Nah, I've been mostly PC only for the past couple of generations and it's kind of been a deciding factor to stay that way. Not buying a $500 console to play $70 games that run at 30fps.
Were we too harsh on 30 FPS?
- Thread starter Korosenai
- Start date
30fps is fine if it's a solid 30. Even better if the frame delivery was on point.
Unfortunately that was rarely the case in previous generations.
Unfortunately that was rarely the case in previous generations.
30fps has always been perfectly fine for me.
I can see the difference to 60fps of course, but I don't really mind it much. Generally, I'd actively prefer better visuals at 30fps to worse visuals at 60.
As a nice little bonus, in particular speaking as a PC gamers, it doesn't require any dev effort to play with increased FPS as hardware gets better, whereas obviously visual fidelity stays the way it is. So in other words, designing a game for nicer visuals at 30fps somewhat "futureproofs" it a little bit better, imho.
I can see the difference to 60fps of course, but I don't really mind it much. Generally, I'd actively prefer better visuals at 30fps to worse visuals at 60.
As a nice little bonus, in particular speaking as a PC gamers, it doesn't require any dev effort to play with increased FPS as hardware gets better, whereas obviously visual fidelity stays the way it is. So in other words, designing a game for nicer visuals at 30fps somewhat "futureproofs" it a little bit better, imho.
I really don't like 30FPS and it is my largest concern with Starfield.
I would gladly trade graphic fidelity for 60fps.
I would gladly trade graphic fidelity for 60fps.
Exactly.
TotK feels better to play personally than the frame rate mode of the FFXVI demo because it's so hitchy and just generally uneven. Makes me appreciate playing games on my PC a bit more too when they run 3x-4x+ the frame rate
Lol for series x and ps5 that's a hell no.
60fps should be more of a standard or offered as an option for games, even if it means neutering the visuals or scope. Any shooter (third person or first person) releasing this Gen without a 60fps option for example is a complete joke in my eyes. Simulations, MMOs, and turn based games are the type of game where only having a 30fps option makes sense. The bare minimum should be a 40fps option. 40fps alone makes a big jump in how a game feels and looks compared to 30fps.
60fps should be more of a standard or offered as an option for games, even if it means neutering the visuals or scope. Any shooter (third person or first person) releasing this Gen without a 60fps option for example is a complete joke in my eyes. Simulations, MMOs, and turn based games are the type of game where only having a 30fps option makes sense. The bare minimum should be a 40fps option. 40fps alone makes a big jump in how a game feels and looks compared to 30fps.
Not really a good comparison for a bunch of reasons, not least because most retro games were only outputting at 60 NTSC/PAL fields per second
It's hard to imagine it being an accessibility issue, but I'm genuinely interested in learning if that would be the case.
I am more of an 60FPS+ guy but I can play SOME GAMES using 30 FPS.
Games were the camera is not controlled by myself for example.
As soon as I have to control the camera myself, it's over. :D
So, no we weren't too harsh on 30 FPS. It's an option, sure, but not a good one, in my eyes. Literally...
Games were the camera is not controlled by myself for example.
As soon as I have to control the camera myself, it's over. :D
So, no we weren't too harsh on 30 FPS. It's an option, sure, but not a good one, in my eyes. Literally...
Im playing ff16 in quality mode, because the performance mode is terrible, but i might wait for the motion blur patch because this is the first game where the motion blur is just too fucking much and it makes my eyes bleed. Literally cant see shit during combat and everytime you move the camera, its awful. Why MB toggle isnt mandatory, how fucking hard is to implement it at launch. Other than that, im fine with 30
yup.
I am so glad I didn't fall for the "but this is just in the demo from an old build, the final version will be fine" bullshit, because I totally would've bought that game, but I'm holding off for now. Either they fix this in the PS5 version or I wait for the PC one at a discount.
Last edited:
30fps is not unplayable, but I would much rather prefer a 60fps option if at all possible especially if it is an action focused game. Even if the graphics have to suffer to get it there. I actually want to see more 40fps options in games as a whole.
Yeah just wait, atleast until they patch this awful motion blur. I wouldn't hold my breath for a good performance mode tho.
One and done. 30 FPS should have been abandoned long ago, especially now that we have TVs that can go as high as 120. 30 FPS is stone age shit.
30 fps is usually fine by me (and most people). As someone who suffers from nausea and lightheadedness often and tries to figure out what's causing it, I haven't found 30 fps to make me any more nauseous than 60.
I repeatedly felt nauseous while playing 60 fps games on the PS5, which made me pretty sad when I got it . On the other hand, I play lots of 30 fps games - sometimes even with drops - and I seem to get nauseous less often.
This means very little of course, I only "kept track" of my nausea in written form for a little more than a month. Not only that, what causes nausea varies a lot from person to person, so my experience might not be the same as someone else's.
All this to say that I wouldn't be surprised if 30 fps games didn't cause any more nausea than 60 fps ones.
Things like fov, framepacing, motion blur, camera movement, among others, probably cause nausea much more than 30 fps.
Edit: I also got nauseous every time I played CS:GO at 120 fps or something like that.
I repeatedly felt nauseous while playing 60 fps games on the PS5, which made me pretty sad when I got it . On the other hand, I play lots of 30 fps games - sometimes even with drops - and I seem to get nauseous less often.
This means very little of course, I only "kept track" of my nausea in written form for a little more than a month. Not only that, what causes nausea varies a lot from person to person, so my experience might not be the same as someone else's.
All this to say that I wouldn't be surprised if 30 fps games didn't cause any more nausea than 60 fps ones.
Things like fov, framepacing, motion blur, camera movement, among others, probably cause nausea much more than 30 fps.
Edit: I also got nauseous every time I played CS:GO at 120 fps or something like that.
TOTK looks great in 30fps except when there's slowdown, in which case I pause the game and immediately call the police s/
I find 30 fps to be tolerable when playing a handheld like Switch in handheld mode, I played XB2 on it for 120 hours without issues and many people found it to be choppy and blurry, but I can't stomach 30 fps on a big display, every time I pan the camera and see the choppiness in all its glory I can't ignore it.
30fps was never "unacceptable."
Please show me when this was the case without pointing me toward many cross-gen games.
Even then, the option for 30fps is almost always present.
Gamers living in fantasy land wanting a 60fps minimum on every game. Time for a PC perhaps?
This isn't a developer issue.
Please show me when this was the case without pointing me toward many cross-gen games.
Even then, the option for 30fps is almost always present.
Gamers living in fantasy land wanting a 60fps minimum on every game. Time for a PC perhaps?
This isn't a developer issue.
Playing XVI and Quality at a solid 30 feels way better than the uneven Performance around 60. Takes less than half an hour to adapt and I'm away at the races. Haven't even thought about framerate for like 15 hrs now.
TotK doesn't even have options so other than the occasional slowdown I never even care.
TotK doesn't even have options so other than the occasional slowdown I never even care.
personal answer, no. graphics aside from the switch are plenty good enough to make 60 the baseline. 30 isn't unplayable, but i wish devs treated 60 fps also as a thing that makes your games look better. not just feel better. games are better to look at when running at higher frames.
No. 30fps fucking sucks and it's even worse now that I've been playing games at 120 for a few years.
We could definitely achieve a standard of 60fps IF devs kept graphical fidelity at PS4 levels while just raising the IQ and some other details.
But people do not want this, look at the Spider-Man 2 thread full of people complaining the game looks the same.
Those beliefs are common for people who think the only way a game can express that it is next-gen is through graphics.
I was never harsh on it at all, feels the same to me as 60 so I never felt any reason to be too angry at it.
The problem is, the motion blur still won't prevent the screen from updating at 30fps. It also depends on the blur implementation (mostly good enough these days) or you'll deal with blur AND stutter.
For now, the stutter is pronounced enough in 30fps games that I slightly regret getting an OLED. It makes up for it in 40+fps and video content though.
Asking this here is not going to give you the answer you want, but I think in a general sense, most people just don't care. I do care more about consistent performance than outright fps. I hate stuttering/hitching, wildly fluctuating fps, etc. A steady and locked 30fps w/ good per-pixel/object motion blur looks really good to me. I mean, obviously I'll take a consistent 60+, but I typically don't mind it, and my main displays are 120Hz and 240Hz.
Nope, 30 FPS still sucks. Is it unplayable? No. Does it still suck and should always be considered the nuclear option for games struggling to lock down better performance? Yup.
I didn't have a problem with 30 last gen, but it feels like trash this gen. Like, I've only played a small handful of games this gen that actually felt decent at 30. Most of them are choppy, sluggish messes. Even Sony's first party games look like shit at 30 to me. So, put me in the "not harsh enough" camp.
Starfield isn't 30 because of it's graphic fidelity, it's almost guaranteed to be cpu limited.
Anyway for those that care that much about issues with 30fps just get a PC and you will be much happier more often. Expecting 500$ closed systems to do this all the time isn't realistic or practical really.
Actually I would like to see more 40fps modes.
Tears of the Kingdom plays better at 60 fps on emulator.
Even as little as 30 -> 40 fps makes for a much better experience.
Not to mention 30 fps tends to be even worse on OLED displays because judder becomes more noticeable thanks to OLED's excellent pixel response times.
Even as little as 30 -> 40 fps makes for a much better experience.
Not to mention 30 fps tends to be even worse on OLED displays because judder becomes more noticeable thanks to OLED's excellent pixel response times.