How big of an issue is 30fps gaming?

[DnFx91]

30hz is fine, assuming you have never once laid eyes on a 60hz signal. you just can't go back after you've seen it. 

 

All PC gamers know the feeling of walking into a mate's house as he is playing a game you own, but running it on a console, It's the first thing you notice in the room, how shit it looks.

[Mira Yurizaki]

30 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

30hz is fine, assuming you have never once laid eyes on a 60hz signal. you just can't go back after you've seen it. 

 

All PC gamers know the feeling of walking into a mate's house as he is playing a game you own, but running it on a console, It's the first thing you notice in the room, how shit it looks.

I can go back to 30 FPS, and I play on a 144Hz monitor.

[Scruffy90]

I notice the change from 24 to 30 to 60 to 60+ shooting film. For film it doesnt bother me, but for gaming it does (when theres a dip in frame rate) because gaming has a lot more camera motion and subject movement than the avg film. 

[Gdourado]

To try and see this for myself, I downloaded some uncompressed 1080p game play clips for some ps4 games. 

Some games I actually thought I wanted to play. 

Uncharted 4. Very good looking game when you are not using free look and moving the camera. Once that happens it is a blurry mess. 

After seeing that, I couldn't play the game for the 14 hours it lasts. 

Bloodborne. 

Very noticeable the slower frame rate after I played Dark souls with dsfix at 60 fps for more than 50 hours and sotfs 60 fps for more than 40 hours. 

Final fantasy 15 just stutters. 

After this I can tell that console gaming is an issue for me. 

So, no ps4 in the future for me. 

 

Cheers! 

[SteveGrabowski0]

I'm a big console fan but 30 fps is an enormous drop from 60 fps. For whatever reason 30 fps still feels playable to me on console, while 30 fps is completely unplayable to me on PC. I don't know why though. I don't think it's because I play my PS4 and PS3 on an HDTV 7 feet away vs playing PC close up on a monitor sitting at my desk, because I also have my XBox 360 connected to my monitor and still enjoy gaming on it at 30 fps. Maybe the extra motion blur in console games is what makes 30 fps tolerable to me? Or maybe it's just knowing I can usually tweak settings to get 60 fps in PC games that makes it completely intolerable to me for PC games. But the 30 vs 60 is the reason I absolutely never buy a game available on PC for console. In the end 30 fps isn't great, but there are too many great games I can't get on PC so I'm willing to play them at 30 fps on Playstation or XBox. I'd rather play a great game like Red Dead Redemption at 30 fps (even with lots of drops into the mid to low 20s) than an average game at 60 fps.

[AG1233]

30fps are absolutely fine for me I have played on consoles from the beginning and still do.While it will be nice getting constant 60 fps it doesn't matter to me much.The only game I had sever frames drop on was on Watch Dogs 2 on Xbox one and that was patched as well.I haven't noticed any frames drop issue otherwise on a PS4 or a Xbox One

[SteveGrabowski0]

32 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

To try and see this for myself, I downloaded some uncompressed 1080p game play clips for some ps4 games. 

Some games I actually thought I wanted to play. 

Uncharted 4. Very good looking game when you are not using free look and moving the camera. Once that happens it is a blurry mess. 

After seeing that, I couldn't play the game for the 14 hours it lasts. 

Bloodborne. 

Very noticeable the slower frame rate after I played Dark souls with dsfix at 60 fps for more than 50 hours and sotfs 60 fps for more than 40 hours. 

Final fantasy 15 just stutters. 

After this I can tell that console gaming is an issue for me. 

So, no ps4 in the future for me. 

 

Cheers! 

Bloodborne is just such a great game I can forgive the bad frame pacing. I liked it more than Dark Souls 3 even though I can easily play DS3 at a completely locked 60 fps ultra on my GTX 970.

 

For Uncharted 4 I'm amazed at the level of visuals they could put on it for base PS4, considering it uses the equivalent of a GPU that cost about $100 when the PS4 launched in late 2013 (the HD 7850). Of course it's 30 fps. It's so infuriating the PS4 Pro kept the same piece of shit Jaguar CPU, because I have no doubts Naughty Dog could make Uncharted 4 run at a locked 60 fps on the PS4 Pro's gpu, probably with enhanced visuals, if it wasn't so cpu bottlenecked. If only Sony would release a PS4 with a Pentium G4560 and that RX 470 level gpu the Pro has.

[vanished]

5 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I can go back to 30 FPS, and I play on a 144Hz monitor.

I witnessed a 144 hz monitor once and I fear that if I ever get one, I'll never be able to go back to 60, never mind 30  

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I witnessed a 144 hz monitor once and I fear that if I ever get one, I'll never be able to go back to 60, never mind 30  

None of the games I play reach that frame rate anyway, so I leave it on 120Hz because I want to use ULMB.

 

I don't even think I've used GSync all that much...

[SansVarnic]

8 hours ago, said:

You put your rig link in and make it private ... What a troll....  

 

oops... i'll fix that .. no trolling here 

And you cant call people trolls it is against the CS ... just fyi [i don't take offense just letting you know]

 

Quote

No harassment, discrimination or abuse of any kind.

• This includes insults, fanboy, or troll accusations

 

[Bouzoo]

6 hours ago, DnFx91 said:

30hz is fine, assuming you have never once laid eyes on a 60hz signal. you just can't go back after you've seen it. 

 

All PC gamers know the feeling of walking into a mate's house as he is playing a game you own, but running it on a console, It's the first thing you notice in the room, how shit it looks.

I am not sure how do I even feel with this kind of comments. Yeah, your eyes will bleed like they have been pulled out if you go back to 30FPS.

You can absolutely go back to 30, it won't be as smooth as 60, but stable 30 is perfectly playable. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Not unplayable, but not ideal.

Usually my stance...

 

Also depends on the genre..

If I am doing 180 degrees of movement with my mouse the more fps the better it feels to play, I use Nvidia DSR and sit around 30-40fps in many games at 1440p-1800p.

As long as Im not dropping below 31-35fps too frequentlu Im good.

Playing RE7 at 1800p at 35fps avg or 70fps at 1080p, I can appreciate the strengths of both choices.

 

But to me, its a game2game perspective. Its always personal preference to maintain a minfps of 31-35fps.

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Also depends on the genre..

I want to say this is a big factor as well. I laugh every time I see someone demanding uber fast frame rates on games that aren't fast paced. Like Civilization or XCOM. I'd argue even in something like an RTS game, you don't really need to have high frame rates.

[NoxiousOdor]

It was only recently that I  got a computer that could run games at more that 20fps. With not having anything to compare it too I had gotten used to it and it never really bothered me. It is really up to your own expectations whether or not it will seem okay. If you are a competitive gamer than no it probably wouldn't be the best but with it being console and if you are looking to play for purely entertainment value 30fps really isn't bad.

[DnFx91]

19 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm a big console fan but 30 fps is an enormous drop from 60 fps. For whatever reason 30 fps still feels playable to me on console, while 30 fps is completely unplayable to me on PC. I don't know why though. I don't think it's because I play my PS4 and PS3 on an HDTV 7 feet away vs playing PC close up on a monitor sitting at my desk, because I also have my XBox 360 connected to my monitor and still enjoy gaming on it at 30 fps. Maybe the extra motion blur in console games is what makes 30 fps tolerable to me? Or maybe it's just knowing I can usually tweak settings to get 60 fps in PC games that makes it completely intolerable to me for PC games. But the 30 vs 60 is the reason I absolutely never buy a game available on PC for console. In the end 30 fps isn't great, but there are too many great games I can't get on PC so I'm willing to play them at 30 fps on Playstation or XBox. I'd rather play a great game like Red Dead Redemption at 30 fps (even with lots of drops into the mid to low 20s) than an average game at 60 fps.

i've always thought this was down to the fact that on a PC, you are usually using a mouse which inherently can turn the in game camera faster than a controller can, so 30FPS only feels awful on PC if you are using a mouse, because it's a higher resolution form of input and you notice the lack of fidelity on screen at lower framerates. Personally i can play games at 30hz, but only on an xbox/ps4 controller.

[SteveGrabowski0]

13 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

i've always thought this was down to the fact that on a PC, you are usually using a mouse which inherently can turn the in game camera faster than a controller can, so 30FPS only feels awful on PC if you are using a mouse, because it's a higher resolution form of input and you notice the lack of fidelity on screen at lower framerates. Personally i can play games at 30hz, but only on an xbox/ps4 controller.

I only play fps and strategy games with mouse and keyboard though, and 30 fps still feels horrible on my PC when using my 360 controller.

[DnFx91]

3 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I only play fps and strategy games with mouse and keyboard though, and 30 fps still feels horrible on my PC when using my 360 controller.

yh i know it's comparing two turds dude, but would you agree that 30FPS with controller input is slightly less shit than 30FPS with mouse input ?

 

seriously i challenge anyone here to boot up something like counterstrike source, lock it at 30 FPS, play with a mouse, and just try tell me that's an enjoyable gaming experience.

[Gdourado]

3 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

yh i know it's comparing two turds dude, but would you agree that 30FPS with controller input is slightly less shit than 30FPS with mouse input ?

 

seriously i challenge anyone here to boot up something like counterstrike source, lock it at 30 FPS, play with a mouse, and just try tell me that's an enjoyable gaming experience.

Did that yesterday with half life 2.

First run at 30. Second at 60.

Even my wife could tell the difference. 

According to her, the 30 fps session the game was nervous. 

[ard1998]

30 FPS isn't that big of an issue, as long as the game doesn't rely of fast reaction speeds. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, DnFx91 said:

seriously i challenge anyone here to boot up something like counterstrike source, lock it at 30 FPS, play with a mouse, and just try tell me that's an enjoyable gaming experience.

It is, because I'm not so hung up on frame rate as long as it's above some minimum and it's consistent.

[DnFx91]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It is, because I'm not so hung up on frame rate as long as it's above some minimum and it's consistent.

then you are lucky not to be one of the many people who physically get headaches and nausea from watching choppy video, that aside, you could easily flip the situation and say that you just don't notice because you are a lay person and genuinely can't tell the difference, much in the same way, i am exposed to almost every video format and framerate and all that jazz on a daily basis in my job, so it's blatantly obvious to me that for any kind of fast moving video whether that be animated advertisements, or slideshow transitions, or video gaming, 30hz is objectively worse than 45 or 60 

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

then you are lucky not to be one of the many people who physically get headaches and nausea from watching choppy video, that aside, you could easily flip the situation and say that you just don't notice because you are a lay person and genuinely can't tell the difference, much in the same way, i am exposed to almost every video format and framerate and all that jazz on a daily basis in my job, so it's blatantly obvious to me that for any kind of fast moving video whether that be animated advertisements, or slideshow transitions, or video gaming, 30hz is objectively worse than 45 or 60 

I notice it, I just don't care. And I believe those who get sick from choppy video are the exception, not the norm. Otherwise you wouldn't be hearing things like "soap opera effect" or that 48 FPS film was weird.

 

Is it objectively worse? Sure. But does it subjectively matter? No. 24-bit 192KHz audio is objectively better than 16-bit 44.1KHz audio, but most people don't really care because the differences are so subtle.

[DnFx91]

9 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I notice it, I just don't care. And I believe those who get sick from choppy video are the exception, not the norm. Otherwise you wouldn't be hearing things like "soap opera effect" or that 48 FPS film was weird.

 

Is it objectively worse? Sure. But does it subjectively matter? No. 24-bit 192KHz audio is objectively better than 16-bit 44.1KHz audio, but most people don't really care because the differences are so subtle.

ok you are being a bit difficult here,  i never said that those people were the norm, where did you get that from ?

 

also using audio as an analogy just doesn't work, everyone already agrees that audio is far harder to detect quality or fidelity differences in, we know that. As you say the differences between those 2 audio formats are almost negligible, but the difference between 30hz and 60hz video is a completely different thing. As a few people in this thread have pointed out, even their wives and mothers were able to see the difference and claim that 60hz is superior

[Mira Yurizaki]

24 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

 As a few people in this thread have pointed out, even their wives and mothers were able to see the difference and claim that 60hz is superior

And there are many people out there who don't like 60FPS video because it creates a "soap opera effect" which they don't like. And a lot of people didn't like seeing the Hobbit at 48 FPS (http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails). And there's this article that muses on frame rates for film and games: http://accidentalscientist.com/2014/12/why-movies-look-weird-at-48fps-and-games-are-better-at-60fps-and-the-uncanny-valley.html

 

The only sticking point is that games don't employ temporal anti-aliasing. Your mind wants a smooth image, but because games don't provide a way to hide temporal artifacts, it gets annoyed.

 

But ultimately here's the thing, would you rather play a game that's 100% guaranteed to run at 30 FPS or a game that can get up to 60 FPS, but can only get there 50% of the time, the rest it's all over the place?

 

EDIT: I misread the article, it had more to do with how much spatial resolution you can resolve. But adding temporal anti aliasing can help resolve some of that.

[Aleks NE]

On 21/02/2017 at 10:01 PM, SansVarnic said:

oops... i'll fix that .. no trolling here 

And you cant call people trolls it is against the CS ... just fyi [i don't take offense just letting you know]

 

 

My bad mate im still a noob on this forum.