30fps: Better for consoles or better for nobody?

you stack those minor improvements and suddenly it isn't so minor, 30fps, shoddy mobile connection, vsync, awful 1st gen 4k tv, cumulative.

Heck people whined about PC players having a massive advantage in SFV because you could turn vsync off on PC...

Actually yes, people do clear bosses at 60 fps faster. Lol. Haven't you ever seen a Dark Souls speedrun? You can ask any of them. They all play the PC version for that distinct advantage(and load times).

Also, a bit smoother is an understatement in some cases. Try going from 20 fps in blight town on the console version of Dark Souls to 60 fps in the PC version. It's much easier to navigate due to it being more responsive, and it's also just a lot more enjoyable.

I have a question, is 60fps the reason dark souls II scholar of the first sin feels so floaty at times?

Dark Souls 2 always had physics issues. I think that's a problem with the engine, and the 60 fps does indeed make it worse, because they tied the physics to framerate. Good game, but bad engine decisions.

From Software was still getting the hang of programming PC games, after working on console games with fixed frame-rates.

I love when people contradict themselves. Feeling smoother = more responsive controls, you said it yourself. If you don't see how more responsive control enhances things, you need to stop talking about gaming...

@metawiz: Name one thing in any game that you can do at 60fps that is impossible at 30.

Keep upping the res when the systems can't keep up with the frames (at least consoles)

1080p/60 isnt even a standard across the board and now they want to push "4k".

30fps is objectively terrible regardless of which system you're playing on and which peripheral you're using. This should seriously stop being a debate as we're heading into 2017

lmao

Was it difficult coming up with an argument that dumb, or did it come naturally?

Quake 3 - however that's not what's on the table. I could say the same about 20 fps, Dark Souls is still playable at 20 fps, I bet skilled players could do fairly well at that frame rate. However higher skilled moves, like parry/repose or dodging on sl1 playthrough are much more responsive and accurate at 60 than 30, that's an objective fact not a matter of preference. The difference is night and day.

Even 10 fps is still technically playable. I used play goldeneye and perfect dark 4 player split screen all the time back in the day, those games LITERALLY ran at 8-12 fps, and it was playable. I did quite well. The kind of play that frame rate required is night and day different from what it could have been given a high frame rate.

Watch this and tell me you don't notice a radical difference during camera pans - https://youtu.be/NE9nONBpdc0

60 fps doesn't just look smoother, it feels smoother, it allows for more responsive controls. Yes 30 is playable, but so it 15 - both look terrible and fail to achieve a responsive game feel. There have been academic studies on this (- https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/fr/fulltext.pdf ) lower frame rates artificially raise the skill floor while lowering the skill ceiling.

Games that require accurate controls absolutely should be at 60 - in this day and age we have so much power even in the modern consoles, its all marketing that is holding us back. You can market fancy shadows, but most people don't understand frame rate. 60 fps will always feel significantly better than 30, and will allow for much higher levels of play than 30, because of the increased responsiveness - at least in any game that requires input accuracy and if you think that Dark Souls doesn't I question if you've actually played the game.

@metawiz: You clearly need to go back and learn what objective fact means because you clearly have no clue.

There has never been a game that I've played at 30fps that was so "unresponsive" that I couldn't play it. There has never been a game I've played at 60fps that was so enhanced simply by having more frames that it allowed me to play the game at a higher skill level.

If you think otherwise it is because you are seeing what you want to see.

@ConanTheStoner: No harder than meaningless comments that are so pointless that it begs the question why you would even bother in the first place. Like the one you just made.

If you have nothing to contribute, **** off.

Check your eyes. I posted a link to an academic study that demonstrated EXACTLY that. It really doesn't matter what you think, you're wrong. Why ignoring all of my response? Why not 20 fps, why not 10?

It absolutely is an OBJECTIVE FACT that 60fps allows for greater input accurate than 30fps. 16ms < 32ms OBJECTIVELY lol

When it comes to framerates/graphical setting/resolution - The higher the better

A console controller is typically about 230ms response so 30 would be far less noticeable than say a device that has less latency. Take a PC game online and lower all settings to achieve maximum frame rate...did you win yet?

Not sure where you got that number from, google results give me 75-150 on average. Still, this is thinking about it in a mistaken way. Just because we already have some input lag (human response time averages ~200ms yet no finds 10fps playable) we don't want to add additional factors that will further decrease our input accuracy and limit the two way communications between player input and game. Even with input lag, 60fps still sees the game responding to player inputs twice as fast and twice as often as 30 - do I really need to explain why this is better?

http://www.displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-input-lag/

Also to your last comment, pro CS players do exactly that https://youtu.be/ns9srRoDop8

Again I ask...did you win yet? If you have a PC, you could easily do a test comparison across several matches each in a twitch shooter game like Unreal Tournament Beta or quake live or something and provide results. I'm just asking. What kind of input speed differences do you think is required between competitive or non competitive SP games to win? But if you play to have fun then it likely own't matter.

Other people have done the hard work for me https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/fr/fulltext.pdf look at the graph 20b on page 12*, there is like a 30% increase in performance going from 30-60fps for shooting. That's huge, I beat my record playing devil daggers the first time I played it on a 144hz monitor, after being stuck at that time for about 2 weeks. I mean literally my first round on a 144hz monitor I broke a record in a game.

I'd say for competitive 60 is the base minimum, 144hz is optimal.

If you enjoy playing at 30, that's great, don't let anyone tell you not to or force you to do otherwise. Its just that a lot of people don't and we don't have the choice not to with console games, some of which are real masterpieces like Bloodborne. 30 feels off and gives me a headache.

Edited for clarity.

<30 fps was ok when 2d was the norm. Back in nes, snes on low res tvs ya thats fine. But with 3d games and fast motion and hd screens, 30 fps is shit.

Fun fact though, 60fps was largely the standard back then lol. Sometimes the background elements would refresh at sub 60fps, but the active elements were usually 60fps across the board.

That's what trips me out when some people think wanting 60fps is something new. Developers recognized it was a great standard to shoot for back in the 80s. And of course it took a hit with many games when the PS1/N64 came out since it was baby steps into 3d gaming. But then devs got back on top of it in gen 6. It wasn't until gen 7 that gamers started to accept shitty frame rates as the norm and looked at a locked 30 like it was a good thing lol.

The premature push for HD gaming really put a damper on console gaming performance. And now they want to hit 4k? lmao. Priorities all fucked up, but I guess it's easier to sell the masses on sharper looking images than a promise of performance.

60 fps is nice and if a game can achieve it then great, but that doesn't mean 30 fps is bad. This whole notion that 30 fps is unplayable is laughable at best. Many great games on the n64 were sub 30 fps and they still play great to this day. A solid frame rate IMO is much more important then a higher one.

I played DMC on the ps3 and never even realized it was a 30 fps game, got the remaster on the ps4 thinking it was going to be so much more amazing at double that...and it wasn't. Yeah it looked smoother but the gameplay and controls felt the same. This is something that elitist pc players love to argue when it doesnt make much of a difference overall.

If you like 30 fps and can't tell the difference, good for you, no one is forcing you to play at different frame rates. Plenty of people can notice the difference, and for us it can be jarring, yet because you can't tell the difference, we're supposed to shut up?