60FPS Makes Games Feel Cheap And Worthless

For twich-based FPS games, 60FPS is fine. Those games aren't about quality graphics and beauty. Skyrim running at 60FPS makes it feel cheap. For me, it actually degrades the quality. I installed a framerate limiter mod for Skyrim to limit it at 30 FPS.

And with rigs that only run at 60FPS in some areas, limiting the framerate makes a whole world of difference. The wild inconsistencies in the framerate degrade the quality of the experience. 60FPS one second, 45 the next. The game feels much smoother and you appreciate the beauty of the game more when it's a constant 30FPS. It feels more cinematic.

Is this true for anyone else?

For twich-based FPS games, 60FPS is fine. Those games aren't about quality graphics and beauty. Skyrim running at 60FPS makes it feel cheap. For me, it actually degrades the quality. I installed a framerate limiter mod for Skyrim to limit it at 30 FPS.

And with rigs that only run at 60FPS in some areas, limiting the framerate makes a whole world of difference. The wild inconsistencies in the framerate degrade the quality of the experience. 60FPS one second, 45 the next. The game feels much smoother and you appreciate the beauty of the game more when it's a constant 30FPS. It feels more cinematic.

Is this true for anyone else?

Rikusaki

I agree with you insofar as it's better to have a stable 30fps than a herky jerky 60/45/30/60 framerate.

God, I can't stand it. In some games, it's not too bad, or if i'm playing on consoles. I've been playing The Old Republic a lot and if it does dip to 30FPS it's quite horrible. I much prefer it running at 60fps.

Oh ... its the OnLive dude lol.

Im out of here.

I have no idea what you are talking about and therefore will not leave a comment other than the comment that I have no idea what you are talking about. :|

Your whole post is basically that stability is better than a high framerate. That's fine but I don't see why you wouldn't want both. As far as 30FPS feeling more cinematic, eh, maybe you guys notice this kind of crap but I certainly don't.

Lemme guess. Onlive maxes out at 30FPS?

A stable FPS is mroe important than a uneven FPS with a higher max, even if the lowest FPS is higher than the FPS would be if stablized.

Disagree. We move at 60fps... Funny that people hate on Nintendo when many of their games are actually more realistic.Super_MooRio

yeah next time i'm playing Dirt 2 i'm definitely limiting the damn think to 30fps.

I will also forget that little option called Vsync that locks my fps at 60

For twich-based FPS games, 60FPS is fine. Those games aren't about quality graphics and beauty. Skyrim running at 60FPS makes it feel cheap. For me, it actually degrades the quality. I installed a framerate limiter mod for Skyrim to limit it at 30 FPS.

And with rigs that only run at 60FPS in some areas, limiting the framerate makes a whole world of difference. The wild inconsistencies in the framerate degrade the quality of the experience. 60FPS one second, 45 the next. The game feels much smoother and you appreciate the beauty of the game more when it's a constant 30FPS. It feels more cinematic.

Is this true for anyone else?

Rikusaki

You mean you actually play something that isn't in onlive!?!?!?

Sometimes... I can get what you're saying. But almost for all games it largely improves the experience.

So now, according to SW, 60fps is bad and having options makes a system worse. Right...

So better performance bad? mmkCoolSkAGuy

I can confirm that.

Bulletstorm is silky smooth at 60 fps. But MS Flight Simulator X can get twitchy at unregulated frame rates. I imagine many other open world games are the same. Good thing FSX has a frame rate selector. Heck, I'm happy leaving the frame rate at 24 although I could still have smooth play with a higher number. One advantage is having more resources available to keep things smoother.

More games should have a frame rate lock feature:

Meanwhile.... Bulletstorm is locked at a smooth 60 FPS.

So now, according to SW, 60fps is bad and having options makes a system worse. Right...

agpickle

no, only according to Rikusaki, the guy who swears he isn't employed by onlive whatsoever, and is about par for him.

I gotta disagree with you Riku. :P

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

For twich-based FPS games, 60FPS is fine. Those games aren't about quality graphics and beauty. Skyrim running at 60FPS makes it feel cheap. For me, it actually degrades the quality. I installed a framerate limiter mod for Skyrim to limit it at 30 FPS.

And with rigs that only run at 60FPS in some areas, limiting the framerate makes a whole world of difference. The wild inconsistencies in the framerate degrade the quality of the experience. 60FPS one second, 45 the next. The game feels much smoother and you appreciate the beauty of the game more when it's a constant 30FPS. It feels more cinematic.

Is this true for anyone else?

dommeus

Oh ... its the OnLive dude lol.

Im out of here.

rasengan2552

Onlive is the **** Playpack ftw

Your whole post is basically that stability is better than a high framerate. That's fine but I don't see why you wouldn't want both. As far as 30FPS feeling more cinematic, eh, maybe you guys notice this kind of crap but I certainly don't.

ActicEdge

The 30fps standard is the worst thing to ever happen to consoles. Every generation, I get excited that FINALLY maybe 60 fps will become the standard, and every generation, they crank up the graphics to knock it down to 30- and make everything look like a flip-book. I must just have a different eye than most people, but 30fps, even when totally stable, just looks like crap to me. It looks like a slideshow. It's really, really easy to actually make out individual frames at 30fps, and it completely takes me out of the experience. There are exceptions, though

One exception is when motion blur is done VERY well, and there are only a tiny handful of games that have ever accomplished this.

The other exception for me, and this is a big one, is 30fps in 3d - though so far I can only speak to 3ds games, as I haven't tried a full 3d setup with glasses. The 3d effect adds so much depth on many of my 3ds games, that 30 fps is absolutely fine. Heck, even the Luigi's mansion trailer, which looks like it's running at 15-20fps, looks beautiful. But I guess it's a whole other subject how I'm one of the few people that actually loves the 3d on the 3ds (and no, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy, I normally hate Nintendo).

But 30fps on console/pc with no 3d, no matter the level of detail in the frikkin' grass or deepness of the textures, if it's at 30fps it looks terrible. Give me that silk.

I guess I was spoiled on pc's and keeping fairly up to date on the latest video cards.

I know I'm in the minority here, but give me 60fps and lower graphics/resolution over 30fps any day.

You are a special child, Riku.

Your whole post is basically that stability is better than a high framerate.

ActicEdge

Yep.

As far as 30FPS feeling more cinematic, eh, maybe you guys notice this kind of crap but I certainly don't.

ActicEdge

When I see people running Skyrim at 60FPS, it just reminds me of Call of Duty. When the game is running at a movie-like framerate, I can appreciate the beauty of the game. If I saw Uncharted 3 running at 60FPS, it wouldn't be much of a cinematic experience anymore.

Lemme guess. Onlive maxes out at 30FPS?

PatchMaster

i find 60fps games games look like those old world war one reels. The movments are way to fast and just looks weird. It's kinda like the soap opera effect you get on those cheap 120hz tvs.

i find 60fps games games look like those old world war one reels. The movments are way to fast and just looks weird. It's kinda like the soap opera effect you get on those cheap 120hz tvs.

dontshackzmii

The whole "lower framerate is better because its more like a movie" mentality thats been popping up is just stupid.

A stable framerate is always better than an unstable one. However, a stable 60fps is certainly better than a stable 30fps.

Ginosaji

Agreed. The key word is stable.

The whole "lower framerate is better because its more like a movie" mentality thats been popping up is just stupid.

agpickle

We move at 60fps...Super_MooRio

You saw that Onlive guy saying 30 fps looks better than 60 fps and you decided that wasn't dumb enough and made it infinitely dumber.

You, sir, a a true system wars hero. I hope they give you a medal or something.

TC I think you are crazy. I prefer framerate to graphics, so much, that I don't care if Bioshock 2 looked kind of like ass with the framerate settings on in the PS3 version. It ran smooth and felt more immersive for me.

Are you marketing Onlive's unique feature of having a sh*tty/ unstable FPS for all games after the suits at Onlive collectively took a dump in your brain?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Your whole post is basically that stability is better than a high framerate. That's fine but I don't see why you wouldn't want both. As far as 30FPS feeling more cinematic, eh, maybe you guys notice this kind of crap but I certainly don't.

yoshi_64

I knew movies ran at 24FPS but games running at 30 or 60 doesn't seem noticable to me. Anway as a said, stability over higher frame rate but there is no reason why both can't be achieved.

And 30FPS feels sluggish and slow.

I'm sorry, but I like to game higher than 30 anytime, that means less chance of getting below that. There is nothing natural about slow animations. I am fine with 30-60FPS jumping because at least that's good performance.

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

The whole "lower framerate is better because its more like a movie" mentality thats been popping up is just stupid.

Rikusaki

IMHO, The 30fps standard is the worst thing to ever happen to consoles. Every generation, I get excited that FINALLY maybe 60 fps will become the standard, and every generation, they crank up the graphics to knock it down to 30- and make everything look like a flip-book. I must just have a different eye than most people, but 30fps, even when totally stable, just looks like crap to me. It looks like a slideshow. For me, it's really, really easy to actually make out individual frames at 30fps, and it completely takes me out of the experience. There are exceptions, though.

One exception is when motion blur is done VERY well, though there are only a tiny handful of games that have ever accomplished this.

The other exception for me, and this is a big one, is 30fps in 3d - though so far I can only speak to 3ds games, as I haven't tried a full 3d setup with glasses. The 3d effect adds so much depth on many of my 3ds games, that 30 fps is absolutely fine. Heck, even the Luigi's mansion trailer, which looks like it's running at 15-20fps, looks beautiful. But I guess it's a whole other subject how I'm one of the few people that actually loves the 3d on the 3ds (and no, I'm not a Nintendo fanboy, I normally hate Nintendo).

But 30fps on console/pc with no 3d, no matter the level of detail in the frikkin' grass or deepness of the textures, if it's at 30fps it looks terrible. Give me that silk.

I guess I was spoiled on pc's and keeping fairly up to date on the latest video cards.

I know I'm in the minority here, but give me 60fps and lower graphics/resolution over 30fps any day.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

For twich-based FPS games, 60FPS is fine. Those games aren't about quality graphics and beauty. Skyrim running at 60FPS makes it feel cheap. For me, it actually degrades the quality. I installed a framerate limiter mod for Skyrim to limit it at 30 FPS.

And with rigs that only run at 60FPS in some areas, limiting the framerate makes a whole world of difference. The wild inconsistencies in the framerate degrade the quality of the experience. 60FPS one second, 45 the next. The game feels much smoother and you appreciate the beauty of the game more when it's a constant 30FPS. It feels more cinematic.

Is this true for anyone else?

dommeus

You'll love Ninja Theory games, they run at a cinematic 24 fps.