Why is 60fps THAT big of a deal?

Many people are complaining, at least from comments regarding the news of some launch titles for the next gen systems, such as the new Killzone and such running at 30fps. People are getting too worked up over it. 

On consoles, it isn't too much of a big deal because everyone is equal. Its PC that worries about it because it can affect how one's performance is in an online match.

That makes sense i guess. The thing is, even console players complain. 

That makes sense i guess. The thing is, even console players complain. 

r-teest

Because some gamers really miss the point of gaming completely in my opinion.

Because some people aren't satisfied unless they can have the very best.

60 FPS looks a lot nicer.

Many people are complaining, at least from comments regarding the news of some launch titles for the next gen systems, such as the new Killzone and such running at 30fps. People are getting too worked up over it. 

r-teest

It (usually) means lower input latency, which makes controls feel more responsive. This can in turn make the game feel nicer to play. Visually, it can help you do a better job of tracking fast-moving objects.

Either way, I think a steady framerate is more important than a higher average. I'd rather have a rock-solid 30fps game than a 60fps game that frequently drops below 60.

60 FPS looks a lot nicer.

Pffrbt

crappy textures at 60fps are still crappy textures. I'll glady exchange a few fps (assuming what we're left with is steady) for better textures, meshes, lighting and special effects, and more detailed environments (which is exactly the exchange we're making here). 30 fps is fine and the difference will be almost imperceptible to most without a side by side comparison or a particularly frenetic gameplay sequence.

I like 60fps because it feels smoother. Usually though, if it's not a shooter, I'll settle for 30fps. For killzone, I would have preferred 60fps single player and multiplayer. The final bells and whistles to make the graphics "nicer" aren't usually worth it for me--I usually disable or turn them down on my PC games. How the game plays is far more important than how it looks and 60fps does play better for it responds better.

[QUOTE="Pffrbt"]

60 FPS looks a lot nicer.

Ish_basic

crappy textures at 60fps are still crappy textures. I'll glady exchange a few fps (assuming what we're left with is steady) for better textures, meshes, lighting and special effects, and more detailed environments (which is exactly the exchange we're making here). 30 fps is fine and the difference will be almost imperceptible to most without a side by side comparison or a particularly frenetic gameplay sequence.

giddy textures all over th e place innit bossman.

Doesn't matter on consoles, because the way you transmit input to the game - the controller - isn't sufficiently precise for a person to grasp a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. When you use a mouse, however, there is an evident loss of fluidity with FPS drops. I'd actually say 30 FPS is tolerable on a PC, in the sense that you won't notice as much of a difference between dropping from 60 to 30 than you would from dropping from 30 to 15 (which is unplayable).

Playing shooters, or other twitch-action games, with sub-60 FPS is something hard to get used to after you've started gaming with 60 FPS - but if you're alright with using analog sticks for aiming, you shouldn't care about a 30 FPS difference.

Doesn't matter on consoles, because the way you transmit input to the game - the controller - isn't sufficiently precise for a person to grasp a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. When you use a mouse, however, there is an evident loss of fluidity with FPS drops. I'd actually say 30 FPS is tolerable on a PC, in the sense that you won't notice as much of a difference between dropping from 60 to 30 than you would from dropping from 30 to 15 (which is unplayable).

 

Playing shooters, or other twitch-action games, with sub-60 FPS is something hard to get used to after you've started gaming with 60 FPS - but if you're alright with using analog sticks for aiming, you shouldn't care about a 30 FPS difference.

iHarlequin

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

Doesn't matter on consoles, because the way you transmit input to the game - the controller - isn't sufficiently precise for a person to grasp a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. When you use a mouse, however, there is an evident loss of fluidity with FPS drops. I'd actually say 30 FPS is tolerable on a PC, in the sense that you won't notice as much of a difference between dropping from 60 to 30 than you would from dropping from 30 to 15 (which is unplayable).

 

Playing shooters, or other twitch-action games, with sub-60 FPS is something hard to get used to after you've started gaming with 60 FPS - but if you're alright with using analog sticks for aiming, you shouldn't care about a 30 FPS difference.

MirkoS77

:lol: Couldn't have missed the opportunity to use it. I find it particularly funny that the King Harkinian and Zelda in the sig. are the ones from the terrible, TERRIBLE Philips CD-i console - so bad that even Nintendo doesn't recognize them as part of the franchise (in part because they didn't develop it).

So long as my minimum framerates are at least 30fps, I'm fine if the top end is less than 60fps. That would mean average framerates at least in the upper 30's to low 40's.

It's not, 120 FPS is where it's at.

well certain genres benefit from higher frame rate more than others. Games where people have to time button presses to one 60th of a second like in Street Fighter for example would hate for the series to be in a lower framerate. I'd say heavy action games should run at 60 frames per second in general. Stuff like Fighters and Hack n slashes.

.

Apparently some people can't see the difference between 30 and 60. It's a lot smoother. I'm currently playing GTA V and the frame rate is very noticeable and distracting. I'm anticipating the PS4 and PC versions. Bad frame rates drag a game through the mud. It affects controls. It sucks. Give me 60. MirkoS77

Input lag can derive from a number of sources and most commonly is caused by what you're console is connected to (this is why MLG uses monitors and not TVs). I haven't played GTAV, but I've heard the input lag has been measured at around 200ms, which is awful. But blame Rockstar, not the framerate. There are games on the 360 running at 30fps with an input lag around 80ms, which is only about 20-25ms above the expected input lag of a game running in 60fps. On a controller, that difference is negligble.

Also, while I certainly can tell the difference on a monitor between 30 and 60fps, on a TV with all its built in image processing and the typical motion blur and such that consoles use, it really tends to be far less noticeable.

I would, however, in this instance worry about KZ, because Guerilla has had problems with input lag before. I think KZ2 was about 150ms. But in general, with a solid dev crew, a reasonably good TV (for gaming purposes), and a controller, 30 fps shouldn't be a big deal.