Idea: What if console users were given a choice in Framerate.

[BarryMcCociner]

Now, this idea might seem more controversial in my head than in yours, but if it doesn't, hear me out.

What if console users were given an option to sacrifice graphical fidelity for a higher framerate.

Say all those fancy textures in your new open world RPG could be sacrificed for a consistent 60 frames per second in your options menu?

I feel like it'd put a rest to another non-debate, so we can focus on more important non-debates like climate change. The console users could see and feel the difference between 60 and 30, it'd be undeniable, only the most stubborn would still claim there's no difference and that 30 frames isn't anything but mediocre.

Just, a little thing you could flick up in the options menu "Yes I would like more frames, no I would not like more grafics."

And suddenly people realize, your fancy coat of paint isn't as important as your horsepower.

 

[tippy2k2]

I know there are plenty of people in the PC crowd that are baffled that there are those of us who don't care but we do exist. If the frame rate is 30 and stable, I'm happy. If you insist on 60 or GTFO, that's your right too but please stop acting like console users who don't care are stubborn or there's something wrong with us. Some of us just don't care. If game makers want to add that, then great, more choice is always good.

Cause you're right, it is a non-debate, which is why I find it so strange that you insist that you have to prove us wrong...

 

[stroopwafel]

Games like MGS5, Dark Souls 2 SotFS, Metal Gear Rising Revengeance etc. are 60fps on consoles so it isn't like console users won't know the difference. Personally I think most (action) games run just fine at 30fps as long as it's stable(with emphasis on stable) and I definitely wouldn't want to sacrifice graphical quality just to bump it up to 60.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Some of us just don't care

Some of us just don't care.
I've owned 4 different home consoles across 4 different gaming generations, plus 1 handheld device and several PCs (desktops and laptops alike) of varying fidelity. Not once have I been arsed about frame rates.

 

[Wasted]

So, "I'd like shittier graphics to get a frame rate that I won't see the difference without a side by side comparison and doesn't matter anyways since I'm over a meter away from the TV"?

Care to explain the logic in it?

If you cannot see a difference between 30/60/120+ fps then you should consider seeing a neurologist, something could honestly be wrong with the way your brain processes visual stimuli. Whether or not you care between high and low frame rates is a separate matter. A silly one, but still ultimately down to personal choice.

"30fps is more cinematic!"

 

[Elfgore]

I know there are plenty of people in the PC crowd that are baffled that there are those of us who don't care but we do exist. If the frame rate is 30 and stable, I'm happy. If you insist on 60 or GTFO, that's your right too but please stop acting like console users who don't care are stubborn or there's something wrong with us. Some of us just don't care. If game makers want to add that, then great, more choice is always good.

Cause you're right, it is a non-debate, which is why I find it so strange that you insist that you have to prove us wrong...

Boom, nailed it first go.

On PC, I rather have shiny graphics then 60 FPS. Same goes for consoles. I know this might be something hard for the PC Master Race to comprehend, not everyone cares about playing at 60 FPS. I'm not saying the first part of your post isn't a good idea, it is. If someone wants to play at 60 at the cost of graphics, I'm all fine with that. I don't want to and would also prefer not being called stubborn or having my mind made up for me.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I like 60fps as much as the next person, but there is a limit to how much I'm willing to sacrifice. Call me shallow, but I like fancy textures and a nice coat of paint. Just as fancy textures don't matter if your framerate is in the single digits, so too does 60fps not matter if your game consists of flat, pixelated textures.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Cause you're right, it is a non-debate, which is why I find it so strange that you insist that you have to prove us wrong...

Because it's exactly like the climate change debate.

In both sides, you have one side who's objectively wrong, making small concessions and distorting fact to fit their world view.

And sadly, the climate change deniers are allowing shitty environmental decisions to happen that harm all of us, and the 30fps defenders are allowing triple A developers with titanic budgets to get away with mediocrity.

30 frames hurts my eyes, not just mildly. Genuine "I literally cannot touch this game" pain. I will not settle for 30. I will not sit through physical pain to wait for my eyes to "adjust" so I can experience a product that is already mediocre in one area out of the gate.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

So, "I'd like shittier graphics to get a frame rate that I won't see the difference without a side by side comparison and doesn't matter anyways since I'm over a meter away from the TV"?

Care to explain the logic in it?

Higher framerate directly coincides with smoother controls and greater immersion, not to mention a faster response time and a greater display of skill from the player. This has been proven so many times it's laughable to come across someone who doesn't know it at this point.

It's like encountering a creationist who says "What?! You actually believe we came from monkeys?"

 

[dyre]

Cause you're right, it is a non-debate, which is why I find it so strange that you insist that you have to prove us wrong...

Because it's exactly like the climate change debate.

In both sides, you have one side who's objectively wrong, making small concessions and distorting fact to fit their world view.

And sadly, the climate change deniers are allowing shitty environmental decisions to happen that harm all of us, and the 30fps defenders are allowing triple A developers with titanic budgets to get away with mediocrity.

30 frames hurts my eyes, not just mildly. Genuine "I literally cannot touch this game" pain. I will not settle for 30. I will not sit through physical pain to wait for my eyes to "adjust" so I can experience a product that is already mediocre in one area out of the gate.

You may want to see a doctor about that...your eyes aren't supposed to feel pain as they adjust. I haven't played much on the console since my PS2 days, but most PS2 games hovered around 30 FPS and millions of players around the world got along just fine.

Is 60 FPS superior? Absolutely, but it's not "wrong" to consider it as a secondary priority.

 

[omega 616]

In all honesty, I was happy with the PS3 and 360 generation, in terms of the pretty and the frames. 720p and 30 FPS and I am good to go.

I'd rather them have new systems, like the nemesis system from Mordor.

After the initial "wow, so pretty", I am concentrating more on the gameplay, than the graphics or frames, to the point where it doesn't matter what the numbers are. I feel better off not being so anal about the numbers or not caring about them ... I am never disappointed in games or notice how ... rough? It looks.

I so often see PC users complain about how often games don't reach their standards, while I am enjoying the game not even noticing the problems they are having.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Now, this idea might seem more controversial in my head than in yours, but if it doesn't, hear me out.

What if console users were given an option to sacrifice graphical fidelity for a higher framerate.

That doesn't work too well, for starters it'd remove the generational differences between many consoles and individual consoles.

Say all those fancy textures in your new open world RPG could be sacrificed for a consistent 60 frames per second in your options menu?

That'd mean they'd have to load more textures onto your game disks. And even then it'd just be more of an opportunity to screw people over with marketing.

I feel like it'd put a rest to another non-debate, so we can focus on more important non-debates like climate change. The console users could see and feel the difference between 60 and 30, it'd be undeniable, only the most stubborn would still claim there's no difference and that 30 frames isn't anything but mediocre.

Actually again it depends on the game. If the game is designed around a 30fps frame rate then ell. 60 fps won't amount to much of a difference. Just a lot of doubled frames.. This also counts for controls. The designers know what FPS they're working towards so everything is tuned to be optimal at that FPS.

Besides it'd just start a new non debate about why the frame rates are locked at 60fps when 90 is sooooo much smoother. See what I mean? FPS is basically an epeen metric that regretfully carried over from the PC gamers. PC gamers for a long time used frame rate not so much as a perfomance indicator but more a 'my rig ios better that yours' thing.

Just, a little thing you could flick up in the options menu "Yes I would like more frames, no I would not like more grafics."

And suddenly people realize, your fancy coat of paint isn't as important as your horsepower.[/quote]

 

[Parasondox]

I will echo the feelings of many here and in my mind too.

Who... Gives... a... Fuck?!?!

Seriously? Shouldn't video gaming be about enjoying yourself and that not all games will have the same thing cause if they did, it would be dull. 30, 60, 120. This whole framerate nonsense is as petty as "This console has better graphics than that console so it means its better".

If its broken then its broken. That's bad. If not, have fun!!

 

[tippy2k2]

Cause you're right, it is a non-debate, which is why I find it so strange that you insist that you have to prove us wrong...

30 frames hurts my eyes, not just mildly. Genuine "I literally cannot touch this game" pain. I will not settle for 30. I will not sit through physical pain to wait for my eyes to "adjust" so I can experience a product that is already mediocre in one area out of the gate.

I don't know a nice way to put it so I'll just be blunt; that sounds like a You problem.

You are telling me that I HAVE to demand something that takes resources away from what I want in a game to put in something I don't care about because you don't like 30FPS (or because evidently it "physically hurts you", which if true, you should listen to dyre because that's not normal). If I don't, I'm akin to one of those "horrible climate change deniers ruining the world for everyone else" apparently...

I'm sorry if I'm not racing to the front lines to join you in your "fight against medicrity" to demand that. Good luck in your fight but this soldier is too busy having fun "suffering" through mediocrity to join the battle.

 

[NiPah]

Am I wrong or did the op just liken people who say frame rates don't matter to creationists and climate change deniers? honestly if I was given the option of a smooth 30 with better graphics or a smooth 60 with worse graphics I'd always pick 30, to me beyond 30fps is nice, but nothing to sacrifice for.

 

[Fox12]

I'm not stubborn about the issue. I. Just. Don't. Care. I don't care about the pretty graphics. I don't care about having a million frames per second. Those things are nice, but they aren't needed. I can see why this would matter in a competitive multiplayer game, but does it really alter my play through of Silent Hill 2 or The Walking Dead?

Now better writing, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely...

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

It must just kill you that I played Alan Wake at about 20 fps on my old rig.

The difference between 30 and 60 fps really doesn't stick out to me that much. If you tell me to focus on it, it will come to mind, but when I'm playing a game as long as it doesn't sink below 30 fps my experience isn't impaired to any noticeable degree.

Shame that you are so intent on telling me that I'm objectively wrong for not caring about 60 fps. I actually think that it would be a good idea to allow the trade off. I certainly wouldn't make it myself, but it'd be a good option for people who it matters for

 

[Parasondox]

And suddenly people realize, your fancy coat of paint isn't as important as your horsepower.

A car analogy? Yay. You see a car that has 1000 brakehorse power (Bugatti Veyron) might be good on paper with high spec numbers and stats, but a car like an Aston Martin with less horsepower and stat numbers is something special, beautiful, classy, sexy. It's not about the fancy paint or horsepower, its about the heart and feel for the car. Once again. F1 may have cars that have more horsepower but Rally cars has that fun and excitement to it.

Did I do that correctly, Escapist?