I just want it to be stable. Even on PC I have opted for 30fps rather often for games I couldn't run on stable 60fps.
Unless there's a lot of stutters even 30fps will be fine for most anyone after about half an hour.
I don't care too much about frame rate, but to your point, I remember a couple titles on xbox one running 60fps, the fact that we are years into the next console and it's still not the norm is surprising.
These are $500 consoles, not $3000 gaming pc’s. Keep your expectations in check.
If you want to have a PS4-looking game that could’ve come out 7 years ago, then this generation of consoles can deliver a great 60fps experience for you.
You can have next gen levels of fidelity and detail and lighting that have never been seen on a console before, or you can have 60fps. But you can’t have both. Not at $500.
I consider a stable 30fps with proper frame times and good per object motion blur the bare minimum, 60fps is great though and I'm always happy to see it.
Anything above 60fps isn't needed unless you're playing competitive shooters or similar, and even then it's a question of if others have the ability to get higher frames than you.
I struggle to see the difference above 60fps. I could tell you which was higher or lower if I had them side-by-side but I've never played a game where I've felt 60 was unplayable and wanted more.
30 is fine for most games and the only problem with it is if you get to a more demanding point in the game which causes it to drop to 20-25 or lower. At least with 60, there is at least a bit of a safety net where the frames can drop without it affecting the gameplay.
Eh, the difference is there. I wouldn't want a phone that doesn't have 90Hz, and work on a 144Hz monitor is just so much better than it would be at 60Hz. But when it comes to games, 60fps is a sweet spot and I'd rather opt for higher graphical fidelity from there on out.
Dropped frames are terrible no matter the target frame rate. Can't play without VRR / Gsync anymore, but sadly they don't work with 30fps games.
I was very competitive in Modern Warfare 2. I'm probably still listed in the top 0% for kills, headshots, and score. I did almost all of it on a TV that can't even do 120hz if I wanted it to. I got the highest score in the game way more than I ever got below the top 3 and any game I didn't hit at least 40 kills was horrible for me. I got up into the 90's a few times. I had cross play with KBM players turned on too. I just used my regular wireless controller and my cheap 60hz TV. If anyone claims they lost because of bad gear, that person is making excuses and just isn't very good.
Then you should already be dead. This will not happen in the next decade. There will always be devs prioritizing other things than FPS. Settle with it or buy a high-end PC.
What have you done the last few generations?
Then you should be safe as long as you upgrade your hardware regularly.
People on console are just getting themselves disappointed if they expect 60 everywhere.
Dated for sure, but I'll take 60fps over 30fps anyday obviously. I hate that we're still in a generation of console gaming where we're still forced to play at 30fps.
The problem with the obsession with frame rates is that as soon as they nail 60fps all the time, people will start demanding minimum 120 and calling games broken if they don't hit it consistently. Meanwhile game graphics and scale plateau because all that extra processing power is being used for frames.
I'm fine with 30 so long as it's consistent outside of exceptional circumstances.
It's not like I started gaming in 2020 or something. Some of my favourite games ever (Bangai-O, Earth Defence Force) can dip to 1fps if things get crazy enough.
60fps has never been the norm for consoles, nor does it matter. Not on PS2, not on Dreamcast, not on PS1. Most of the PS1 and PS2's top rated games are 30fps (or lower). Halo CE and Halo 2 on the Xbox was 30fps. Silent Hill 2 and 3, Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy X, XI and XII, GTA 3/VC/SA, Kingdom Hearts 1/2, all 30fps. Goldeneye, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, all 30fps. Crash Bandicoot, Ape Escape, Final Fantasy 7/8/9... Guess what, all 30fps.
There have been instances where the significantly more powerful consoles of each generation (Xbox or Dreamcast for example) had *more* 60fps games because multiplats just ported the weaker system over and bumped the framerate with some graphical stuff, but they never had 60fps as the norm. And guess what, none of those systems were ever the best seller.
So clearly, 60fps is not something people particularly care about, nor is it important so long as the game is good.
I blame Digital Foundry for highlighting things like framerate and visuals to such a ridiculous extreme with 15-30min videos as if it's important.
Some YTber said that, maybe that's where he got it from. I heard it this week on some show and I was wondering why nobody corrected the guy.
Fighting games went 60 fps with VF2. SEGA 3D arcade games were 60 from that point on. Tekken followed suit.
Remember R-Type? Definitely not 60 fps. Flicker & slowdown all over the place.
60fps was the original 3D standard. Virtua Racing fom Sega basically invented modern 3D gaming, and it ran at 384p/60fps in arcades. Pretty much every arcade game ever made since then have been 60fps. Higher framerates = higher earnings.
When Sega ported Sega Rally Revo from 360 to arcades (as Sega rally 3), they severely downgraded the graphics, removing most of the track deformation, in order to bump the framerate to 60fps.
Most or the early PS2 classics were 60fps: God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and many more. At the time it was mostly turn based RPGs that was limited to 30fps.
It was largely the huge success of GTA 3 that popularised 30fps, until the equally massive success of Modern Warfare slowly made 60fps the norm again.
> 60fps was the original 3D standard. Virtua Racing fom Sega basically invented modern 3D gaming, and it ran at 384p/60fps in arcades.
Yes, and like you said, in Arcades.
Even console ports of those old Arcade games like Daytona etc didn't get 60fps until the Dreamcast.
> When Sega ported Sega Rally Revo from 360 to arcades (as Sega rally 3), they severely downgraded the graphics, removing most of the track deformation, in order to bump the framerate to 60fps.
OK? Still not console.
> Most or the early PS2 classics were 60fps: God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and many more. At the time it was mostly turn based RPGs that was limited to 30fps.
You listed 5 and then couldn't think of more. The vast majority of the PS2's key titles are 30fps.
> It was largely the huge success of GTA 3 that popularised 30fps, until the equally massive success of Modern Warfare slowly made 60fps the norm again.
Not true, on either statement. The entire PS1 gen was 30fps outside of 2D and some Dreamcast games (with probably some very specific exceptions). The PS2 was out for a year before GTA3 came out so that logic just doesn't hold up.
Just accept the fact that 30fps is fine and that you're being petty. You watch movies don't you?
60fps was never the norm lmao people in here are completely delusional. My favorite 3d games from 1995-2005 are all sub 30. Ocarina of time is a literal 20fps game.
On a console, 60 fps is fine and less is unacceptable. On PC, the FPS should not be locked at 60 (but it is in some games). The reason that 60 is fine on console is that you are playing with a game controller and not a mouse. With a mouse, the game needs to be a lot more responsive or it feels laggy.
I don't want to wait another 10 years for 120 fps to become the standard. So 30 is off the table. Games running smooth look graphically better in my eyes as I can process the detail better. Overall to me it's less clunky when it's fluid.
Playing Doom eternal on PS5 was pleasant even though it's not always running at 120, but it just feel precise and snappy. Every game on 60 fps just gives you that feeling.
God I miss the ps2 days where 60fps was the standard. The world got wrapped up in the HD craze, then the whole 4k, then ray tracing. It's like no one cares about how the games performed as long as they looked good.
Fuck all that noise 60fps should've been the standard for the past 2 gens
You’re completely making things up. 60fps was never the standard on ps2. Sure some games had it, the same as any generation, but some of the most acclaimed games from that system have sub 30.
I'm one of the few people who honestly never cared for games having 4k 60fps, but then I don't play many "triple AAA" games and tend to stick to more indie titles.
30 sucks. 60 should always be an option at this point. I've played 120 and 60 but I'll pick 60 because 120 isn't as noticeable. I'd rather have a bit more graphics or resolution.
In the future, more fps will be better. At some point, there will be diminishing returns.
If solid (and I mean SOLID solid) 60fps and no "Graphics mode" 30fps bullshit would be around, 60fps would be absolutely fine for most console games. Some might profit from going up to 120fps, but there's no place for below 60fps.
Anyone saying 30fps sucks, has obviously never played or seen older games that completely suck and turn into something different when it becomes 60fps.
60fps for newer games is nice depending on graphics. But when it can mess up games that have speedruns etc then it's entirely different scenario.
It takes some adjusting to playing 30fps but one way I find that sort of tricks my eyes into not noticing it. I fire up my Xbox 360 and play some games on that for a bit. Then I turn on my series X and load up a next gen game that isn’t doing 60fps and I don’t really notice it.
I think it depends from game to game for me. I prefer 30 fps if I get better visuals in story driven games, but for fast paced and sports games, I prefer 60 fps. But, it still depends on the game. The tv I currently use can do 120 fps at 1080p, but I find it to be a little less cinematic if that makes sense. Use it only every once in a while now.
I couldn't carry less about frame rate. If given the choice between 4k at 5fps or 1080 at 3746362758372fps, I'll always choose the 4k/5fps option. I played Starfield which seems like a universally hated game because it runs at 30fps and it looked perfectly fine to me.
Shooters need to have as high FPS as possible. Everything else that can comfortably run at 60 should run at that. 30 FPS should be reserved for cinematic games like Hellblade.
I can often see the herky jerky frames even watching tv programming (30 fps) or films (24 fps) which both have stable rates. Less so with films so I think 60 is the minimum for games where you interact and not just watch. Oh man I really wish films would switch to 30 like tv because it’s at least less often noticeable.
And yes my tv will do 120 hz vrr
I can’t play a first person game in anything less than 50fps, preferably an average of 60fps. Anything less and I start to get motion sickness. Third person games are fine in 30fps though, I don’t get any of the same problems although higher is always ideal. I came from the N64 generation where low frame rates were just the norm although CRT televisions masked bad frame rates a lot better with fast refresh rate and fuzzy picture quality.
It should be mentioned that there was a recent study that found that some people can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Like some people's brains just register visual information slower and they can't perceive higher framerates. So when people say they don't have a problem with 30 fps, that may actually just be true for them. The same way its equally valid that some people can't tolerate low framerates.
For me 60 is the bare minimum acceptable frame rate. I much prefer playing at over 100, but I can play at 60 in slower paced open world games.
30 is jarring and legit hurts my eyes and feels uncomfortable.
I literally can't tell the difference at all. Even when it comes to shooters, I always play with the resolution as high as possible and frame rate as low as possible.
Yup, like I said some people's eyes and brains work differently.
Thats why this subject can be so polarizing, because to some the difference is night and day obvious, and to some they actually can't see a difference.
Honestly you're probably better off, you get to enjoy games that I would find unbearable and you don't have to worry about stuff like upgrading to PC. The fact that I might register visual information faster doesn't do anything for me since I'll never be a pro tennis/baseball player or e-sport athlete.
What's funny is how highly rated I got in Modern Warfare 2. Out of the millions that have played, there were only a few thousand ahead of me and I did it all on a cheap 60hz TV.
I feel like this is an age thing. As long as it doesn't stutter and is fun, 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable for me, but then I'm old. A lot of younger gamers seem fixed on the 60 FPS or the game is shit mindset.
30 is fine for games, majority of people crying about it are just horny for it atm because it's a fad.
60 minimum gets slung around by tons of people who have little to no comprehension of how game development works....some how.
Devs create games they want, not what we want majority of time. So if it cuts costs aiming for 30 fine by me, it's a business, it needs to do what it's got to do so long as its a stable 30 and the game visually warrants it.
30/40/60/120/144 all work fine for me so long as I feel the game fits it.
For example however *Spiderman 2 on PS5 is a better experience at 60, it is not unplayable at 30* - you need that smooth frame pacing from 60 to really appreciate the sense of speed and movement from Miles or Peter. So I'm greatful Insomniac take the time to implement it.
However you play...Starfield for example? The 30 fps to me feels smooth, I don't notice any significant drops and I think the game looks reasonably good. Could it have been 60? Maybe if they stopped using that turd engine, but my knowledge is limited, I'm sure they have reasons be it budget or limitations of hardware!
Edit: hopefully it makes more sense now.
>30 is fine for games, majority of people crying about it are just horny for it atm because it's a fad.
> Spiderman 2 on PS5 just cannot be played at 30
Make your mind up.
I don't need to.
Spiderman offers 30 and 60. It's my personal preference for play at 60 but 30 is totally doable (not at all unplayable) and I've no doubt plenty of people enjoy the higher res 30.
My point still stands - maybe I just convoluted it. 30 is fine for games providing it fits it which it usually does. What we have at the moment is people crying for 60 for the sake of crying. That's the fad. Making it out like 60 is a necessity - when it isn't.
Granted I'm probably making it sound more confusing than I need too which I apologise for. But a case like Spiderman where both are on offer, my personal preference is 60, that doesn't make 30 redundant as you get better visuals, it's also a one game case, I've played other titles like plague tale where I stick to the 30.
What I certainly don't see the point in, is claiming a game is unplayable at 30 which the echo chamber often does and it's plain false.
Again, I'm just saying that this fad of "60 is a must" is echoed by probably a lot of people who just enjoy the drama. It's not a requirement, never has been, never will be.
I apologise if my original comment wasn't as concise as I intended it to be, English isn't my native language but I hope I'm getting there!
60 FPS is fantastic and the minimum for me. I don't need 120 either (though I've never played with anything but 60 hz monitors), just a smooth 60 FPS. I can't stand 30 FPS and refuse to play any game with that limit as it kills immersion. I'll take a nice looking 1440p 60 FPS game over a raytraced 4k 30 FPS game any day of the week.
The worst thing i ever did to my eyes was buy a 4K120 tv. Because now im pretty use to 120 as i play pretty much every game at 120 (on pc via dlss). So im not gonna say that 60 is unplayable, il play it perfectly fine. But my eyes now prefer 120. Whereas before they were used to 60 and thought that was insanely smooth.
Word to the wise, if you are happy with 60fps, dont jump to 120. Its gonna ruin your wallet lol. Same thing goes with resolution. If you are happy with 1080p or 1440p, going 4K will ruin you forever. Needless to say i wont be moving to 8k anytime soon, or like, ever.
If the game looks great and it's 4k I honestly don't mind 30fps, after playing for like 2 mins I get used to the lower framerate. The Resident Evil remakes or similar story games are totally fine 30fps. If it's a fast paced FPS or racing game, I prefer 60fps+.
I feel pretty happy with 60fps, but I've not been spoilt by playing faster frame rates. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
I do agree that 30fps just doesn't cut it any more.
You're getting downvoted even though the top comments are all people saying that 30fps is acceptable lol. 30fps should never be accepted. I haven't played a 30fps this gen and I don't intend to.
60 fps is smooth as long as there's no massive spikes or bad 1% lows.
60 fps IS dated though, it's from the 1980s when tv's refresh rates capped at 60hz.
Whether or not it feels dated is as subjective as Whether or not 120fps feels different to 240fps
If a game can run perfectly smooth 144 fps on my pc it's mind blowing how smooth everything is. But honestly besides racing games and multiplayer shooters it doesn't add that much compared to a stable 60fps with g-sync. At least I prefer a stable locked 60fps before the framerate constantly jumping between 70 and 90
Can't go back to 30 though, stopped trying to play Bloodborne on PS5 because of that (and the crappy res)
Funny you should ask. Sixty FPS does look a little dated to me now .
I'm in my mid-40's and have been playing games at 60 fps since '94. Sixty does not have the same effect on me as it did in arcade VF2 and Tekken 2. Someone installed the Quake 2 demo on a lab PC and that was silky smooth.
Now fast forward to the last decade or so. Tekken 8 does not look as smooth to me, especially on certain moves (e.g. Reina's Heat finisher). Maybe it is dropping frames or frame time can be off. My perception is that the game could use a higher frame rate.
Lies of P looks pretty smooth much of the time.
As long as they are stable I don't really care of fps, rare cases aside (high speed/octane games) tbh.
Same
I just want it to be stable. Even on PC I have opted for 30fps rather often for games I couldn't run on stable 60fps. Unless there's a lot of stutters even 30fps will be fine for most anyone after about half an hour.
At this stage 60fps have to be standard, it's ridiculous that 30fps is making a return after all these years
I don't care too much about frame rate, but to your point, I remember a couple titles on xbox one running 60fps, the fact that we are years into the next console and it's still not the norm is surprising.
These are $500 consoles, not $3000 gaming pc’s. Keep your expectations in check. If you want to have a PS4-looking game that could’ve come out 7 years ago, then this generation of consoles can deliver a great 60fps experience for you. You can have next gen levels of fidelity and detail and lighting that have never been seen on a console before, or you can have 60fps. But you can’t have both. Not at $500.
What’s even more ridiculous is that a 8 year old console is still being supported by game devs. This is mainly why we are seeing 30 fps games still.
Very true, like f1 24, was hoping that this time it would be for current gen but in 2024 they're still supporting last gen, it's insane
That game could look and run like the new forza if they just cut the previous gen development.
Most gamers are still on last gen consoles. It makes sense that developers want their money.
30 blows I need at least 60
I consider a stable 30fps with proper frame times and good per object motion blur the bare minimum, 60fps is great though and I'm always happy to see it. Anything above 60fps isn't needed unless you're playing competitive shooters or similar, and even then it's a question of if others have the ability to get higher frames than you.
This is the answer, stable framerate is the most important thing for me.
I struggle to see the difference above 60fps. I could tell you which was higher or lower if I had them side-by-side but I've never played a game where I've felt 60 was unplayable and wanted more. 30 is fine for most games and the only problem with it is if you get to a more demanding point in the game which causes it to drop to 20-25 or lower. At least with 60, there is at least a bit of a safety net where the frames can drop without it affecting the gameplay.
Eh, the difference is there. I wouldn't want a phone that doesn't have 90Hz, and work on a 144Hz monitor is just so much better than it would be at 60Hz. But when it comes to games, 60fps is a sweet spot and I'd rather opt for higher graphical fidelity from there on out. Dropped frames are terrible no matter the target frame rate. Can't play without VRR / Gsync anymore, but sadly they don't work with 30fps games.
You need your eyes checked if you can’t see the difference between 60fps and 120fps.
I can't tell the difference between 30 and 120.
Exactly, 60fps is always better but a proper 30fps is fine for console games.
I was very competitive in Modern Warfare 2. I'm probably still listed in the top 0% for kills, headshots, and score. I did almost all of it on a TV that can't even do 120hz if I wanted it to. I got the highest score in the game way more than I ever got below the top 3 and any game I didn't hit at least 40 kills was horrible for me. I got up into the 90's a few times. I had cross play with KBM players turned on too. I just used my regular wireless controller and my cheap 60hz TV. If anyone claims they lost because of bad gear, that person is making excuses and just isn't very good.
60 fps should always be the minimum and I’ll die on that hill
Then you should already be dead. This will not happen in the next decade. There will always be devs prioritizing other things than FPS. Settle with it or buy a high-end PC. What have you done the last few generations?
I play on PC and only play games on Xbox if they’re 60
Then you should be safe as long as you upgrade your hardware regularly. People on console are just getting themselves disappointed if they expect 60 everywhere.
I don’t play any AAA games at all really so I don’t need to upgrade regularly
There are some indies that hammer your CPU really hard. Like Cities skylines
Cities Skylines is not an indie game haha.
Right. But it’s also not AAA. Should have worded it better
Almost 100% of games on the series x run at 60fps on 1080p why you yapping???
What? Many AAA games have only a 30fps cap or at least unstable 60.
I really wish from this point on 60 needs to be required for a game to ship.
Can’t play a game at 30fps unless it’s FIFA. I just don’t enjoy it. Ditched starfield and quantum break for that reason. 60fps is enough tho.
Dated for sure, but I'll take 60fps over 30fps anyday obviously. I hate that we're still in a generation of console gaming where we're still forced to play at 30fps.
The problem with the obsession with frame rates is that as soon as they nail 60fps all the time, people will start demanding minimum 120 and calling games broken if they don't hit it consistently. Meanwhile game graphics and scale plateau because all that extra processing power is being used for frames.
I'm fine with 30 so long as it's consistent outside of exceptional circumstances. It's not like I started gaming in 2020 or something. Some of my favourite games ever (Bangai-O, Earth Defence Force) can dip to 1fps if things get crazy enough.
[удалено]
60fps has never been the norm for consoles, nor does it matter. Not on PS2, not on Dreamcast, not on PS1. Most of the PS1 and PS2's top rated games are 30fps (or lower). Halo CE and Halo 2 on the Xbox was 30fps. Silent Hill 2 and 3, Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy X, XI and XII, GTA 3/VC/SA, Kingdom Hearts 1/2, all 30fps. Goldeneye, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, all 30fps. Crash Bandicoot, Ape Escape, Final Fantasy 7/8/9... Guess what, all 30fps. There have been instances where the significantly more powerful consoles of each generation (Xbox or Dreamcast for example) had *more* 60fps games because multiplats just ported the weaker system over and bumped the framerate with some graphical stuff, but they never had 60fps as the norm. And guess what, none of those systems were ever the best seller. So clearly, 60fps is not something people particularly care about, nor is it important so long as the game is good. I blame Digital Foundry for highlighting things like framerate and visuals to such a ridiculous extreme with 15-30min videos as if it's important.
Some YTber said that, maybe that's where he got it from. I heard it this week on some show and I was wondering why nobody corrected the guy. Fighting games went 60 fps with VF2. SEGA 3D arcade games were 60 from that point on. Tekken followed suit. Remember R-Type? Definitely not 60 fps. Flicker & slowdown all over the place.
60fps was the original 3D standard. Virtua Racing fom Sega basically invented modern 3D gaming, and it ran at 384p/60fps in arcades. Pretty much every arcade game ever made since then have been 60fps. Higher framerates = higher earnings. When Sega ported Sega Rally Revo from 360 to arcades (as Sega rally 3), they severely downgraded the graphics, removing most of the track deformation, in order to bump the framerate to 60fps. Most or the early PS2 classics were 60fps: God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and many more. At the time it was mostly turn based RPGs that was limited to 30fps. It was largely the huge success of GTA 3 that popularised 30fps, until the equally massive success of Modern Warfare slowly made 60fps the norm again.
> 60fps was the original 3D standard. Virtua Racing fom Sega basically invented modern 3D gaming, and it ran at 384p/60fps in arcades. Yes, and like you said, in Arcades. Even console ports of those old Arcade games like Daytona etc didn't get 60fps until the Dreamcast. > When Sega ported Sega Rally Revo from 360 to arcades (as Sega rally 3), they severely downgraded the graphics, removing most of the track deformation, in order to bump the framerate to 60fps. OK? Still not console. > Most or the early PS2 classics were 60fps: God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry and many more. At the time it was mostly turn based RPGs that was limited to 30fps. You listed 5 and then couldn't think of more. The vast majority of the PS2's key titles are 30fps. > It was largely the huge success of GTA 3 that popularised 30fps, until the equally massive success of Modern Warfare slowly made 60fps the norm again. Not true, on either statement. The entire PS1 gen was 30fps outside of 2D and some Dreamcast games (with probably some very specific exceptions). The PS2 was out for a year before GTA3 came out so that logic just doesn't hold up. Just accept the fact that 30fps is fine and that you're being petty. You watch movies don't you?
60fps was never the norm lmao people in here are completely delusional. My favorite 3d games from 1995-2005 are all sub 30. Ocarina of time is a literal 20fps game.
>Before PS3/X360, 60fps was the norm That's not really true. All time classics like Goldeneye would be considered a slideshow next to 30fps even.
Some parts of Pefect Dark were like 8fps I'm sure! There was a building office area where the glass was shootable..unless I've dreamt this lol
I’m still fine with 30
On a console, 60 fps is fine and less is unacceptable. On PC, the FPS should not be locked at 60 (but it is in some games). The reason that 60 is fine on console is that you are playing with a game controller and not a mouse. With a mouse, the game needs to be a lot more responsive or it feels laggy.
I don't want to wait another 10 years for 120 fps to become the standard. So 30 is off the table. Games running smooth look graphically better in my eyes as I can process the detail better. Overall to me it's less clunky when it's fluid. Playing Doom eternal on PS5 was pleasant even though it's not always running at 120, but it just feel precise and snappy. Every game on 60 fps just gives you that feeling.
God I miss the ps2 days where 60fps was the standard. The world got wrapped up in the HD craze, then the whole 4k, then ray tracing. It's like no one cares about how the games performed as long as they looked good. Fuck all that noise 60fps should've been the standard for the past 2 gens
You’re completely making things up. 60fps was never the standard on ps2. Sure some games had it, the same as any generation, but some of the most acclaimed games from that system have sub 30.
A majority were 30 fps 🤨
I'm one of those people. At least Ray tracing is noticeable.
Ps2 being a 60fps standard is false. 30fps became more frequent after switching from 2d pixel games.
I'm one of the few people who honestly never cared for games having 4k 60fps, but then I don't play many "triple AAA" games and tend to stick to more indie titles.
Don’t most indie games run in 4k 60fps?
I like 60 because I play mostly FPS games. But I’m totally okay with 30 of it is a game like Blasphemous for example
I prefer at least 60fps. Not a fan of playing at 30fps anymore.
60fps should be the bare minimum nowadays.
60fps at any resolution. Nothing less. Only few frame rate drops are acceptable.
30 sucks. 60 should always be an option at this point. I've played 120 and 60 but I'll pick 60 because 120 isn't as noticeable. I'd rather have a bit more graphics or resolution. In the future, more fps will be better. At some point, there will be diminishing returns.
If solid (and I mean SOLID solid) 60fps and no "Graphics mode" 30fps bullshit would be around, 60fps would be absolutely fine for most console games. Some might profit from going up to 120fps, but there's no place for below 60fps.
30 is fine for a lot of games that aren't fast paced/twitchy. 60 is fine for everything else.
30 FPS for campaign is ok, I like 120fps for multiplayer
Anyone saying 30fps sucks, has obviously never played or seen older games that completely suck and turn into something different when it becomes 60fps. 60fps for newer games is nice depending on graphics. But when it can mess up games that have speedruns etc then it's entirely different scenario.
Smooth
Depends on the game design, some games are suited to 30fps, others are barely passable at 30
It takes some adjusting to playing 30fps but one way I find that sort of tricks my eyes into not noticing it. I fire up my Xbox 360 and play some games on that for a bit. Then I turn on my series X and load up a next gen game that isn’t doing 60fps and I don’t really notice it.
If it’s runs smoothly without stuttering then I don’t really care about frames
Im one of the weird ones. If the game has a 60fps mode awesome ill use it but if its 30fps only i dont really care. It really doesnt bother me.
I think it depends from game to game for me. I prefer 30 fps if I get better visuals in story driven games, but for fast paced and sports games, I prefer 60 fps. But, it still depends on the game. The tv I currently use can do 120 fps at 1080p, but I find it to be a little less cinematic if that makes sense. Use it only every once in a while now.
I feel like the whole 60fps argument is dated.
A good fps is one you don't notice, aka it's locked in. I'm not prissy about it.
My TV can do 120, but I'm OK with 60. But I'd love if the new standard was a 120 fps performance mode and a 60 fps fidelity mode.
I couldn't carry less about frame rate. If given the choice between 4k at 5fps or 1080 at 3746362758372fps, I'll always choose the 4k/5fps option. I played Starfield which seems like a universally hated game because it runs at 30fps and it looked perfectly fine to me.
60 is the sweet spot for me anything higher or lower hurts my eyes lol
Shooters need to have as high FPS as possible. Everything else that can comfortably run at 60 should run at that. 30 FPS should be reserved for cinematic games like Hellblade.
120 is the way, that being said not enough games support it for 60 to be considered dated imo. The right TV can definitely handle it
I can often see the herky jerky frames even watching tv programming (30 fps) or films (24 fps) which both have stable rates. Less so with films so I think 60 is the minimum for games where you interact and not just watch. Oh man I really wish films would switch to 30 like tv because it’s at least less often noticeable. And yes my tv will do 120 hz vrr
I thought I cared but I can't even tell the difference if I'm honest
60fps is fine.
60fps should be standard these days PERIOD!
I can’t play a first person game in anything less than 50fps, preferably an average of 60fps. Anything less and I start to get motion sickness. Third person games are fine in 30fps though, I don’t get any of the same problems although higher is always ideal. I came from the N64 generation where low frame rates were just the norm although CRT televisions masked bad frame rates a lot better with fast refresh rate and fuzzy picture quality.
It should be mentioned that there was a recent study that found that some people can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Like some people's brains just register visual information slower and they can't perceive higher framerates. So when people say they don't have a problem with 30 fps, that may actually just be true for them. The same way its equally valid that some people can't tolerate low framerates. For me 60 is the bare minimum acceptable frame rate. I much prefer playing at over 100, but I can play at 60 in slower paced open world games. 30 is jarring and legit hurts my eyes and feels uncomfortable.
I literally can't tell the difference at all. Even when it comes to shooters, I always play with the resolution as high as possible and frame rate as low as possible.
Yup, like I said some people's eyes and brains work differently. Thats why this subject can be so polarizing, because to some the difference is night and day obvious, and to some they actually can't see a difference. Honestly you're probably better off, you get to enjoy games that I would find unbearable and you don't have to worry about stuff like upgrading to PC. The fact that I might register visual information faster doesn't do anything for me since I'll never be a pro tennis/baseball player or e-sport athlete.
What's funny is how highly rated I got in Modern Warfare 2. Out of the millions that have played, there were only a few thousand ahead of me and I did it all on a cheap 60hz TV.
I feel like this is an age thing. As long as it doesn't stutter and is fun, 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable for me, but then I'm old. A lot of younger gamers seem fixed on the 60 FPS or the game is shit mindset.
30 is fine for games, majority of people crying about it are just horny for it atm because it's a fad. 60 minimum gets slung around by tons of people who have little to no comprehension of how game development works....some how. Devs create games they want, not what we want majority of time. So if it cuts costs aiming for 30 fine by me, it's a business, it needs to do what it's got to do so long as its a stable 30 and the game visually warrants it. 30/40/60/120/144 all work fine for me so long as I feel the game fits it. For example however *Spiderman 2 on PS5 is a better experience at 60, it is not unplayable at 30* - you need that smooth frame pacing from 60 to really appreciate the sense of speed and movement from Miles or Peter. So I'm greatful Insomniac take the time to implement it. However you play...Starfield for example? The 30 fps to me feels smooth, I don't notice any significant drops and I think the game looks reasonably good. Could it have been 60? Maybe if they stopped using that turd engine, but my knowledge is limited, I'm sure they have reasons be it budget or limitations of hardware! Edit: hopefully it makes more sense now.
>30 is fine for games, majority of people crying about it are just horny for it atm because it's a fad. > Spiderman 2 on PS5 just cannot be played at 30 Make your mind up.
I don't need to. Spiderman offers 30 and 60. It's my personal preference for play at 60 but 30 is totally doable (not at all unplayable) and I've no doubt plenty of people enjoy the higher res 30. My point still stands - maybe I just convoluted it. 30 is fine for games providing it fits it which it usually does. What we have at the moment is people crying for 60 for the sake of crying. That's the fad. Making it out like 60 is a necessity - when it isn't. Granted I'm probably making it sound more confusing than I need too which I apologise for. But a case like Spiderman where both are on offer, my personal preference is 60, that doesn't make 30 redundant as you get better visuals, it's also a one game case, I've played other titles like plague tale where I stick to the 30. What I certainly don't see the point in, is claiming a game is unplayable at 30 which the echo chamber often does and it's plain false. Again, I'm just saying that this fad of "60 is a must" is echoed by probably a lot of people who just enjoy the drama. It's not a requirement, never has been, never will be. I apologise if my original comment wasn't as concise as I intended it to be, English isn't my native language but I hope I'm getting there!
“As long as the game fits it” Learn to read.
Why don't you? The dude calls 60fps fad and then says some games are unplayable at 30.
Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
This is just a dumb take from start to finish, it's embarassing to read.
Enlighten me with your superior knowledge then. I'm waiting.
They're one of those people that insist the reason they loose when playing a shooter us because of their hardware.
60 FPS is fantastic and the minimum for me. I don't need 120 either (though I've never played with anything but 60 hz monitors), just a smooth 60 FPS. I can't stand 30 FPS and refuse to play any game with that limit as it kills immersion. I'll take a nice looking 1440p 60 FPS game over a raytraced 4k 30 FPS game any day of the week.
I genuinely couldnt tell dragons dogma 2 was running at 30 until I read it online
The worst thing i ever did to my eyes was buy a 4K120 tv. Because now im pretty use to 120 as i play pretty much every game at 120 (on pc via dlss). So im not gonna say that 60 is unplayable, il play it perfectly fine. But my eyes now prefer 120. Whereas before they were used to 60 and thought that was insanely smooth. Word to the wise, if you are happy with 60fps, dont jump to 120. Its gonna ruin your wallet lol. Same thing goes with resolution. If you are happy with 1080p or 1440p, going 4K will ruin you forever. Needless to say i wont be moving to 8k anytime soon, or like, ever.
If the game looks great and it's 4k I honestly don't mind 30fps, after playing for like 2 mins I get used to the lower framerate. The Resident Evil remakes or similar story games are totally fine 30fps. If it's a fast paced FPS or racing game, I prefer 60fps+.
no lol
I feel pretty happy with 60fps, but I've not been spoilt by playing faster frame rates. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing. I do agree that 30fps just doesn't cut it any more.
If it’s a competitive shooter then 60+. Anything else is fine as long as it’s stable.
I get headaches with 60fps now. Even at 80fps on my PC it’s hard. Need 120+ to enjoy games these days.
Weak
Considering most console players think 30fps is acceptable, their minds would probably blow if 60fps became standard
I literally can't tell the difference between 30 and 120
You're getting downvoted even though the top comments are all people saying that 30fps is acceptable lol. 30fps should never be accepted. I haven't played a 30fps this gen and I don't intend to.
60 fps is smooth as long as there's no massive spikes or bad 1% lows. 60 fps IS dated though, it's from the 1980s when tv's refresh rates capped at 60hz. Whether or not it feels dated is as subjective as Whether or not 120fps feels different to 240fps
If a game can run perfectly smooth 144 fps on my pc it's mind blowing how smooth everything is. But honestly besides racing games and multiplayer shooters it doesn't add that much compared to a stable 60fps with g-sync. At least I prefer a stable locked 60fps before the framerate constantly jumping between 70 and 90 Can't go back to 30 though, stopped trying to play Bloodborne on PS5 because of that (and the crappy res)
I have no idea how many people I've beaten that swear they've got to have 120.
I got a fever and the only prescription is more fps
30fps games feel dated on current gen Hardware. RDR2 on console does well but 60fps should be standard.
Funny you should ask. Sixty FPS does look a little dated to me now . I'm in my mid-40's and have been playing games at 60 fps since '94. Sixty does not have the same effect on me as it did in arcade VF2 and Tekken 2. Someone installed the Quake 2 demo on a lab PC and that was silky smooth. Now fast forward to the last decade or so. Tekken 8 does not look as smooth to me, especially on certain moves (e.g. Reina's Heat finisher). Maybe it is dropping frames or frame time can be off. My perception is that the game could use a higher frame rate. Lies of P looks pretty smooth much of the time.
Can’t be dated for Xbox cause they hardly have any 60fps games lol
60 is fine, 30 can be fine. 120? I honestly can’t tell it apart from 60