since when 30 fps is "unplayable"?

[DeadnightWarrior]

Hi all, just a simple thought: back in the days of 3DFXs or first Radeons and GeForces, it was very common to target 30 fps in games, as this was the "ideal" framerate.

Nowadays, we're talking about double that figure. It seems that if a game doesn't run at a constant 60 fps, then it's automatically not good.

 

I've been enjoying some fairly recent games (Doom, ME: Andromeda, Fallout 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider) at 1080p at medium to high settings with the igpu of a Ryzen 5 2400G, and they all seem to be perfectly smooth, 90% of the time. I was shocked to run Rivatuner and find out I was getting around 35 fps average in most cases!

 

So, what's the deal? Has 30 fps become "bad" just for marketing purposes? Please bear in mind I'm not considering competitive or multiplayer games, only single player action / adventure / RPGs.

 

Let me know what your thoughts are!

[JohnDongus]

Since games were made with 60fps in mind 

[Imbellis]

Frame times matter more than FPS. Frame times in newer games often vary more, causing more stuttering and a worse experience.

[Cyberspirit]

A steady 30 FPS isn't horrible but, it just feels very slow if you are used to higher frame rates.

At least for me.

 

[Slottr]

4 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

A steady 30 FPS isn't horrible but, it just feels very slow if you are used to higher frame rates.

At least for me.

 

Agreed. I bought a ps4 recently to play spider-man and god of war and as much as I like those games, the 30fps kinda kills it and is pretty mediocre compared to 60

[Hi P]

6 minutes ago, DeadnightWarrior said:

Nowadays, It seems that if a game doesn't run at a constant 60 fps, then it's automatically not good.

Not only that, some people go as far to say 60 FPS feels clunky... lol

 

Sometimes I play games on my father's old laptop, I feel okay at 40 - 45 average FPS, so I don't understand how 60 FPS would be clunky

[Opencircuit74]

2 minutes ago, Hi P said:

Not only that, some people go as far to say 60 FPS feels clunky... lol

 

Sometimes I play games on my father's old laptop, I feel okay at 40 - 45 average FPS, so I don't understand how 60 FPS would be clunky

It's just being exposed to 144 or higher for a long time. I can normally play games at 100-144 FPS, but when it dips to 60 I can definitely feel it, 45 becomes a nightmare. It's really just a matter of perspective, because I used to play and 45FPS was really smooth.

[DeadnightWarrior]

7 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

A steady 30 FPS isn't horrible but, it just feels very slow if you are used to higher frame rates.

At least for me.

 

This might be true but I don't know, maybe it's a matter of personal feelings. I mean, I'm playing Fallout 4 extensively and find it smooth as silk... it's actually running at 30 / 35 fps average, at least according to Rivatuner. The framerate looks indeed quite steady, so maybe that's what makes it perfectly fine with me.

[Cyberspirit]

1 minute ago, DeadnightWarrior said:

This might be true but I don't know, maybe it's a matter of personal feelings. I mean, I'm playing Fallout 4 extensively and find it smooth as silk... it's actually running at 30 / 35 fps average, at least according to Rivatuner. The framerate looks indeed quite steady, so maybe that's what makes it perfectly fine with me.

It's all about being used to higher frame rates. If you were to play on a 144Hz panel for a long time then, went back to a 30-60Hz panel you'd feel the difference for sure.

[Mira Yurizaki]

It's not. It's perfectly playable. It's only "unplayable" to those who are spoiled by 60 FPS and that's all they want now.

 

But otherwise as people mentioned, consistency is better than absolute numbers. Unstable 144 FPS is going to be a worse experience than stable 60 FPS. Likewise stable 30 FPS is better than unstable 60 FPS.

[iLostMyXbox21]

i find 30fps to be completely playable, but i mostly play at a solid 59 (ps4 cap) and get 30 on terrorist hunt for some reason.. oh well idc it is still playable

[Giganthrax]

30fps is playable. So are ultra low graphics settings that make a game look like this:

 

 

But do you really want to play that way?

[Underi]

 I'm not old enough to know, but when I started playing games on a computer in 2011, 60fps was ideal. 30fps is playable on consoles, but I have a bad feeling every time when I know I could run the game at 60fps instead of 30.

[DaMainMan]

30fps works on consoles because you are sitting about 2-4x the distance away from the screen and at mostly significantly lower resolution.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Framepacing MAKES or BREAKS 30FPS Gaming. Many would be happy with 30-33fps if it NEVER dropped below this.
Proofs of Puddings - 16minutes 31Seconds.
Digital Foundry on the Playstation Classic - 30FPS Split screen with Constant 30fps vs mismatched 30fps + framepacing problems.
https://youtu.be/UU0dn9pRKuw?t=991

 

[Guest]

For total war i actually prefer a solid 30 .. first off all the screen movement during scrolling doesn't fit my real life experience when i move my head and second of all the difference between 30 or 60 seems to be 20 % power so this usually means a very custom setting that grants 30-40 on the campaign map and 40 50 in battle ( wh2 )

[Paul Rudd]

On 12/1/2018 at 12:04 PM, DeadnightWarrior said:

It seems that if a game doesn't run at a constant 60 fps, then it's automatically not good.

Depends on the game, the person and every single game experience they've ever had in the past.

On 12/1/2018 at 12:04 PM, DeadnightWarrior said:

So, what's the deal? Has 30 fps become "bad" just for marketing purposes?

Depends on the game, the person and every single game experience they've ever had in the past.

 

From my experience with 60-144 fps(depending on the game) on a daily basis for the past two years on PC and 20-60 fps(depending on the game) on console for well over a decade, to sum it into one sentence... My consoles collect nothing but dust. It's all about what else a PC can do to games that makes PC my preferred platform.

 

I know this subject isn't about console vs PC but I feel it's relevant towards the topic at hand. There isn't one single thing a console can do better than my PC(that I care about anyway). You might find something that is better that I actually might care about but it would be new news to me. 30 fps is not "unplayable". To me, it's just downgrading the experience you could be experiencing. People are different. Different personalities. Different perspectives. Different amounts of money in their banks.

[Taja]

I prefer a constant 45 fps than 50-60 fps with frametimes all over the place. It depends on a lot of factors, higher fps is better for competitive games (though I played dota 2 most of my life with 40-60 fps and it was 100% fine)

 

Overall fps matters to me mostly on first person games, ir really fast paced stuff. For cities skylines for example, even 20 fps is pretty playable. 

[Tristerin]

Because 30 FPS has always felt clunky to me.  Even at 30, you just don't see the stutters (theoretically).  For me, I can only use my testimony.  And that is, there is a HUGE difference between 30-60-100-200 FPS.  When I start getting into the 200-300 FPS stuff looks nearly unreal, to smooth and just to perfect.  When I am closer to 30 than 60 I feel it in my movement responses in all games.  When I am below 30...we all know it sucks.

 

So while I used to target 30 FPS that was more based on me being a kid with a crap budget.  Because I could justify "30 FPS is all the human eye needs anyway" - actually I was just poor and couldn't afford better.  30 FPS worked. 

 

30 FPS doesn't work for me anymore.  I don't even think I can PLAY a game at 30 FPS...Id probably just play a diff game or upgrade my rig.

[Paul Rudd]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

higher fps is better for competitive games

While it might be better for competitive games, it's the best for games requiring accuracy, precision and timing. Take The Witcher 3 for example or Shadow of Mordor/War. These titles I would think are not exactly competitive games. What you can do with your sword is much, much more enjoyable the higher fps you go. I say the exact same thing about driving games, even when it's not competitive. Driving around in GTA 5 at 90+ fps is the best way to experience the game. 60 is fine too but when you experience 90+ it gives you similar feelings a roller coaster does the higher fps you go. Driving at 30 fps then feels laggy and slow as can be. Same thing when using a sword in The Witcher 3 and Shadow of War. Scroll to the 1:01 mark of this video. Imagine if there was a third camera showing 90 fps or a 4th camera showing 120 fps(YouTube only goes up to 60 fps). Things just feel and look more real the higher fps you go. Especially the faster you drive.

1 hour ago, Taja said:

For cities skylines for example, even 20 fps is pretty playable. 

Because there's not much to be accurate or precise about in that game when it comes to movement. Placing things maybe but it can't matter that much at 20 fps unless you're experiencing stuttering lower than 20 fps.

[JZStudios]

On 12/1/2018 at 10:19 AM, Opencircuit74 said:

It's just being exposed to 144 or higher for a long time. I can normally play games at 100-144 FPS, but when it dips to 60 I can definitely feel it, 45 becomes a nightmare. It's really just a matter of perspective, because I used to play and 45FPS was really smooth.

Guess I'm an outlier. I have a 144hz, and I'll play anywhere from 144+ down to the mid 20's. Below 25 it starts to get pretty bad though. It's really not the framerate as someone else said, it's the frame time.

When I go into triple screen mode I'll be getting 40-60 FPS, but for whatever reason it just gets shitloads of stutter and screen tearing. Makes things like Assetto Corsa unplayable in triple screen since even though it says I'm getting 60 going around turns feels and looks like 15 or less.

 

And then you've got things like Forza Horizon or Forza Motorsport absolutely locked to 30 and 60 fps, but it's always consistent, so even Horizon at 30 feels pretty damn smooth.

[TheRaggingSword]

I use to play with intel hd 4400 and can barely run anything at 60 fps. 1080p low overwatch was 30 fps with lows of 20. Minecraft has like 40 fps with low settings 1080p with stutters from loading chucks. Once I got my 1050ti, everything changed. Now whenever I play on my laptop with like 50 fps, I cannot play the game because my aim sucks because I am use smooth 60 fps game play.

[corrado33]

Honestly, I used to be on your side. When I was younger and didn't have money and bought cheap passively cooled GPUs for old dell computers, I was HAPPY with 30 FPS. I said "I don't need 60 fps." Unfortunately, now, I AM spoiled. Every time a game drops below 60 FPS I can tell immediately. Is it unplayable? No. But it IS noticeable. 

 

As for higher frame rates, eh. I'm not THAT spoiled. But you certainly can tell by dragging a windows explorer window around. 60 fps vs 100 fps in windows is extremely noticeable, but I still keep my monitor at 75 Hz because I can't run games much faster than that. 

[Stefan Payne]

On 12/1/2018 at 6:04 PM, DeadnightWarrior said:

So, what's the deal? Has 30 fps become "bad" just for marketing purposes?

No, it depends on the game.

The faster the game, the worse 30fps is.

 

IF we're talking about slower games that also include Tomb Raider, 30fps is OK.

If we're talking about faster games like a shooter or racing game, then 60fps is way better and preferrable.

[FrankySam]

For online gaming it's a big disadvantage to be at 30fps