30fps: Better for consoles or better for nobody?

So I'm one of the unfortunate early adopters of Mafia 3 for PC. I like the game from what I've played so far, but like many people, I didn't build a decent gaming rig to play multiplats at 30fps. Hopefully Hangar 13/2K gets the patch they're talking about out this weekend.

That being said, playing with KB/M at 30fps feels objectively terrible. Yet when I pick up a controller, it feels playable. Could this be the reason so many console gamers (I, being a longtime console gamer myself) think that 30fps is totally fine? I feel like you can play 30 or 60fps with a controller, but not with KB/M. The speed of a mouse makes the low framerate too noticeable.

Obviously, higher framerates are better overall. So I guess my question is: Is 30fps acceptable on console/when played with a controller or should it never be acceptable? And if 30fps is acceptable with a controller, should it be console exclusive?

It might feel better with a controller than with a mouse, but it's still looks janky as hell. I'd say in 2016 going on 2017, 30 fps is unacceptable. Especially with a console refresh coming very soon.

Obviously 30fps feels worse on a more accurate and responsive device, try switching your monitor to 30hz and use windows for a while, then kick it to 100hz+ and its jizz time

I've always said that.

Destiny and such games play just fine to me, but 30fps on PCjust does not work.

Lowest I can go on PC is around 45fps.

30fps isn't necessarily a problem. Ideally, the reasons for it being used should have gone away ages ago. There really are no longer any good engineering reasons to do the things that can make hard frame locks a good idea.

If the game's animations, controls, systems, pacing and presentation are designed with that in view from the start, then it can be worked within effectively. Usually, however, this isn't the case. What happens is that the developer builds content without any particular performance targets or hardware profiles in view and then pares down to meet the needs of that when reality comes crashing in (see The Witcher 3 for how glaring this can get) and the result is almost always less than optimal. 30fps isn't a guarantee, it's more like a declaration of intent. If the frames lock also handles how inputs are processed (think of movement in Dark Souls 1, and how unlocking the framerates breaks some things) then this means that dropped frames and low frame rates can literally make the game unplayable.

I've decided I'm done frame counting, it's taking the focus away from the games for me. From here on out, no more fps counters....I'm just going to start at max settings and work my way down if I need to until it feels smooth.

Pretty much. It is possible for a dev to build a game to be played at 30fps, and when done correctly it feels smooth. It'd still be preferable at 60+ fps though.

Bungie makes their games this way, and I know a lot of old N64 games were built to be played at like 24fps or something. Animations and even sounds can be created with framerate in mind, and when done correctly it can feel pretty smooth. Your average everyday game, however, is not built in such a way. Plenty of games on consoles, with a controller in hand, still feel janky as all hell.

Better for nobody, it's borderline insane that 30 frames per second is a target for developers in 2016.

But these console manufacturers talk about redesigning their controllers so they have faster input and what not... But their games are still running at 30FPS, so what's the difference ?

To be fair, while their games aren't as graphicly intensive, I do credit Nintendo with putting a priority on framerate. Imagine Smash at 30fps. Ugh.

I've played consoles since the NES, so I always had to accept what was on offer. I've been PC gaming for around 5 years now and just built a high-end rig this year. Hell, even 45 feels sluggish on PC. On consoles now I find myself gravitating towards games with 60fps. The Titanfall 2 beta was fine. The Battlefield games are fine. Overwatch is fine. But when I was playing Battleborn on PS4 it felt like such a struggle to play competitively because of the framerate. I have it for PC now, and it plays WAY better.

I know people like to make jokes about "PC elitists", but when you see the obvious difference, it's hard not to be annoyed. Now that I can go either way for multiplats, that plays into my choices. I bought Mafia 3 for PC because I heard the console version was gonna be 1080p/30fps, and even though I was planning on playing on my TV with SteamLink and a controller, I wanted the smoother gameplay. But if I had known it wouldn't make a difference, I would've bought the PS4 version. I know they're patching it, but I could've saved myself some money by just getting the PS4 version.

I don't know. I can see why people sometimes get pissed off about "Consoles holding the PC back."

Yup, 60fps should be a baseline standard.

Gaming is still young, still going through growing pains, but this is something we need to move past soon.

No more myths about it only being important for shooters, racing games, and competitive games. No more "but teh cinematic experience" nonsense, these are video games that we interact with, not movies.

The sooner gamers can get their priorities straight, the sooner devs will follow. It'll be worth it for console gamers to take that initial hit to resolution and/or asset quality so that they can have a better experience in the long run. Having the newest tech heavy graphics only lasts for a moment and then it ages, but a game that performs well will always perform well. And as a bonus it's much easier to stomach some not so stellar graphics when a game runs butter smooth.

The sooner we embrace the standards that make this interactive medium work the better off we'll all be. We already have decades of proof, the trigger just needs to be pulled.

There is zero reason why any game should be 30fps. To quote Totalbiscuit's tweet- "30fps is not a design choice. It is a last resort when dealing with inferior hardware."

Pretty much the way I feel about things, but I wouldn't have worded it so eloquently. hehe :)

We should always work with 60FPS and then focus on the graphical effects and then shoot for the highest resolution after that... but honestly now that we're moving into 4K the ideal should be 4K/60 with all the bells and whistles but that's another discussion. I think I'm just tired of seeing games with 30fps.

30 fps with mouse is unplayable. However, with controller is playable except for first person games.

The real problem is with the 30 fps "target". Problem being it often falls short and can dip into the 20's consoles. That's when the game REALLY suffers. While 30 fps is crap compared to 60, it is still somewhat playable. 20's are not.

In 2016 the fact that consoles can't hit every game at 1080p/60fps is baffling and embarrassing. Now they want to take on 4K (with only slightly upgraded hardware in the case of PS)? Whoa! Slow down. Let's get the basics down first. I'd rather have full eye candy at 1080p/60fps than low/med settings at 4K/30fps.

I know this post kinda comes off as console slamming, but I don't mean it to. I'm just asserting that they need to hit their goal set in 2006 first before jumping on the 4K bandwagon. Otherwise we'll be stuck in 25fps land forever.

@Ryan_Som: I've said it before and I'll say it again, it really depends on the game.

For a shooter, fighting game, racer , anything fast paced that requires the quickest reactions and latency free input, you absolutely need 60fps. I tried playing overwatch at 30fps on my laptop (it's not very strong) and I immediately dropped the graphics and went back to 60, its a huge difference.

But in platformers, open world games, sports games etc, I rather have them make it as good looking as they can and just aim for 30. Consoles aren't strong, I get that. But in some games where you feel the frame rate less, you might as well just make it pretty. If they tried to do GTA at 60fps or Watch Dogs 2 at 60fps they would look absolutely horrible and the gameplay would hardly benefit.

Of course, controllers do make 30fps a lot more bearable. It's far more apparent when you're snapping the mouse quickly around the screen.

Better for nobody. I wish some devs would lose the 'release it early and fix it after' attitude.

There were some millennial shills at e3 sayin that they think 30 FPS looks better than 60 fps (it looked too gamey/gameish for them)

I guess they play movies and don't want the game to feel like a smoother experience.

@Ryan_Som: I really don't care either way.

60fps is nice but I've never experienced any game at 60fps that was vastly enhanced. 60fps is smoother and nicer on the eye nothing more.

30fps has never impeded my ability to play a game. I think the people who make out that 60fps somehow improves how a game plays is blowing it out of proportion.

I can understand sub 30fps being a problem for gameplay. When I played Witcher 3 on PS4, fighting in Crookback Bog was an issue because the amount of graphics on the screen made the fps drop to below 30fps.

At solid 30fps though the fighting was fine and more than responsive enough.

Well, the 60fps / unlimited framerate patch came out for Mafia 3 yesterday. After playing it with a controller it feels MUCH better, however there might be something to @Crypt_mx's comment about 60fps in open world games. I'm not used to seeing it because I normally play those games on console, but it still looks fine. My friend, who was watching, said the 60fps made her feel kinda sick (and this is someone who plays a lot of Overwatch, so it's not the framerate by itself).

I will say the game still appears to be unoptimized. I'm playing at 1080p with settings maxed and motion blur off and getting anywhere from framerates in the 50s to the 90s and I'm running a GTX 1070 8GB, an i7 at 4.0GHz, and 32GB of DDR4 RAM.

Still, playing at 60fps with a controller feels better. I was able to turn up the aiming sensitivity and turn off aim assist. I don't think I could comfortably do that at 30fps.

I'm actually interested in playing Dark Souls III at 60fps. I plan on buying it for PC the next time it gets a big price cut. I know some people think games like that feel sped up at 60fps, but I'd imagine the fighting is more responsive.

DS 3 plays excellent on PC, there's no frame pacing issues either that the console version suffer from, on top of being 30fps. Definitely worth picking up and it's on sale atm -35%

Yeah, I got a notification about the sale. I'd get it, but I'd like to see if it goes cheaper on the Halloween Sale.

It has been patched - a 3Gb patch but that's fine by me, it's now got 60 as well as unlimited fps.

Didn't had a problem playing it on 30fps, I've played Rivals on 30 and now Forza Horizon 3 got stuttering issues at 60fps so that's another 30fps title right now.

fps is overrated IMO, I prefer a good solid game rather than unlimited fps.

@Ryan_Som: I don't think it feels "sped up" I just don't really see how much "better" it really is. Sure if the game is REALLY fast paced with super limited hit boxes, like first person shooters or something like Super Meat Boy might see an improvement because millimeters matter in those cases.

But I think the benefit of 60fps is blown way out of proportion. I've played most games at 30fps. I've played consoles my entire life and my PC can't manage 60fps in most games.

FPS, racing, TPS, Indies, Action, RPGs. All of them are fine at 30fps. I'd say even in a game like Dark Souls you don't have the be THAT precise.

As long as the frames don't drop to sub 30 in most cases I see absolutely no issue with 30. I've even played online on PC at 30 and managed to consistently hit MvP in matches.

30 fps is a failure. The standard should be 60 fps, even on consoles.

Yes, 30 fps isn't terrible with a controller, but it is still better at 60 fps. Although, it still sucks when it dips down to 20 fps, because lul cheap console hardware.

Dark Souls is almost a different game at 60 fps vs 30. You probably shouldn't have listed that game as an example. :P

@DragonfireXZ95: Except it isn't. It is Dark Souls 3 but smoother.

People see what they want to see. That and most people who can run a game at 60fps won't be sat there doing in depth side by side comparisons of 60 vs 30. They will just play at 60.

All the while convincing themselves that their game handles so much better. Without actually testing that fact.

Basically there isn't a single bit of reliable proof that games are actually enhanced at 60fps other than feeling smoother. Just the biased accounts of gamers as per usual, taken as gospel by the masses that don't have a scientific bone in their entire bodies.

Fun fact:

Most 6th gen games were 60 FPS.

Most 8th gen games are 30 FPS.

...That's quite a downgrade.

It's one thing to accept the reality of 30fps, it's an entirely different thing to actively defend it.

Gamers are the worst.

Indeed.

I agree but then you getting the question " Resolution/graphics over FPS or not ". Because when a game that supposed would run on 1080p gets down to 900p or lower to sustain the 60fps , then everyone will cry out loud how is possible to have 900p games in 2016 instead.

Console manufacturers aiming for Resolution war more than anything so i think we gonna see more 30fps games.

It's only "better" for people with low standards.

Considering how video games have become more "cinematic", I'm not surprised.

DF Retro: Daytona USA and Why Frame-Rate Has Always Mattered

In 1993, developers were aiming for 60 FPS.

In 2016, developers are aiming for 30 FPS.

The issue here is that even with games becoming more cinematic , which i like those kind of experiences , i found 30fps ridiculous for this era.

I mean a decent PC plays easily above 30 fps at 1080p. Consoles also supposed are way more optimized as of how their hardware works then you getting 30fps locked on their exclusives . It doesnt make any sense , cinematic or not.

A lot of people defending 30 FPS say it's "cinematic".

As much as I like TB, he acts like 30 fps beat him and stuffed him in a locker throughout his childhood. While I don't deny that 60fps > 30fps and provides the smoother/better experience....

30 fps is not the spawn of Satan that most people make it out to be. I've never really been bothered playing any game at >= 30fps.

Maybe I'm just a very tolerating individual?

Except I did test that fact. I own Dark Souls on both PS3 and PC. It's a world of difference.

It's going to be a crying shame that devs use the Pro and especially the Scorpio to juice the visuals and keep the framerate targets the same. It's hard to blame them, because people lose their damn minds over tiny visual differences between brands, and over things looking "next gen enough". Look at the endless threads on here pixel counting and obsessing over upscaling vs native. Personally, I get along with my gaming time at 30fps on my consoles, but there's no way I'd advocate it over 60fps, and I agree 60 should be the standard. I don't spend my time counting frames while gaming, though. Smooth enough to still be fun to play is what I need, and I find 30 to be passable on consoles most of the time in that regard. Doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit from being smoother

While console only gamers are talking about 30 to 60 fps...I'm enjoying my games as smooth as butter on my newly purchased 144hz WQHD g sync monitor. Never going back to 60fps.

got one or two titan x pascals?

Yah i know. Youre right.

The only "excuse" there is to 30fps games is when developers want to really push the graphics way and beyond imho. I can give them a small excuse but still ... 30fps in 2016 , cinematic or not is pff :)

I'm genuinely curious as to what the difference is between 30fps and 60fps when you're actually playing a game?

MGSV was 60, whereas Mad Max was 30 or so, yet I didn't notice the difference, although MGSV was an overall better looking game, the fluidity and smoothness was identical.

@DragonfireXZ95: Wonderful. So I suppose we're supposed to take your word for it?

So what EXACTLY from your extensive testing makes 60fps improve the gameplay? Other than it being a bit smoother?

Do people with 60fps have a distinct advantage over people at 30? (Not likely I've played online on PC at 30fps and been competitive). Do people clear Dark Souls bosses quicker at 60fps because they have more accuracy with dodges? (Something tells me you won't have tested that).

OR like everyone else on the planet do you see how smooth it is and then just ASSUME it is a massive improvement without any ACTUAL evidence backing it up?

I like 60fps. It is indeed very smooth. But some people make out like it somehow enhances the gameplay and that is just total bullshit. Especially in slow methodical games. In super twitchy games sure 60fps might be a necessity but for 90% of games it just isn't.

If you can prove to me that 60fps gameplay is more accurate, like rolling in Dark Souls or Witcher 3 is more precise. That you can respond faster in game, turn and nail an enemy with a headshot quicker and more consistently. Then I will agree with you. But no one ever has.

And from my own experience of games at 60fps none of that is even slightly true.

I don't get why are people even debating over it, it's extremely simple, the stream seems smoother when it's updated more frequently, user input is more responsive because the delay of pressing the button to an action happening on your screen is shorter on 60fps than what it's at 30fps, these are objective facts. And yes @dexda people playing online fps games at higher fps than you are do have advantage over you, just like those playing with better ping than you have, one playing with better ping AND higher fps has even greater advantage as the effect is cumulative.

Why don't you just set your PC monitor to 30hz, wave the mouse around a bit then swap it to 60hz and do the same, if you can't see the difference there's something wrong with the hardware or in your eyesight.

And here's some reference material: http://30vs60.com/ and bonus: http://www.30vs60fps.com/ how long can you stare the 30 one for before feeling sick?

@howmakewood: If people have an advantage over me at 60fps but ping is allowing me to gain back that advantage then clearly 60fps is a MINOR improvement at best. It is hardly day and night. Which is what I was saying.

60fps might offer a smoother experience and as you say it might be more responsive but skill, game design and online problems over shadow it in almost every case.

Does playing at 60fps ACTUALLY make it easier to win the game? In my experience it doesn't. It is just nice to have.

Or are you going to just blame ping every time I kick your ass on my underpowered computer?