There is a Major diff between 60fps and 30fps.... (important read)

Dont kid yourself if you think otherwise. Play call of duty 4 or any other games at 60fps and ull see how much sweeter a game is at that frame.
I used to play half life 2 back when it first came out at about 25-30, when i updated my graphics card and played episode 2 at 60 i was amazed at how sweet everything flowed.

i seriously hope developers out there start optimizing games for the ps3 and 360 to play at 60fps because its just soo damn good at that rate.
Dont get me wrong, 30fps is well and good, but i think 60fps should be the sweet spot of gaming, anything above, no human eyes cant detect it as far is iv seen.
Movies run at 24fps so we maybe used to 30fps for games but once u go 60fps ud wish every game ran that nicely.
I dont have the link but i once read that COD4 sacrificed some graphical quality to make sure the game runs at 60fps for consoles and I for one (being the graphics whore i am) dont mind at all. if a little lighting and texture needs to go to make games run that smooth, then so be it.
I hope next gen they learn to make 60fps a norm and not a luxury.

anyone dont believe me, go pop in a 30fps shooter game and then go pop in COD4, notice the difference.

"There is a Major diff between 60fps and 30fps.... (important read)"

PC gamers have known this since most console people were in diapers saying "goo goo gaga".

Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.wmc540

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between the 2..

[QUOTE="wmc540"]Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.user_nat

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between to 2..

Yea, actually, Im pretty sure Halo 3 runs at 60.

[QUOTE="user_nat"]

[QUOTE="wmc540"]Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.vashkey

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between to 2..

Yea, actually, Im pretty sure Halo 3 runs at 60.

Nope, it's 30FPS (sorry no link)

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="user_nat"]

[QUOTE="wmc540"]Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.ModernTimes

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between to 2..

Yea, actually, Im pretty sure Halo 3 runs at 60.

Nope, it's 30FPS (sorry no link)

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

mentzer

ehh although they are powerful consoles its asking too much of theme to push graphics like Gears 2 or KZ2 and have an operating system and run the games at a locked 60 frames, not to mention the games rendered in HD which taxes the system more than people think.

When you play Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, it runs at 60FPS in-game, but the replays drop to 30 FPS because of the added filters and motion blur.

I notice a huge difference.

i agree that 60fps is much better than 30fps... but the most important framerate consideration should be consistency. I'd rather play a game that was always 30fps no matter what than a game that ranged between 30 to 60 depending on the amount of action occuring. I HATE framerate fluctuations.thetruespin

ya i think it causes screen tearing, not sure though....

[QUOTE="user_nat"]

[QUOTE="wmc540"]Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.vashkey

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between to 2..

Yea, actually, Im pretty sure Halo 3 runs at 60.

Hey, I am no fanboy or anti Halo kind of person... I am just being realistic. COD 4 = 60 FPS Halo 3 = 30 FPS... it is pretty easy to notice the difference.

Throw in Bioshock on the 360, play a little, than go into the options and take off the lock framerate option, the game runs so much smoother and better 80% of the time. the reason some console shooters are locked at 30 is because there would be way to much bottle neck if they let it go freely. I would prefer the option the way Bioshock does, I LOVE 60 FPS...even if it does bottleneck every once in awhile.

Another example is Mario Kart for Wii, playing on console is 60 fps, going online is capped at 30, HUGE difference.

The good thing about PC games is that if your computer is awesome than you can run at 60 fps + all the time no problem, but if you dont like bottlenecks on a lower end machine, most pc games will let you cap the exact rate yourself instead of auto capping at 30.

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

mentzer

Play MGS4, and watch as the framerate drops to a crawl (perhaps 15fps in places) in many of the in-engine cutscenes. These systems simply cannot have graphics like that AND maintain a steady frame-rate using the techniques their hardware supports.

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

mentzer

neither console is as powerful as claimed, both consoles for example were touted as 1080p machines but most games are 720p & sometimes even below that in order to increase performance.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="user_nat"]

[QUOTE="wmc540"]Yeah, the difference is pretty obvious from Halo 3 to COD 4.ModernTimes

I actually don't really notice the difference in framerate between to 2..

Yea, actually, Im pretty sure Halo 3 runs at 60.

Nope, it's 30FPS (sorry no link)

Lol he thought it's 60fps, well it's not even 30fps, go play Gears for about 30min and then go back to Halo 3, you will clearly see it's not 30fps, at least not constant 30fps, it looks like choppy 30fps or even less, it really is a shame for the unimpressive graphics.

The difference is 30 frames.SpinoRaptor

That ^

[QUOTE="mentzer"]

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

Richard7666

Play MGS4, and watch as the framerate drops to a crawl (perhaps 15fps in places) in many of the in-engine cutscenes. These systems simply cannot have graphics like that AND maintain a steady frame-rate using the techniques their hardware supports.

The next console from MS or Sony that gets announced, the first question I would love to ask them is, "Do you solemnly promise that every game you release for this new console will be guaranteed to run at 1920x1080 native resolution at or above 60fps ...locked?" 'Cause if not, then they're not pushing things enough to make me want to buy. Enough with the broken promises. You make the claim, you better deliver. Otherwise, I may want to pursue a case of false advertising.

games still look good at a solid 30 frames. and this is all based on some crap you cooked up.LoRoseUp

See, the problem has to do with rendering techniques. All the models and scenes rendered today tend to have pretty sharp edges to them--in particular lots of aliasing (I know there's AA techniques, but they don't totally eliminate the problem). In addition, most rendering techniques do not take motion into consideration when rendering. The human eye is very adept at detecting differences. Things like sharp transitions between frames (as opposed to the naturally-motion-blurred effect seen in photographic motion film) stand out to us. To combat this, you either need to soften this difference by employing motion blur techniques (which is risky--the wrong technique can make the wrong things stand out, making things even worse) or reduce the difference by increasing the frame rate.

It's unfortunate that 60fps is some sort of gold standard now. 60fps isn't good. Depending on the display type, most people's eyes can identify the difference between 60, 85, and 100hz. juno84

[QUOTE="Richard7666"][QUOTE="mentzer"]

With the touted power of PS3 and 360, there is no reason why EVERY game can't be 60FPS.

That should be a standard feature in every game this gen.

HuusAsking

Play MGS4, and watch as the framerate drops to a crawl (perhaps 15fps in places) in many of the in-engine cutscenes. These systems simply cannot have graphics like that AND maintain a steady frame-rate using the techniques their hardware supports.

The next console from MS or Sony that gets announced, the first question I would love to ask them is, "Do you solemnly promise that every game you release for this new console will be guaranteed to run at 1920x1080 native resolution at or above 60fps ...locked?" 'Cause if not, then they're not pushing things enough to make me want to buy. Enough with the broken promises. You make the claim, you better deliver. Otherwise, I may want to pursue a case of false advertising.

No they didn't. Those were seperate statements if I remember.

And it depends on the developers. I am sure they could get tetris at 1080p on two tvs at that locked framerate. It is up to developers.

Dont kid yourself if you think otherwise. Play call of duty 4 or any other games at 60fps and ull see how much sweeter a game is at that frame.
I used to play half life 2 back when it first came out at about 25-30, when i updated my graphics card and played episode 2 at 60 i was amazed at how sweet everything flowed.

i seriously hope developers out there start optimizing games for the ps3 and 360 to play at 60fps because its just soo damn good at that rate.
Dont get me wrong, 30fps is well and good, but i think 60fps should be the sweet spot of gaming, anything above, no human eyes cant detect it as far is iv seen.
Movies run at 24fps so we maybe used to 30fps for games but once u go 60fps ud wish every game ran that nicely.
I dont have the link but i once read that COD4 sacrificed some graphical quality to make sure the game runs at 60fps for consoles and I for one (being the graphics whore i am) dont mind at all. if a little lighting and texture needs to go to make games run that smooth, then so be it.
I hope next gen they learn to make 60fps a norm and not a luxury.

anyone dont believe me, go pop in a 30fps shooter game and then go pop in COD4, notice the difference.

noobswillbepwnd

the looking feels more responsive about it big deal.

If you want to see the difference play Battlefield: Bad Company for an hour, then play Call of Duty 4.

The difference is mind-shattering, COD4 is so much smoother and faster, Bad Company is like lugging santa's gifts with you everywhere.

If you want to see the difference play Battlefield: Bad Company for an hour, then play Call of Duty 4.

The difference is mind-shattering, COD4 is so much smoother and faster, Bad Company is like lugging santa's gifts with you everywhere.

shadyd1717

30 fps vs 60 fps isnt a big deal unless you are jumping from 60 down to 30 then you notice the looking feels less responsive.

[QUOTE="shadyd1717"]

If you want to see the difference play Battlefield: Bad Company for an hour, then play Call of Duty 4.

The difference is mind-shattering, COD4 is so much smoother and faster, Bad Company is like lugging santa's gifts with you everywhere.

flopzone2

30 fps vs 60 fps isnt a big deal unless you are jumping from 60 down to 30 then you notice the looking feels less responsive.

Actually yea that's what happened with me, I played COD4 forever then tried out BC and was like wtf... it felt broken.

[QUOTE="juno84"]It's unfortunate that 60fps is some sort of gold standard now. 60fps isn't good. Depending on the display type, most people's eyes can identify the difference between 60, 85, and 100hz. HuusAsking

I was reffering more to PC gaming. Back in the CRT days, you would play Q2, CSbeta1 - 1.6, Q3, UT and so on at 100FPS. If you've played a game at 100fps and 100hz refresh (another thing a lot of PC gamers don't seem to get) it's hard to go back to playing games at 60fps.

On old televions, pixel response time was very poor. You percieve fluidity since pixels fade in and out as opposed to instant on and off of a CRT display. 60FPS didn't seem as bad. Now response times on televisions are getting better, but FPS in games are slumming in the 30 - 60 range? I'm not entirely sure why people are deciding standard def is trash, but 60hz is not.

[QUOTE="flopzone2"][QUOTE="shadyd1717"]

If you want to see the difference play Battlefield: Bad Company for an hour, then play Call of Duty 4.

The difference is mind-shattering, COD4 is so much smoother and faster, Bad Company is like lugging santa's gifts with you everywhere.

shadyd1717

30 fps vs 60 fps isnt a big deal unless you are jumping from 60 down to 30 then you notice the looking feels less responsive.

Actually yea that's what happened with me, I played COD4 forever then tried out BC and was like wtf... it felt broken.

I mean...if one game on pc is running 60 fps most of the time and when alot of action happens it drops down to 30 fps you notice the looking feels slower...but that's only time you notice bady...if a games locked at 60 or 30 fps...then its aight.

How does one tell how many frames per second their game runs at?Hexagon_777

Been a PC gamer for a few years now (still play consoles too!) and its to the point i can just tell instantly. Its pretty noticeable when you know what to look for.

here is a very old school project. Half of the screen runs at 30fps while the other runs at 60. Its a simulation of this, but pretty spot on accurate.

http://www.novicee.com/edu/fps_compare.zip

How does one tell how many frames per second their game runs at?Hexagon_777

If you're talking about PC you can get a program like fraps and it tells you, if the game doesnt have it's own counter.

For consoles idk.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]How does one tell how many frames per second their game runs at?Cali3350

Been a PC gamer for a few years now (still play consoles too!) and its to the point i can just tell instantly. Its pretty noticeable when you know what to look for.

here is a very old school project. Half of the screen runs at 30fps while the other runs at 60. Its a simulation of this, but pretty spot on accurate.

http://www.novicee.com/edu/fps_compare.zip

Nice little program. Funny, if you can get 100hz on your display, do a 100fps vs 60fps comparison and you can see the difference easily as well.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="juno84"]It's unfortunate that 60fps is some sort of gold standard now. 60fps isn't good. Depending on the display type, most people's eyes can identify the difference between 60, 85, and 100hz. juno84

I was reffering more to PC gaming. Back in the CRT days, you would play Q2, CSbeta1 - 1.6, Q3, UT and so on at 100FPS. If you've played a game at 100fps and 100hz refresh (another thing a lot of PC gamers don't seem to get) it's hard to go back to playing games at 60fps.

On old televions, pixel response time was very poor. You percieve fluidity since pixels fade in and out as opposed to instant on and off of a CRT display. 60FPS didn't seem as bad. Now response times on televisions are getting better, but FPS in games are slumming in the 30 - 60 range? I'm not entirely sure why people are deciding standard def is trash, but 60hz is not.