What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?
- Thread starter WindKnight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My current PC runs Minecraft at between 10 and 20 FPS, and I've been pretty good with that for, well, years, so anytime people complain about a 'mere' 30 FPS, I usually facepalm. First-world problems.
As long as it's over 30fps, it's perfectly acceptable, in my eyes. When I get my new laptop next week, with an awesome graphics card and plenty of memory, then I'll come back and say whether or not 30fps vs 60fps is objectively a big deal, or only an issue for videophiles that are just obsessing over getting things to look 1% better.
So to sum up, from my personal experience so far:
Going from sub-20fps to 24fps: pretty big difference.
Going from 24fps to 30fps: a big difference.
Going from 30fps to 40fps: not a big difference.
Going from 40fps to 60fps: barely noticeable difference, and nothing to ***** about.
As long as it's over 30fps, it's perfectly acceptable, in my eyes. When I get my new laptop next week, with an awesome graphics card and plenty of memory, then I'll come back and say whether or not 30fps vs 60fps is objectively a big deal, or only an issue for videophiles that are just obsessing over getting things to look 1% better.
So to sum up, from my personal experience so far:
Going from sub-20fps to 24fps: pretty big difference.
Going from 24fps to 30fps: a big difference.
Going from 30fps to 40fps: not a big difference.
Going from 40fps to 60fps: barely noticeable difference, and nothing to ***** about.
I care for a handful of games.
TF2 needs high frames for me. So does bioshock.
And beyond that...I honestly never care. Really just first person action-based computer games. It's partially because I'm so close to screen, and partially because the action is so fast.
TF2 needs high frames for me. So does bioshock.
And beyond that...I honestly never care. Really just first person action-based computer games. It's partially because I'm so close to screen, and partially because the action is so fast.
Why are ppl talking about 60FPS as a PC only thing? Don't many Wii games run at 60FPS?
The problem is the PS3 & 360 were never really powerful enough to run games in HD.
Imo 60FPS tends to matter more in games that put stock on timed controller inputs like fighter combos & rythmn games.
Also having a good low lag TV and wired controller helps with these games.
The problem is the PS3 & 360 were never really powerful enough to run games in HD.
Imo 60FPS tends to matter more in games that put stock on timed controller inputs like fighter combos & rythmn games.
Also having a good low lag TV and wired controller helps with these games.
20-30 fps is not enough so TV and movies work around this by using motion blur and by avoiding certain types of action shots and camera movements that break the illusion. So you might then say that video games can therefore use the same tricks so there is no problem with low framerates that are just on the borderline of being convincing. There are two problems with this. First being that it's a lot of work and effort being made to deliver something that is inferior to something more simple, as in just running the game at 60fps. Second being that there is the added problem in games of their being a feedback loop between the player using the controls and seeing the result of their action on screen. This has totally different rules for appearing to be convincing than movies. Generally speaking 60fps is the base line for controls appearing to be smooth and accurate. 30fps is usually convincing but sometimes it just doesn't feel right like when there is added lag due to other factors. If the controls are more precise you feel the lag more. Say if you use a mouse instead of a controller.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Personally I like to have games running over 30fps as a standard so that if something slows me down I don't dip into unplayable and choppy areas. It's like having a buffer zone for my fps. I have played some custom maps of SC2 where my fps dips down to single digits and don't mind for the most part.
Side note, The Hobbit is apparently going to be available in 48fps and some screenings it gave people headaches getting used to it. Just throwing that out to add that it's not always a concious difference and more what your body has gotten used to.
Side note, The Hobbit is apparently going to be available in 48fps and some screenings it gave people headaches getting used to it. Just throwing that out to add that it's not always a concious difference and more what your body has gotten used to.
It's a small difference but depending on the type of game that small difference could be what it takes to make a control system go from feeling sluggish to feeling good. It's not needed in FPSs or RPGs for example but it is needed in action and fighting games.
If you're on a game that swings between 30-60 fps, you can absolutely tell the difference.
However, outside a fast-paced shooter or a fighting game, most people couldn't properly guess what was 30 fps and what was 60 if they didn't have a side-by-side comparison. If you stuck random people in different rooms, showed some of them 30 fps and some of them 60, I doubt many would be able to guess it correctly.
In some games it certainly can matter, but overall its not that important (which is why I'm still buying Dark Souls PC. Also, its pretty easy to remove FPS-locks on PC games)
However, outside a fast-paced shooter or a fighting game, most people couldn't properly guess what was 30 fps and what was 60 if they didn't have a side-by-side comparison. If you stuck random people in different rooms, showed some of them 30 fps and some of them 60, I doubt many would be able to guess it correctly.
In some games it certainly can matter, but overall its not that important (which is why I'm still buying Dark Souls PC. Also, its pretty easy to remove FPS-locks on PC games)
24 FPS is only for movies, and it only works there because film has a natural motion blur effect. Even with the effect, film makers have to use a lot of tricks to keep things from getting choppy. It's a holdover from the early days of film, and it was a decision that was made more because it was cheap than because it was good. Anyway, TV in the US runs at 30 FPS[footnote]Nominally, that is. It's technically at 29.9 something or other, because it's based on the rate at which our power cycles. That's nominally 60 hz, but it really isn't quite 60.[/footnote], while in the UK (and PAL country in general) it's 25 FPS, which is based on their power cycle rate of 50 hz.
As for 30 vs. 60, there is a difference. I wouldn't call it a huge deal, but there's a difference. The old saw about 30 FPS being faster than the human eye can distinguish has been proven false. Things get noticeably smoother at least until the low hundreds.
As for 30 vs. 60, there is a difference. I wouldn't call it a huge deal, but there's a difference. The old saw about 30 FPS being faster than the human eye can distinguish has been proven false. Things get noticeably smoother at least until the low hundreds.
There is a huge difference in the looks and smoothness of a game. If you don't think you can see a difference look at this: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html
If you have a slower game it doesn't matter as much, but in fast paced action games it makes a world of difference. Especially when you have timing involved, more frames gives the developer more control over the timing involved in attacks/dodges/stuff.
If you have a slower game it doesn't matter as much, but in fast paced action games it makes a world of difference. Especially when you have timing involved, more frames gives the developer more control over the timing involved in attacks/dodges/stuff.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/editorial-48-fps-hobbit-preview-high-frame-rates/
Check out that article, granted it is about film and not games but the FPS issue is still there. About halfway down you can compare 25 and 50 FPS. Without going back and forth, I don't see a big difference but watching them side by side the 50 FPS looks a lot smoother during action shots. I notice it most in the scenes with lots of moving people. Anything moving quickly looks more clear to me as well.
Check out that article, granted it is about film and not games but the FPS issue is still there. About halfway down you can compare 25 and 50 FPS. Without going back and forth, I don't see a big difference but watching them side by side the 50 FPS looks a lot smoother during action shots. I notice it most in the scenes with lots of moving people. Anything moving quickly looks more clear to me as well.
Great page there, take a few seconds and let your eyes adjust to the 60 fps, then see the other ones and the differences really start to show. I also like the comment on the bottom about how fps can relate to immersion with film. Granted with a game you would need a stable fps first, if yours is constantly changing the effect would be lost. kinda a good argument for a 30fps lock at least for single player stories.TehCookie said:
I found the 15 fps example to be rather smooth, with no difference other than in speed for the 30 and 60 fps examples...I think I may be broken.TehCookie said:
OT: Iunno OP, but if the above is anything to go by, I'm not exactly a good yardstick.
Although DS does have timed attacks and parries the combat is quite slow so playing at 30fps is fine for gameplay wise imo. Infact I would hazard a guess that the reason why the devs locked the game to 30 FPS is because the comabt is designed around it, therefore removing the 30FPS limit might make the game play worse.MisterShine said:
Surely if you're timing things to the frame less frames per second is betterGeneralTwinkle said:
Have you played a game @ 10-20 fps? Any game below 20 fps is a choppy, most of the times unplayable mess.Windknight said:
Personally, I find 30 fps so be good for most games (with the exception of games like UT, counter-strike and some racing games), but I can definitely see and feed a difference of that 30-60 fps.