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

[I can't enter my old name]

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

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

You probably wouldn't care until you've become accustomed to it.

Try limiting a 60 fps game to 30. Night and day for me. When panning the camera, it feels more jerky and imprecise.
Without motion blur, it feels like frames are missing, and your eyes aren't receiving as much information about motion in relation to input. After awhile, I get used to it, but I'd take 60 fps with meh graphics over 30 fps with ugly shaders and high res textures that you'll only notice when you put your nose to a wall.

Of course this depends on the game you play, for example with fixed camera angles you can't tell the difference because the character animations play at 30fps I think.

 

[Parasondox]

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

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

You probably wouldn't care until you've become accustomed to it.

Try limiting a 60 fps game to 30. Night and day for me. When panning the camera, it feels more jerky and imprecise.
Without motion blur, it feels like frames are missing, and your eyes aren't receiving as much information about motion in relation to input. After awhile, I get used to it, but I'd take 60 fps with meh graphics over 30 fps with ugly shaders and high res textures that you'll only notice when you put your nose to a wall.

Of course this depends on the game you play, for example with fixed camera angles you can't tell the difference because the character animations play at 30fps I think.

Still do not care. Not being rude but its an argument that goes on and on and on and on and on and ooooooon over the internet. It's like arguing about gaming is more common than playing games these days.

 

[Rip Van Rabbit]

I want framerate stability.
60 fps/30 fps, it doesn't matter to me as long it's consistent and the it fits the type of game required for quick player input.

As someone that exclusively games on PC (Not due to elitism. Consoles are cool, but PC's are cheaper to build and maintain on my side of the world) I played Dark Souls, a sub-par port control-wise, but my rig managed to keep a constant 30 without it impacting gameplay. It was an adjustment that took 15 minutes before I got the flow of the game.

For another example, The Witcher 3, I deliberately capped my game at 30 fps because my pc didn't dip below that number. Yet it would fluctuate above 40 frames. The fluctuations were noticeable and by capping it, I could turn on a few more pretty graphics settings. Perfectly playable and pretty!

60 fps is lovely, 30 fps works just fine. Good optimisation across all platforms should be the focus, not the framerate cap level.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Because it sets a bad precedent and will make the user feel angry.

If you are a PC gamer, then you understand how graphics work in relation to hardware. If you can't run a game at full speed, you likely know why - You don't have the juice. But, if you desire, you can get the juice. It will cost you, but you can get there.

This option isn't available to console players. You got what you got, and that's it. All a graphical slider does is show you your hardware isn't up to it, whether the difference is negligible or not, with absolutely no way to change that fact. Game developers are better off restricting their games internally to the best performance the console is capable of and locking it in then hoping the vocal minority or majority of console users wont throw a colossal shit fit when they have to choose between prettier frames or a stable quantity of frames.

Hell, PC gamers have dealt with this for decades, and there's still a vocal minority who kick up dust and cry when developers 'force' them to upgrade. Why should we assume console gamers, who can't upgrade, wont throw the same hissy fit?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I play on all kinds of systems and the only time I ever went "Wow the framerate is a serious issue" was during Far Cry 3.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

So many people in this thread speak as if the N64 didn't exist with its many games that offered a choice between "normal" framerates at a "normal" resolution and nosediving framerates with a higher resolution.

And upgrades? Most people didn't piss and moan because Rogue Squadron ran at 400x440 instead of 280x200 once you installed the N64's expansion pack.

 

[Valkrex]

This is something that needs to be expanded. The only console game I know of in the current market that allows this is Final Fantasy XIV, and that's partly because its an MMO and can have a lot of characters and players on screen at once.


I've never quite understood why graphics options, even if they would be minor ones like 1080p 30fps or 720p 60fps, aren't a thing on console. These options have been in PC gaming forever, and the beauty of it is choice. If you want your game to look as beautiful as it can even if your framerate takes a hit you have that option whereas currently console games don't. I am very much in favor of this idea. Even if you can't give the console versions the same level of options available on PC, at least give some preset quality options.

As for the framerate non-debate...


(uploaded before youtube allowed 60fps video)

Its a long video, but it does a great job explaining a lot of what's going on and why framerate is a much bigger deal than it seems at first glance, even if you claim that you can't see the difference.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I want framerate stability.
60 fps/30 fps, it doesn't matter to me as long it's consistent and the it fits the type of game required for quick player input.

As someone that exclusively games on PC (Not due to elitism. Consoles are cool, but PC's are cheaper to build and maintain on my side of the world) I played Dark Souls, a sub-par port control-wise, but my rig managed to keep a constant 30 without it impacting gameplay. It was an adjustment that took 15 minutes before I got the flow of the game.

For another example, The Witcher 3, I deliberately capped my game at 30 fps because my pc didn't dip below that number. Yet it would fluctuate above 40 frames. The fluctuations were noticeable and by capping it, I could turn on a few more pretty graphics settings. Perfectly playable and pretty!

60 fps is lovely, 30 fps works just fine. Good optimisation across all platforms should be the focus, not the framerate cap level.

Yes, I never noticed framerates at all, and I used to be a PC gamer, until I played Dark Souls I on PS3 and got to Blighttown. It didn't matter what the framerate was but having it dip and dive just threw me off.

This is something that needs to be expanded. The only console game I know of in the current market that allows this is Final Fantasy XIV, and that's partly because its an MMO and can have a lot of characters and players on screen at once.


I've never quite understood why graphics options, even if they would be minor ones like 1080p 30fps or 720p 60fps, aren't a thing on console. These options have been in PC gaming forever, and the beauty of it is choice. If you want your game to look as beautiful as it can even if your framerate takes a hit you have that option whereas currently console games don't. I am very much in favor of this idea. Even if you can't give the console versions the same level of options available on PC, at least give some preset quality options.

I expected next-gen consoles to start having more options, I'm surprised they don't. Would be helpful for those that want it and would go unnoticed by people who don't care.

Though maybe I'm expecting too much since some games don't even let you re-map the controls (or worse, don't let you invert the y-axis! The horror!)

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Funny...usually in threads like this, people say "I hate to be *that* guy" when they're about to say something that could start a flame war. But in this case, I'm going to be the only guy who will simply answer OP's question.

YES. I would greatly appreciate a slider for graphics vs. frames. And I would 99% choose frames. Because if I wanted superb draw distance AND smooth gameplay I'd play it on PC if possible. However, for games that I enjoy on consoles (fighting games, some racing, action-3rd person like Devil May Cry), then I definitely want the action to be as smooth as possible and reacting when I want it to.

It's been the way I've always set my gfx on my rig anyways. If it's up to it, I'll raise settings, but if I'm middle of the road or just at recommended, I'll tweak for frames over graphics any day. I do prefer higher res to AA though, if applicable.

 

[votemarvel]

It's a nice idea but not something I expect to ever see on a broad scale. Why? Because every console game is meant to be the same.

That's a part of the appeal of consoles. Everyone playing on a Xbox One plays the same version of Black Ops 3 (for example). The same frame rate, the same resolution..etc.

 

[FPLOON]

Meanwhile at Nintendo: "Why the fuck would we do the same thing, but worse? Besides, it's not our fault 30fps exist on [other] consoles..."

But seriously, that's some PS5/Xbox Infinite shit right there... unless you want games going through the proper console channels more than once just to give that same option PC channels have depending on the game in question beforehand... I mean, I would be down for that, but given how Nintendo doesn't seem to have that kind of problem to even warrant their presence in this "framerate choice for consoles" situation, I don't think I would be able to fully experience that kind of option-making unless I keep buying the next Sony console somewhere down the line in terms of console-based generations...

Other than that, framerates don't matter, but they matter more than graphics when it comes to overall gameplay and consistency...
"Did I say it right, sir?"

 

[I can't enter my old name]

It's a nice idea but not something I expect to ever see on a broad scale. Why? Because every console game is meant to be the same.

That's a part of the appeal of consoles. Everyone playing on a Xbox One plays the same version of Black Ops 3 (for example). The same frame rate, the same resolution..etc.

I don't see the appeal of having the same game as everyone else. I can however see the appeal of a game that works every time (supposedly) without having hardware issues or driver issues.

I can't see why anyone would oppose this idea. This is a win win for everyone. If you don't like 60 fps choose 30 fps and vice versa.

 

[Loonyyy]

This is the reason why arguments keep happening. The people who think it's a non-debate have no idea what they're talking about. And they keep trying to grab everyone else and rub it in their faces. Guys, it's time to face up, that 60 FPS evangelism is the Jehovah's Witness of gaming.

This suggestion is utterly ridiculous. It's not feasible. You don't make two different sets of graphical settings and try to hit a framerate, it's ridiculous, and much more expensive. Why not just ask them to play on the PC? I mean, that sort of graphical control is what we're talking here. Of course, on PC they'd potentially run into performance issues or bugs that forced them to play on lower FPS, right down below 30 even, the plebians.

Yes, a higher framerate is better. 30 is better than 24, and 60's better than 30, and if your monitor can do it, 120's better than that, and we can go on and on getting diminishing returns up the wazoo. That's never been the only consideration, and if for you it is, sorry, but you're in the minority opinion there. People will play on 30 FPS, and many of them are fine with it, and it's going to remain a fixture, because framerate doesn't sell as well as nicer lighting, shaders, textures or physics. Game developers want their game to look good, and for the most part, the framerate is less important to that than everything else.

You're just making everyone else look bad by being rude and zealous towards people who don't care. You're making PC gaming look like it's boring as fuck, that that is such an issue to you, that we're all prosletyzing, arrogant and rude. Stop it. If you guys are all that developers and publishers have to go off for support for 60 FPS, then no wonder it's not a priority. Which is a shame, because I do actually prefer it.

I want framerate stability.
60 fps/30 fps, it doesn't matter to me as long it's consistent and the it fits the type of game required for quick player input.

As someone that exclusively games on PC (Not due to elitism. Consoles are cool, but PC's are cheaper to build and maintain on my side of the world) I played Dark Souls, a sub-par port control-wise, but my rig managed to keep a constant 30 without it impacting gameplay. It was an adjustment that took 15 minutes before I got the flow of the game.

For another example, The Witcher 3, I deliberately capped my game at 30 fps because my pc didn't dip below that number. Yet it would fluctuate above 40 frames. The fluctuations were noticeable and by capping it, I could turn on a few more pretty graphics settings. Perfectly playable and pretty!

60 fps is lovely, 30 fps works just fine. Good optimisation across all platforms should be the focus, not the framerate cap level.

This guy knows what's up. If you've been hit with a framerate drop, you'll know what framerate issue is really unacceptable. It's a tradeoff you'll gladly make if you won't have a drop, and typically an honest to god pause, whensomething happens or you turn the camera the wrong way. Or, even worse, the cycle just gets worse and worse, the framerate drops lower and lower, frames are dropped, and you go and eat a sandwich and hope it fixes itself or crashes completely. PC gaming's always been my main focus. And when you're doing that on a budget, you very quickly learn a lot about tuning a game to make it stable. On the crappy laptop I started with, getting 24 FPS on a new release wasn't uncommon, and it wasn't great, but it was better to get 24 FPS than not at all. A lot of the current breed of PC gamers are spoilt as hell.

 

[Leg End]

I think choices are a good thing.

 

[Strazdas]

Im always in favor for more choice for the consumers and would support such choice. that being said, this is fucking 2015, there is absolutely no reason we cannot have both.

Meanwhile at Nintendo: "Why the fuck would we do the same thing, but worse? Besides, it's not our fault 30fps exist on [other] consoles..."

considering that this generation Nintendo has the LEAST 60 fps games, its hardly an argument in their favor.

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?

sure. lets first start with the fact that distance from your TV has absolutely nothing to do with framerate. Then lets continue with the fact that you do know the difference without having a comparison and are simply used to bad gameplay due to low framerate and automatically compensate (been there done that) just like people with bad internet learn to compensate for lag online by predicting stuff automatically. this mechanism is built in into our brain to the point where we apply it to EVERY moving object we see. there are some very interesting illusions based on that.

Furthermore, what you would like is not equivalent to what all gamers would like. just because you would not use such an option does not mean that noone would want to use this option. i know that i personally would rather choose 60 fps than higher res textures.

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.

No, any game that utilizes texture streaming already has these textures present, which is almost any game in last 10 years. these lower resolution textures are used for objects that are in the distance so the game would not have to load high textures for distant objects where your resolution prevents them to be seen anyway, and thus save processing power by loading lower res textures there. you could just make the game use LOD1 instead of LOD0 at low distances, or heck, even lower the draw distance that will still save a lot of visuals up close. there are many ways to boost framerate this way without involving ANY extra work outside of inclusion of a few options that are in most cases already coded into the engine, just not available to the gamer.

Actually again it depends on the game. If the game is designed around a 30fps frame rate then ell.

I dont think any game is intentionally designed to be shit. but i may be wrong.

The designers know what FPS they're working towards so everything is tuned to be optimal at that FPS.

So you are arguing that broken by design is working as intended?

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.

you are a bit late to the party. with the 120/144hz TVs/monitors getting cheap the debate already moved to 60 vs 144. 30 is not even a discussion now, its just considered unacceptable.

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

gamers. you know, the people that buy those games. if noone gave a fuck it wouldnt be such an issue when games fail to meet even the minimum standards.

 

[Something Amyss]

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...

You know, my PC can output most games at a stable rate above 60 (especially if I don't go for the highest possible graphics settings), and I don't really notice. In fact, the only reason I can tell you this is that my recording software displays the game's framerate.

So yeah, I'm with you.

 

[1981]

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

I asked that question a while back. In the same thread someone said that Dark Souls is locked at 30fps because of the physics engine, not because of the graphics. It seems that other games have similar issues.

I get why it's a big deal for some people. 30fps makes me dizzy and nauseous. It helps if I focus on the character instead of the surroundings (for the same reason dancers keep their eyes fixed on single spot and seasick people focus on the horizon). Also, if a game is designed to be played with a controller, the movement is usually slower which makes the stuttering less distracting.

I don't get why it's a big deal for some people that it's not a big deal for others.

 

[Amir Kondori]

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?

The logic is that there IS a discernible difference between playing at 30, and let's be honest here, the modern consoles are struggling to even hit that consistently, Witcher 3 dips down into the TEENS sometimes, and playing at 60+.

It isn't just that, I have a 144Hz monitor and it is hard to even describe how fluid everything is and motion blur is almost totally eliminated. Of course that is slightly off topic of pure frame rate.

If someone says they can't tell the difference sitting down and playing the Witcher 3 on console versus a powerful PC I simply find that very hard to believe. It isn't a subtle thing.

To address OP, I'm kind of shocked they don't that already, especially with this generation being pretty under powered. The option to change a few options, like AA, texture quality, or even resolution would be easy to implement and allow the end user to decide which was more important to them.

 

[joest01]

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.

Yep.
Even Bayonetta 2 or Ninja Gaiden Razors Edge on the friggen Wii U run at 60fps when the screen isn't extra busy.
DmC however runs at 30 on the PS3, and honestly, that game feels pretty responsive to me. I am sure there are freaks of nature who are able to us that extra 10 miliseconds to counter more reliably or whatever, but for most of us, c'mon people.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Actually again it depends on the game. If the game is designed around a 30fps frame rate then ell.

I dont think any game is intentionally designed to be shit. but i may be wrong.

The designers know what FPS they're working towards so everything is tuned to be optimal at that FPS.

So you are arguing that broken by design is working as intended?

Careful. Your bias is showing. That's like saying a comic done in black and white shit or crap because it's not colour. Again there are many games that are designed around 30fps. Though you probably don't notice it because again... if it's designed around it. Everything is tuned to deliver the optimal aesthetic experience at that frame rate.

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.

you are a bit late to the party. with the 120/144hz TVs/monitors getting cheap the debate already moved to 60 vs 144. 30 is not even a discussion now, its just considered unacceptable.

Yup, the epeens keep getting longer. Joke is any FPS above 90 is pretty much irrelevant, the ROI above 60fps drops at a rate of n^2. Anything above 100 is just a number for all the difference it makes for the experience. And anyone who'd say otherwise is likely the sort of person who swears there car goes faster after they wax it.