Do people even understand the concept of framerates in system wars?

So when lurking around this board, it is inevitable to find a thread along the lines of "BF3 will be better den CoD!!11" or vice versa, with one of main arguements being CoD runs at a smooth 60 frames where as BF 3 may be locked to 30+ on a console (PC excluded ofc)

Now, this doesn't strictly apply to CoD v.s Battlefield but it got me wondering...How many of you actually know the difference between 30-60 frames per second? It seems to be a term thrown around quite loosely on this board, similar to 1080p even?

Discuss. What are your thoughts on this topic? Should there be some rule to prevent people from throwing this term around or am I just a crankly old fool?

On PC, 30 frames looks like **** to me, seems acceptable on consoles, so I'm not sure why. 30 or 60 is not such a big deal on consoles (outside a few examples, like Mario Galaxy runs really nicely), also, CoD has been on the same engine for like 5 years, while BF3 looks amazing.

60 FPS PC master race.

I don't see the difficulty in understanding what exactly framerates are, as it's a fairly basic concept. Now, people arguing over the fact that one has a higher framerate than the other just comes across as asinine, due to the fact that it may not even impact the actual gameplay of the game.

To be honest I go by "feel". If it feels playable enough to me, I'm happy whether the framerate is at 60 or 25. Heck, if I'm "flying" at 30,000 ft in FSX, even 15-20 fps is good enough for me because movement isn't as obvious as being near ground level.

Of course, I wouldn't thumb my nose either if I can have higher framerates.

I do know the difference and for me it is noticable but barely so. It plays a little smoother. For me smooth play is very important so I do prefer 60 FPS, but it's not a super big deal.
What I don't understand is how framerates work with the hz of your monitor and the buildup per frame on an LCD monitor. Like I think my display uses 60 hz (images per second?) but what happens when my game runs in 40 FPS. Will some frames get lost? Do LCD monitors display a fresh frame in one go or not and if not, can you have the situation of having partially one frame and partially another frame displayed at the same time?

This is a decent visual reference.Heil68

On PC, 30 frames looks like **** to me, seems acceptable on consoles, so I'm not sure why. 30 or 60 is not such a big deal on consoles (outside a few examples, like Mario Galaxy runs really nicely), also, CoD has been on the same engine for like 5 years, while BF3 looks amazing.

60 FPS PC master race.

110million

That's because it depends on how well its built around that. Conclusion based on my experience, for example Quake 3 at 30/40 FPS runs like crap, wile Morrowind at 30 FPS is pretty fluid. But Zelda OoT runs at a constant 20 frames per second, and looks & plays pretty smooth on the N64; Aswell as Mario 64 which runs at 30 fps but plays fluidly.

So yeah, it really depends on the game.

I also have to wonder how gamers today who demand 60 fps can even play a game like unaccelerated Quake (1996) which barely managed to get 20 fps on a then top of the line PC.

While I can feel the chopiness of say, 25 FPS, I don't really mind, and I am willing to sacrifice high FPS for visual fidelity. All thanks to my 'Crysis training' :D

That's because it depends on how well its built around that. Conclusion based on my experience, for example Quake 3 at 30/40 FPS runs like crap, wile Morrowind at 30 FPS is pretty fluid. But Zelda OoT runs at a constant 20 frames per second, and looks & plays pretty smooth on the N64; Aswell as Mario 64 which runs at 30 fps but plays fluidly.

So yeah, it really depends on the game.

Lucianu

I played Majora's Mask again right after OOT 3DS, which seems to be 60 fps, and MM looked like a slideshow. :P

I played Majora's Mask again right after OOT 3DS, which seems to be 60 fps, and MM looked like a slideshow. :P

110million

Well damn. I guess this proves that one needs to compare the same game, maybe that's why i see MM & OoT play smooth, because i haven't played them at higher frames per second. I don't care though, what matters is what i see wen i'm playing games.

[QUOTE="110million"]

I played Majora's Mask again right after OOT 3DS, which seems to be 60 fps, and MM looked like a slideshow. :P

Lucianu

Well damn. I guess this proves that one needs to compare the same game, maybe that's why i see MM & OoT play smooth, because i haven't played them at higher frames per second. I don't care though, what matters is what i see wen i'm playing games.

I think its an uncontrollable reaction, I'm sure if I played MM again now, it would seem fine, but going immediatly from 60 fps to like 20-30 fps on a game that is mostly the same, screws with your head. :P

Myself I am happy with anywhere from 30fps to 60fps.

It's not that difficult a concept. I notice the difference. I even keep bringing up the game inFamous. It will sometimes run at 60fps for a few seconds then go back to 30. mrmusicman247

I've seen this happen when you spawn by the docks. You're looking at the ocean, then you look at the city and that's where the FPS drops.

I think its an uncontrollable reaction, I'm sure if I played MM again now, it would seem fine, but going immediatly from 60 fps to like 20-30 fps on a game that is mostly the same, screws with your head. :P

110million

Definitely, the same way i feel wen i'm playing PS1 3D games. First time playing MGS1, those visuals seemed so horrid for the first 15 minutes. Then they felt natural, i could play it like it was released yesterday, i finished it, and now i consider it one of the greatest games ever made. Eh, ofcourse i don't feel that way for every old game, i don't need to get used to playing my SNES because those 2D visuals look beautiful from the minute i start them.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]This is a decent visual reference.DarthBilf

The difference is much more noticeable when you can physically move a camera with a mouse. You instantly notice how much more responsive it is and how much smoother everything is at 60fps.

That said, if you lock a game at 30fps on the consoles it doesn't feel like it runs slow at all. You can notice 60fps, but it's not nearly as big of a deal on a console as it is on the PC.

It's not just the number, keeping it at one stable rate makes the entire presentation of a game so much smoother and pleasing to the eye. I'm pretty sure why people use 60FPS instead of something higher is that's the refresh rate of monitors so...

Personally i can quite happily play Rift even though my PC runs it at 18fps but thats just me being a graphics whore and unwilling to reduce graphical settings to make it run better. On consoles i really don't give a rats furry **** if it's 60 or 30fps. 30fps has advantages of being less intensive and allowing better effects with motion blur to try and hide the low framerate, 60fps is much smoother and chances are it won't drop below 40fps even on crowded areas where you got a lot of explosions and effects happening at once. So yeah i understand the concept that 60fps means less visuals whereas 30fps means choppier picture but looks nicer.

Who doesn't understand this? I have never seen anyone who doesn't understand this and if i do it's a straight "What is better, 30 or 60fps" question.

Frames per second affect:

- The smoothness of all movement. This part is obvious to anyone who looks at a comparison shot.

- The responsiveness of the controls. Assuming good control mechanics, 60 FPS will make controls feel a lot more "tight", more responsive. This is why PC gamers absolutely rely on high frames per second in FPS games -speciallyon ones with "twitch" gameplay.

- CAN mitigate performance issues and provide a more stable, more enjoyable gmaing experience. I say CAN, because poorly optimized levels/engines can have plummeting frame rates, but overeall, an engine running at 60+ FPS usually runs fairly well within that range and there is a larger amoutn of leeway in terms of frame rate fluctuation before it affects gameplay or game enjoyment.

An engine runnig at 30 FPS is probably running there because it can't run at much higher frame rates (this isn't always true however, but it is most of the time when it comes to consoles), and a frame rate dip of 5+ FPS CAN be very noticeable and distracting. This actually happens a lot in console games.

So higher frame rate is usually better in a number of respects.

The difference is noticeable when games have an inconsistant framerate. If it keeps jumping between 20, 30 & 60 F/s its extremely irritating. Like people said; it depends on the game. I couldnt imagine COD or Quake 3 at a low framerate, but other games can get away with 25 or 30 F/s if it remains consistant.

I like 60 FPS best.

I'm not too fussy about any frame rate most of the time, but if it's jumping up and down I hate it.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]This is a decent visual reference.DarthBilf

the thing is...ur right on both points...but...when people talk fps...they always forget the ~ part of it...when someone says locked at 30fps...they mean...its less than or equal to 30fps... every single game in the world has frame rate drops... and ~30fps can feasibly drop to 15 in some parts or worse...thats why alot of people say ~60 is best cause even if the game drops to half of the average frames in some point...its still a smooth experience

I want 100+ fps. There's quite a large difference in smoothness compared to 60 fps.

The difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge.

Yeah, playing at 30 FPS feels like moving in mud in comparison to 60 FPS. It doesn't bother me in Action Adventure games, but it's really noticeable when playing shooters and platformers.

There's not much to understand.

An engine runnig at 30 FPS is probably running there because it can't run at much higher frame rates (this isn't always true however, but it is most of the time when it comes to consoles), and a frame rate dip of 5+ FPS CAN be very noticeable and distracting. This actually happens a lot in console games.

Kinthalis

More frames per second is a tradeoff with visual quality.

The hardware has X amount of performance, you can either use that performance to have alot going on the screen, or to have a little less going on but faster/smoother framerates.

This optimization is what devs spend alot of time on, to say "should we have light streaming thru this window, or 10 extra FPS here."

Extra detail is always nice, but if you get into a firefight that extra 10 fps would have felt better (maybe.)

It's a look and feel issue and there is no right answer.

It's better to have 30FPS in every situation, than 60/40/25/50/60 FPS wildly fluctuating. I hate when I go to shoot someone and the framerates drop.

Better to have the whole game locked at 30 frames, to reserve extra power for intense fights and make the whole thing smooth.

I prefer framerates to be as high as possible. But most importantly we don't need any frame skipping, dips, choppy, or otherwise jerkiness. More than anything, those are game killers, and I've seen plenty of that this gen. Hopefully standards will be higher next gen for a smoother experience.

Frames per second affect:

- The smoothness of all movement. This part is obvious to anyone who looks at a comparison shot.

- The responsiveness of the controls. Assuming good control mechanics, 60 FPS will make controls feel a lot more "tight", more responsive. This is why PC gamers absolutely rely on high frames per second in FPS games -speciallyon ones with "twitch" gameplay.

- CAN mitigate performance issues and provide a more stable, more enjoyable gmaing experience. I say CAN, because poorly optimized levels/engines can have plummeting frame rates, but overeall, an engine running at 60+ FPS usually runs fairly well within that range and there is a larger amoutn of leeway in terms of frame rate fluctuation before it affects gameplay or game enjoyment.

An engine runnig at 30 FPS is probably running there because it can't run at much higher frame rates (this isn't always true however, but it is most of the time when it comes to consoles), and a frame rate dip of 5+ FPS CAN be very noticeable and distracting. This actually happens a lot in console games.

So higher frame rate is usually better in a number of respects.

Kinthalis

I love that COD runs at 60fps i can feel the smoothness of the game.

Man COD is just awesome

It's not that difficult a concept. I notice the difference. I even keep bringing up the game inFamous. It will sometimes run at 60fps for a few seconds then go back to 30. mrmusicman247

I too notice it in Infamous. When playing Infamous 2, climb up somewhere high, and if you look down, you should see that the game is a bit choppy or slow, but when you look up, everything is suddenly smooth and Cole's movements are much more refined. This is the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and it's pretty big at that.

[QUOTE="Lucianu"]

[QUOTE="110million"]

I played Majora's Mask again right after OOT 3DS, which seems to be 60 fps, and MM looked like a slideshow. :P

110million

Well damn. I guess this proves that one needs to compare the same game, maybe that's why i see MM & OoT play smooth, because i haven't played them at higher frames per second. I don't care though, what matters is what i see wen i'm playing games.

I think its an uncontrollable reaction, I'm sure if I played MM again now, it would seem fine, but going immediatly from 60 fps to like 20-30 fps on a game that is mostly the same, screws with your head. :P

I believe The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D runs at 30 frames per second with the 3D enabled and 60 frames per second with the 3D dissabled. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time on the Nintendo 64 runs at 24 frames per second and considering that The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask needed the expansion unit for the system, it probably runs at 20 to 24 frames per second. I find it odd how 24 frames per second seems perfectly smooth for movies but feels choppy when a game is running at the same frame rate. To me though the most important thing is consistency, I can live with a constat 30 frames per second and I like a constant 60 frames per second even more so, but its when it switches between 30, 45, 60 and everything inbetween, that I have issues.

When you have full screen panning (like in a FPS or any game where you can freely move the camera) you will see a good deal of flickering around edges of objects. A lot of games cover this up by adding motion blur. After years of playing games at 100fps/100hz, 30FPS is difficult to get used to. If we were still playing on CRTs, 30FPS would be intolerable.

low framerates are pretty obvious in a lot of console games (Halo Reach, RDR, etc.) it just annoys me and makes me not even want to play. That's one good thing about COD, it has 60 fps on consoles.

Of course people notice the difference.

But, even for fast paced games, 30fps is just fine. And for Cinematic games, it's all that's needed.

60fps is a great bonus for faster paced games (and all games in general), but I can live without it.

[QUOTE="Heil68"]This is a decent visual reference.DarthBilf