30 FPS works better in some cases

Comparing games to a blurred film reel to justify settling for crappy performance? Trying to hide this by attacking your betters?

If PC gamers wanted to play a game at 30 fps, they could. They don't because they realize gameplay is that thing in between the cutscenes. And gameplay is always better at a higher frame rate, assuming it isn't constantly changing by 20-30 fps.

Every game is better at 60fps . It feels more real and immersive even if you like video games for Story telling. Then there is gameplay , which (without a doubt) is more responsive and fluid at 60fps . FACT .

It's consensus that higher frame rate > lower frame rate for every genre. There are only some delusional people that keep telling themselves the opposite because their favourite console can't handle advanced games at stable 60 fps.

People blow this out of proportion, but I do understand why one would say 30fps works better. People assume that 60fps automatically makes the game move at some strange looking speed-----but that has more to do with the game designers. Again again and again, it is the input response that is infinitely more important.

Also looks like TC wants fmv games to make comeback--playing too much Sewer Shark have you?

i c wat u did there

TC has an x1, he wants to settle for less

No every game looks better, the more frames per second it is, don't buy into this Bullsh*t of a Cinematic feel, just because the movies are shot at around 24fps were talking about a computer image, an image which always feels smoother at a higher frame rate, it doesn't mean the game runs faster, it means the graphics and the worild become alot smoother, all games should be wanting to reach higher frame rates so that a computer games looks more real, no matter what the game.

Of course some games can get away with being 30fps and still play brilliantly, but the more frames, the more fluid the movement, thats the whole point,

unlike a film with real people, there movements are already fluid due to them being a real thing, but videogames are made up of movements with each object, so the more frames per second the more fluid the object equaling actually a more cinematic feel than ever.

People who compare videogames to movies need to wake up, there totally different mediums and should never put side by side due to frame rate,

You basically regurgitated the same debunked shit i've read on other sites, with some of your own added sprinkles of stupidity. Not that i expected more..

The Hobbit looked weird because film as a whole is designed around 24 FPS. They raised the frames per second, but the tools used for the movie were still those that are finely tuned for 24 FPS. So ofcourse it'll look weird and fake. Using this tired example in the context of why 30 is sometimes better for video games is silly because video games are created completely differently than film. There is almost no comparison.

30 FPS is never better than 60, in any case, regardless of what some insecure folk might want to convince you. It's much more fluid, much more pleasant to the eye wile in motion, it decreases input lag and is much more responsive wile playing any game.

Frame rate has nothing to do with pacing and atmosphere.

You console gamers are on some next level of delusion.

The only situation where 30 fps might look better is FMV cut-scenes (since they're just like movies). But when it comes to actual in-game engine graphics, 60 fps will always look better no matter what.

Ehhhh no.

LOL at thinking that framerate works the same way on movies as it does on games.

I remember when I became a Battlefield fan I pretty much wrote off Call of Duty. But, I tried making returns only to feel nauseated by it's 60fps, it was anxiety inducing. Probably more a problem of myself going between the two extremes, like jumping from a hot tub into a pool. There probably are certain conditions when 30fps might be more ideal, maybe that should be up to individuals to opt for 30fps if both can be achieved.

I've a friend who upped his televisions refresh rate up and when I visit him all the movies we watch just seem really weird, like they're playing in fast forward but the audio is all normal. Reminds me of the sensation of when I used to have panic attacks as a child. I absolutely hate it, reminds me of watching the HFR Hobbit movie I regret paying extra to see.

Better than 15fps? Yeah, definitely. Better than 60fps? Are you butthurt that your console of choice can't achieve 1080p60?

Why stop at 30fps. Make them 24fps for extra cinematic feeling. Also make 90% of the game only cutscenes

60fps is always better.

The first part was ridiculous enough. Not sure why I kept reading to the next. Every game looks and feels better at higher framerates. Every.single.one. Don't act like movie and video game framerates are the same. They're not. Why?

Lack of physically accurate motion blur.

Cameras in the real-world have what's called a shutter, which is open for a continuous range of time, determined by the "shutter angle" or "shutter speed". For instance a moving picture captured at 24 frames per second might have the shutter open for 0.02083 seconds per frame (1/48 of a second, or 180° shutter angle). This continuous interval of time captures and blends all motion happening therein, leading to what we see as motion blur.

Games on the other hand, render only an instantaneous moment of time. There is no equivalent interval where motion is recorded and blended, and instead you create what is essentially a crystal clear sample of the world at a particular instant -- something that is not possible in the real world. Because no motion is recorded in the rendered frame, movement on-screen can look jerky unless the frame rate is increased to compensate (by capturing more inbetween motion). By increasing frame rate you essentially converge on real life "frame rates", leaving us with the biological motion blur we get from our eyes (which are like shutters that are always open).

Though modern games feature "motion blur" now, this only captures motion blur under certain assumptions, and does not (yet) fully recreate the motion blur we see in film or in high-quality CGI renderings.

I don't know if it's better in any case or not, but Destiny is in 30fps and I have had no complaints about it.

I literally don't care if the game was 60fps....the way that game plays is just fine. So, in some cases...it may not be that it's better...it just doesn't matter.

60 FPS looks great on All games.

I am actually ok with locked 30fps at a min 1080p even thou all my pc games are easily double that in the fps range but if its locked and loaded with more effects I truly don't have a problem with this. *raises shield*

Ahh the old "I can't have it so it is no good or unimportant" schtick.

It's amazing what people will try to convince themselves of in a desperate attempt to tell themselves they are not bothered.

All you people are doing is promoting stupidity and ignorance, 2014 the internet at everyone's fingertips a vast amount of readily available knowledge and people are dumber than ever,since when did it become acceptable to try to make personal opinions the truth and treat actual facts as lies?

Derpy fucking Derp derp.

When timing is specifically dialed in in competitive situations for the purpose of nailing time sensitive combinations (like fighting games), it makes sense that games would have 30fps. Of course it would be better if they had a 60fps as their standard... it's the standard that matters. 30fps is just easier to achieve.

You can't compare movies to games. The reason 60+fps is superior is because of control latency... the game reacts to your inputs slower, and it decreases the sense of responsiveness. "Slow paced, cinematic feel" is marketing bullshit that you would be wise to abandon. Less responsiveness in games is never, ever better.

No point in taking a troll like this seriously... hes the most bipolar non-gamer on this board.

Fighting games are almost all 60 fps for this very reason, this was even true on the 360 & PS3.

You need to work on your reading comprehension buddy.

The topic said 30 FPS works better than 60 FPS, it has nothing to do with whether you "care" what frame rate a game runs at or not. Silly console peasant, frame rate only doesn't matter when you are a fanboy of a platform that can't handle more than 30 in most games.

lol...Mr Huggles' Hog.

Well, that makes a whole lot of sense.

It's funny how people are still trying to sell this bs.

Eh, I wouldn't say it's been equal.

@Krelian-co: There's more too it than that. 60FPS looks cheap. Like a daytime soap-opera. Great when fluid motion is a constant, not so much when the entire frame and the relative (mostly static) position of all the objects on screen matters. Small things like characters breathing looks off in 60.

In any case. 60FPS is really one of those things that is a major boon but a minor loss to not. After all, you stop noticing some 10 minutes into playing a game anyway (irrespective of which way you go).

The only reason many people think 30FPS is sluggish or choppy is because they've not played games with properly implemented framecaps (common on PC games and increasingly on console games post-PS2 era), leading to juddering and constant (but minor) frame fluctuations. People confound that lack of fluidity with the framerate when it's actually the capping at fault.

TC is a cow. Funny ain't it considering his name?

Those damn idiotic cows. (See what I did?)

You need to learn the difference between your opinion and objective facts.

To illustrate this, please provide a source to back up this statement.

@mikhail: Well, a stable frame cap would make the games better on console. But, the entire thread is about which is better 60 Fps or 30 fps.

a. 60 fps cheap? lol just opening your post and already not making sense. You opinion is quite ignorant, you think as a good consolite that 60 fps doubles speed of animations, it doesn't they just look more fluid, a character breathing speed is the same 30 fps and 60 fps, animations are not tied to framerate, people had this problem in dark souls 2, where some animations were bugged because the higher framerate but it was fixed, besides it was dumb from the developers to program anything based on framerate.

b. If you say so, is because you haven't played at 60 fps, when dark souls 2 came out i capped it at 30 fps because the animations bug, sometime after i formated and reinstalled it, forgot to cap it, then i realized wtf, this looks like a different game and since it was fixed i kept playing at 60 fps, totally different game.

c. I have played games in every console, but right now the console i have played the most is ps3, yes it still feels sluggish, same for ps4 and xbone, games at 30 fps feel slow and sluggish, period. You think this is a pc problem? dream on.

I wouldn't make the point if I hadn't experienced it. And if the point could only be made objectively with graphs and such but not be appreciable in experience then wtf is the point of masturbating over these technical details? They matter because they are appreciable, not because they're recorded.

You need to learn the difference between a debate worth having and self-serving forum wanking. I'm sorry, I'm not interested in having some random pie-in-the-sky talk about numbers whilst losing sight of why any of this shit matters in the first place.

And the proof is everywhere in any case. Take a look at different games capped at 30 and notice that they don't all look equally juddery/smooth. Use the motion of the camera (rather than animations) to judge smoothness as animation quality varies from game to game.

LMFAO!

Typical System Wars consolite...can't prove your position which is inherently subjective yet they state it like it's a fact, so you pull the "This discussion is beneath me!" card. So fucking transparent.

And every game is better with an excellent online experience such that Forza gives (and 5 club does not).

steam is better, and it's free, get jelly consolite. but thanks for showing us how salty you are to bring a completely different topic into discussion.

sell what. what do I care? 60 is better for fast paced games like cod and fighting games, and 30 looks more cinematic for slow paced single player games. halo 3 and 4 were 30 and looked and played fantastic, the multiplayer was smoother than games with 60 fps.

now go cry.

what ever makes you sleep at night.

Bad thread and TC should feel bad.

next gen console gamers are gonna look back at threads just like this one and go "what the f**** were we thinking?"

but untill then people will continue to buy into the developers "cinematic" look copout

I suppose you're ignorant of the fact that movies flash each frame TWICE.

By showing each frame twice in cinema projection (48 Hz), and using interlace in television (50 or 60 Hz), a reasonable margin of error for unusual viewing conditions is achieved in minimising (sic) subjective flicker effect.

If you're using Progressive Scan (720p, 1080p) you need 48 FPS minimum to achieve fluidity.

The more framerate the better. It's a fact!

Watch this Star Wars: X-Wing video running at 60 FPS (needs chrome and 1080p) and compare with Star Fox running at 15 FPS:

Star Wars: X-Wing - 60 FPS

Star Fox - 15 FPS

Poor consolites.

Last gen it was "the human eye can't see past 30 fps" , now its "teh cinametic".

Consoles once again setting the pace, lifestyle and enjoyment of the gaming business.

Yeah this, anyone pretending otherwise is ignorant as ****.

Until the next console gen, then it's going to be something like "The human eye can't tell the difference above 60 fps, we don't need 288hz monitors like the PC mustard race!" Consoles years behind as always.