBox and PlayStation push for 60-120fps
- Thread starter 60fps
- Start date
Same for Ratchet which already has a 60fps mode confirmed.
As long as devs keep targeting 4k native or close to it (and also RT in some cases) for fidelity mode, then performance modes at 60fps or more should be a given. The only way I see 60fps going away is if they start targeting 1440p/30fps with no RT like the UE5 demo. Hopefully it won't happen.
Hard disagree, that point of view would mean you could never ever play previous generation games at all. If a game is fun or tells a good story I don't care if it's the latest 4k/144hz marvel. I mean, I still play old arcade games once in a while, even some Atari 2600 games. I recently got the Mario 3D All Stars collection, had a blast. Image quality and performance are "nice to have", but not anywhere near as important as actual gameplay and fun.
Also, don't forget that lots of PS5/Series X games will be 30fps, or have that option, and very few will offer 120fps. I know I'm going to be playing Spider-Man at 30fps because for that game I think the increased fidelity of the city is worth it.
Last edited:
I have 0 problems bouncing back and forth between my PS4 pro and Switch. A game on one system looking and performing well doesn't make another game in a different system worse
Well it's not new and every nintendo game I have played I have always thought that it would be a better experience on the PC or Playstation/Xbox but I own a Switch for the exclusives and these are the parameters we all have to play with. So yeah.... I'm looking forward to the new zelda at presumably 720p/30fps but it's still my most anticipated title.
It is factually a false narrative. I was replying to someone who was pushing the idea that PS4 started with cross gen 60fps games as the norm and then fell back to 30fps when the games became exclusive.
I gave examples to explain how that is false. It isn't true.
OP
OP
Since the PS4 Pro was released in 2016 Performance modes are becoming more prominent, to the point where almost every PS5 game right now has the option. The PS5 even has that option integrated into the system settings.
it's outrageous that Nintendo has been getting away with this weak sauce for decades now. they released a system in the late 80s that didn't even have a color display, in the face of the vastly more powerful Genesis. when will they learn that no one can tolerate the horrendous performance of these so-called "portable systems" just because they "can be bought for $200 or less"
Several PS3 ports were 60fps on the PS4, much like Spiderman now. And then there were games like the Crash racing and platformer games which had no business being 30fps. So track record isn't great but we'll see.
Suddenly Mario Odyssey, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Tropical Freeze and Splatoon dropped from 60 to 30 fps because the next gen consoles came out.
Im on the PS5 hype train too but I disagree. Yes the PS5 is incredible and feels like a true next gen system but BOTW 2, Metroid Prime4, and the next Mario are my most anticipated games for next year and I don't care if they ran at 20 FPS, their going to be incredible.
I have to say I completely disagree. I've been bouncing back and forth between 30fps to 60 and higher and never thought more than the initial few seconds that it really mattered. That's how long it takes to notice the drop and then I forget about it. Never something I've ever had affect my enjoyment unless it's really low like single digits.
I could care less if it's sub 30 FPS on switch. The switch caters to a different demographic and selling well. The casual market does not care about FPS/4K ray tracing etc. If the switch games appeal to me, I'll keep playing them.
I'm probably gonna play my Switch more than any other console in the next 3 years because a) I have a high-end PC that will allow me to play everything I want with better graphical settings than next-gen consoles and b) Switch is the only portable solution I have.
Itll happen, but for very few games. Making a game with fidelity and density so high it can only run at 1440p30fps on a PS5 will not come often, gonna be expesive as hell to make lol.
Why does the console that is the same price as the Series S have exclusive titles with horrendous performance like Age of Calamity?
I understand that the Switch is the weaker machine. No qualms there. Why is it acceptable for so many of its exclusive titles to run like shit, though? We've had machines weaker than the Switch that had no issue releasing exclusive titles that ran well.
Because people will buy them so Nintendo has zero incentive to actually work on performance.
OP
OP
No but Nintendo's recent output has been horrendous in terms of performance.
Games with low framerates are less enjoyable than games at higher framerates. So it will be less enjoyable for me to go back to outdated 30fps on Switch while I'm getting used to swing through New York City at smooth 60 or roam through the Borderlands at even smoother 120.
Paper Mario is actually a good example for a recent Nintendo game with lacking performance. It only runs at 30 which is laughable considering its looks. I feel like Nintendo has given up on 60fps. Even Pikmin 3 runs at 30.
Last edited:
Yes but not really, we're acting like Nintendo is full of first party titles with shitty performances, when it's mostly just Hyrule Warriors and Pokemon.
Honestly it was already rough. Every time I finish a game on Switch I can't help but think how much better it would have looked and performed on my PC or PS4 Pro. The mobility aspect had been mostly a non factor, except lately where I'm playing a lot of XCDE in bed
Isint pikmin 3 on the switch like 600p or something?
I also thought xenoblade chronicles was a similarly low resolution.
There's also ARMS, Mario Tennis Aces, Captain Toad, and Super Mario Party. Not sure why people are acting like Nintendo don't have 60 FPS games. They were doing 60 FPS games constantly since the Wii.
Possibly, I don't have the game as I played it on the Wii U. But the exact number of titles with shitty performance isn't the point, the point is that most Nintendo games are polished and a loads are even 60fps.
I just looked at Nintendo's first-party list for this year and the only games with questionable performances is AOC and XBCDE.
NH only has slowdown in areas once you deck your island out, I've heard one say Paper Mario performs badly. There are others smaller titles that haven't reported performance issues.
That's why I can't wait for the day we get Portables with 4k, smaller than my Switch but as comfortable as them, with batteries greater than 3-6 hours, and visual fidelity on par with home consoles! /s
But seriously, I'm just glad to have the first proper handheld that has HD, even standard HD, resolution. Whose screen isn't the size of a quarter-napkin, and that has proper controls/controllers. I loved my Vita and it was great, but it's not even comparable to the Switch, and that was basically the last (and probably will be the foreseeable last) handheld attempt by anyone but Nintendo. Luckily Nintendo is able to capitalize on Japans love for handhelds, so there'll always be demand even if us western audiences lose the demand. I won't lose my demand, tho.
Do you play games for the FPS and resolution or the gameplay and content?
That's essentially what's going on here.
If gameplay and content are equal, then sure. If portability and price matter, then no.
That's essentially what's going on here.
If gameplay and content are equal, then sure. If portability and price matter, then no.
1080p60 is fine on the Switch, games can look great on my OLED. 900p30 is fine if the frame rate never dips too.
When we go lower than that it does feel rough however.
When we go lower than that it does feel rough however.
Don't 60 fps mode looks amazing the differences are so minor its silly that its even an option tbh. (Options are good, not when the 60 fps mode holds up that well.)
OP
OP
I'm not talking about performance issues but low framerates in general. What was even the last Nintendo game with 60fps? I honestly can't remember.
Framerate = gameplay.
There doesn't need to be a tradeoff of under-30fps. This isn't directed at you specifically but it's annoying as hell seeing legitimate issues such as horrid performance being attributed to portability/Switch being weaker. There have been weaker machines than the Switch where this issue wasn't as prominent.
You can literally have gameplay, content, FPS, and resolution all in one package. Games do it all the freaking time. They've done it on weaker machines. Nintendo is seriously the only publisher I see get this kind of slack lol
Don't get me wrong, I get that for many there's a massive disparity that's jarring. The problem is just that, well, reasonably priced powerful handheld devices are direct paradoxes. More power - price goes up; need bigger battery to compensate - weight goes up; want positives of increasing battery life - resolution goes down; resolution goes down - screen size goes down. It's just a chain reaction of things. 3-6 hours is fantastic battery life if you account for the things the console does, heck most phones struggle to give those hours while playing games.
I know many people want a proper Console from Nintendo, but I can't see a world where the Switch and hybrid systems aren't the way Nintendo goes. It just covers all the markets. Improve it and continue to do so!
I know many people want a proper Console from Nintendo, but I can't see a world where the Switch and hybrid systems aren't the way Nintendo goes. It just covers all the markets. Improve it and continue to do so!
A game being locked at 30 FPS isn't shitty performance.
And BS on Framerate = gameplay. Animal Crossing wouldn't be a vastly better game if it ran at 60 FPS.
gonna keep doing what I've been doing and play the games I want to play with the best hardware I can play them on.
this might mean playing a new multiplatform game in 144fps or it might mean playing an old exclusive at 20fps, whatever. nothing has changed.
this might mean playing a new multiplatform game in 144fps or it might mean playing an old exclusive at 20fps, whatever. nothing has changed.
Sorry - I meant the way the game controls, the art style, the unlockables.
Of course, frame rate can affect all these aspects to some degree - but only if it's below like 20fps.
Even then, I've very much enjoyed some old games that had 15fps (looking at you Star Fox on SNES). I hadn't played it in over 20 years, recently got to replay it, and it's still a fantastic game.
Also, I prefer to play Ocarina of time on the 64. It's just more atmospheric than the newer revisions.
That's because they're pulling it off on a significantly weaker console that's also focused on portability and also have to take battery life into account.
Would you prefer they just didn't try to port games? Do you want games with significantly worse assets if it means you can play it in 60fps and 1080p?!
Sure, they could probably do some better optimization, but I don't think their current issues is due to a lack of trying.
Last edited:
Oh well, I guess you're stuck playing Mario Kart, Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2 and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate forever.
Not really.
I still play PS1 and PS2 games on the regular, at low resolutions and sometimes sub-30 fps framerates.
And when it comes to the benefit of being able to play anywhere, my tolerance for less than spectacular performance only gets higher.
60 fps is dope, but it's not some must-have for me, esp as a lover of older games.
I still play PS1 and PS2 games on the regular, at low resolutions and sometimes sub-30 fps framerates.
And when it comes to the benefit of being able to play anywhere, my tolerance for less than spectacular performance only gets higher.
60 fps is dope, but it's not some must-have for me, esp as a lover of older games.