Can We Ever Go Back to 30FPS Console Gaming?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- ► Watch the FULL video here: • DF Direct Weekly #119:...
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry UA-cam: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/...
► Follow on Twitter: / digitalfoundry
![Does 24FPS REALLY Look More Cinematic Than 30FPS [Or 60]?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZdS-6qhob-I/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how the main DF channel just put out the pitch yesterday, and the channel already has almost 30k subscribers. I still love the long content. Support DF!
yeah it's kind of a worthless channel just to break up larger videos into smaller ones. I prefer the larger ones with time stamps.
@@robertlawrence9000 A lot of people who casually browse UA-cam are going to be interested in these shorter clips without the knowledge of when/where these clips are located within the bigger podcasts. They also will see an hour long podcast video and not even click on it to begin with.
Convenience.
@@robertlawrence9000 it may be worthless to you but it's not for the people trying to make a living from those channels. The algorithm that runs this place doesn't like it when people only watch parts of a video, it treats it as disinterest. So having a channel for the folks who are just interested in very specific topics is the smart thing to do.
@@Ekinoxe Yeah and sometimes since a video is longer, I may watch part of it and come back and finish it. No sense in making 1 large video and breaking it up into smaller ones. Just make 1 video with timestamps. Put in the description what it is about. Clip channels suck
Problem is we completely skipped a generation of resolution. Console and TV manufacturers were in lock and step with jumping from 1080p to 4K. In reality what would have been best for the industry is jumping to 1440p until hardware was ready for 4K with high frame rates.
The thing is most games run in 1440p in 60 fps modes
@@Radek494 💯 I have a RTX 2070 Super that still runs new games at 60fps at 1440p of course. It’s still a great experience. That’s with very high settings too. I wish both consoles could be set to that resolution manually on a TV, not just for PC monitors.
@@BruceRichwineJr My TV does allow for that. I have to enable 1440p in the PS5 settings to use 120 FPS mode because MY TV doesn't support 4K 120
@@Radek494 My bad, I forgot about Sony adding 1440p resolution to PS5 that can be set manually. I didn’t think much of it because of the TV I have. Xbox does too and didn’t realize it was a manual setting either on the Series X. The Series S however doesn’t for some odd reason. Allows for 4K output but only 1080p and 720p as manual output settings.
COD was so successful during the ps3/360 simply because of the 60fps and responsive gameplay.
Yeah but you are talking about a competitive Multiplayer FPS game
@@dante4111 Battlefield during the ps3 era was 30 FPS. And that lack of responsiveness led them to never beating COD despite bfbc2, bf3 and bf4 being superior games.
Thats not the reason it was successful.
I'm sure I may be in the minority here but, even as a teen I didn't care for Call of Duty because it felt "too fast paced" for console. I love all platforms but I can see how using a mouse on such game requiring quick reflects or faster/accurate aiming may be better than using a controller. That was then, I'm much better at the game as an adult. Just speaking from someone who came from playing more Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and Gears 1-3 & Judgement back in the day over Call of Duty at the time.
@@centralbasedagency9334 Those existed back then too. You just don’t remember.
I have no idea what 30fps gaming's is after moving to pc after the 7th gen console era ended
I much prefer 60 frames but I'm fine with 30.
60 is rough.. and you're okay with 30? Wtf..
I would rather have a generation that does not improve much in graphics with a target at 60fps for everything. THEN the 60 fps target can be set so the next generation CAN have the graphics bump while keeping the 60fps target. I have always been one to love graphics improvements. But we have gotten to a level where lower resolution with higher framerate actually looks better than higher resolutions at 30 and below frame rates. Of course this isn't true with screen shots, but when in motion, 60 fps lower resolution almost if not always looks better than 30 fps at higher resolution.
Developers focus too much on graphics and not enough on improving physics, A.I. and gameplay
I want better graphics because i get 60fps on my pc anyway if you buy console you should execpt 30fps on graphically intensive titles
@@anonymous16472 congrats on completely missing the point 😑
@@ajsingh4545 my point is i want devolopers push most advanced graphics possible on console that pc gamers can stress their system of course first person shooter should be 60 on console but storydriven games are okay at 30 especially if you play on console
@@anonymous16472that’s why there are performance and quality modes.
I always toggle performance, because even if the graphics are better on quality, the game feels much better on performance.
And if you take Demon Souls remake for instance, looking at the detail in quality is nice, but when you are just playing you don’t look at every rock. Playing it on performance makes the entire experience better
Killzone 2 generating the strongest disagreement I’ve ever seen in a DF video 😂
most people can't tell 2k from 4k they really need to do 60fps 1440p so you get the tech and the frames
"can't tell 2k from 4k"
You'd be shocked if you saw Netflix switching from 720p (1Mbps) to 4k Dolby Vision (15Mbps). I had an OLED laptop that could do that through alt-tab with 1,000 Nits (100% window) and let me tell you that I was in absolute shock. It's not even funny. I had to stop in stills, take out a magnifying glass, and start looking at small details for minutes. There was no discernible difference except in Our Planet (in stills mostly) and in bright HDR highlights and you don't want to know which one is better (neither is better, 1,000 nit SDR is gorgeous and 950 nit HDR was also gorgeous but I would say less impressive).
@@techsamurai11Really? I can tell immediately if Netflix is in 1080p, let alone 720p. There is a definite softness to it. 1080p on a 4K screen is OK, really, but 720 just looks terrible to my eyes.
SDR and HDR. There is a big difference, but doesn't bother me that much if a show or game is SDR only. Stray actually surprised me in that it was SDR only and really looked nice, whilst other games with HDR on like AC Valhalla just looked meh in comparison. I don't have a crappy TV, as it is a QLED capable of close to 1000 nits, but that game was just meh looking. Maybe in the highlights, here and there, but a real big step back from Odyssey, which really loses a lot if played in SDR.
Anyway, off topic from original comment, but I would be happy with 1440p/60, but games on console are already 1440p/30-40 now. By the end of the generation it wouldn't surprise me to see us back to sub 1440/30.
@@mikejenkins4924 You'd be shocked - I thought I would notice a difference when the bitrate is 16x higher. There's a lot of stuff about it - it's a limitation of the human eye. If you can see it, you only think you can see it and would pick 720p half the time.
People should stop with the "2K" 1440p and start talking about 1620p, which is ACTUALLY in the middle of 1080p and "4K". - 1440p was derived from 720p and it's actually not that much higher from 1080p. - Usable? Sure, but it's not really the "in-between" of 1080p and 4K the way that people think it is, just because it literally is between those standards. - We have a serious lack of 1600p monitors and I think companies are giving up on them. - It's a great resolution for large monitors and current medium-sized TVs, yet it gets ignored for the most part. - Because yea, I do think 4K is kind of overkill for most people and screens, especially considering how far away people sit from them. But at the same time, I don't think 1440p is the answer, 1620p is. - That said, yes, the majority really doesn't see it, they just think they do because marketing told them so. - But watch console and GPU marketing push "8K gaming" next...
@@michaelmonstar4276
There are a few games that are pushing this native res and then reconstructing to 4K.
1440 is good enough for most, though. Hell, a lot of movies on 4K Bluray are actually upscaled from 1440. Seems to be the official 2K resolution. Even 3840x2160 isn't true 4K resolution, so 1440 sits about right.
There should *always* be a choice between 30FPS with great visuals and 60FPS with compromised visuals. Let us have a choice to work with graphics that are “good enough” so that the game itself feels good to play. PC has done that since time began, console games should have that too with how powerful they are now.
Ratchet rift apart visual options on PS5 should be a standard, plenty of options to choose from. Devs always push visuals beyond the limits (sure, there are exceptions) , even with better and better hardware, better and better visuals are the goal, no matter what. FIX 60 should be always an option. I would happily sacrifice resolution / details for 60fps at any time. On OLED 30 fps is even worse, much more noticable.
Exactly!
I am not a fan of graphics options on consoles. The devs should target optimal settings for one set of hardware components. On my gaming PC, experimenting is part of the fun to me and I understand that there are millions of combinations of hardware there. On consoles it feel wrong and lazy.
@@djalil_YT "The devs should target optimal settings for one set of hardware ". One prefer 60 fps, the others prefer higher res and 30 fps.
Adding 3-4"presets" like in Ratchet is really not the same amount of possiblities as it is in PC settings (sometimes about 30+ adjustable values)
I think something I realized as I’ve gotten older is that lower refresh rates give me motion sickness. When I was younger, I could play games on the n64 with fps in the 20s and be alright for hours on end - that’s not the case anymore.
For me, I realized I had to get a gaming pc in order for gaming to still be enjoyable because the frames were more important to being able to avoid motion sickness. So I would venture to say this depends from person to person as to how much 30fps and below really bothers you.
Maybe that is why it bothers me. I know as I have gotten older my tolerance for 30fps is much lower.
The thing is game developers of the N64 made their games around having bad framerates and they were mostly consistent like Ocarina of Time running at 20 fps or Super Mario 64 having the smoothest 30 fps I've ever played but also late Rare titles like Perfect Dark ran terribly at 10 fps. For me it wasn't until the Xbox 360 era when games like Grand Theft Auto 4 and Tony Hawk's Project 8 really ran like shit. I remember being so angry because those games just looked bad and ran bad lol. That's when I discovered that frame times and frame drops really do matter for the overall experience.
@@jimmyv3170 Yeah, 360/PS3 era is when it really got to a point I stopped gaming on consoles so much. Majority of those games do not hold up well on those consoles.
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 I don't mean it that way, and yes I can suffer through a 30fps game. I did it for Bloodborne as well, but I don't believe it has ever felt smooth or played that well. Suffering is the key word because it does not feel good.
The bigger problem these days is that we have tools to elevate lower fps like FSR/DLSS and VRR, which makes 40fps infinitely more playable, so we should be targeting 40fps as the new 30fps at minimal from my perspective. 30fps is just unacceptable these days to me personally.
Also you have to consider we have much faster TVs and monitors these days, but we aren't taking that into consideration, which makes 30fps feel even worse. It truly feels awful on an Oled or high refresh rate monitor.
I am not anywhere near 60, but I did think as I got older it would matter less. That hasn't been the case though the opposite really.
It doesn't give ME motion sickness, but it's definitely straining and tiresome to stare at 30fps or lower refresh-rates for hours on end. - I'm still quite OK with it, I mean I enjoyed the crap out of the big PS4 games that ran that way. But it took more energy, especially in the dark (and it WOULD have been different had I lit up the room). - But it's just very unnatural and you're not supposed to really live in that kind of light for many hours on end. A movie, sure, but not very long gaming-sessions, even if you take breaks. - So the way you use it also matters.
Expensive graphics mean nothing if they are stuttering around in a laggy 30fps. 60fps plays dramatically better and looks dramatically better in motion.
yeah, once you try it, it's very hard to go back. I can't even remember a game where John recommended a 30fps mode over the 60fps where the 60fps mode was stable. Between RT and 60fps, it's the easiest decision ever.
Yea but a solid 30 is much better than a failed attempt at 60. Stability is the key.
Unless you’re playing a competitive shooter, then 30 is absolutely disgusting.
I did the unthinkable during the PS4 era: Skipped aaaaall the big games that couldn't do 60fps: Spiderman, Tsushima, God of War, Fallen Order, TLOU2...Now that I've picked up a PS5, I'm making my way through that list :)
Just like 60fps means nothing if it's stuttering and not stable. I'll take a locked 30 with a flat frametime over a unstable 60 anyday, rather locked 30 than unstable 150+ fps
@@leonstrydom1 same here 🙂 With the exception of Spiderman and GoW
30 fps should never be okay nowadays. 60 fps is the minimum imo.
I think John hit the nail on the head. Before he said it I was getting ready to write a comment here, and then he said exactly what I was thinking: 30 FPS looks really bad on OLED displays because of how fast and cleanly the image refreshes . Indeed, LCD and LED etc displays have more natural blur effect I think. To me, on my LG C2 OLED, the new "30 fps" acceptable framerate is 40 fps... Games at 40 fps (with a 120 hz display) are very pleasant to the eye - a bit slower than 60 but still smooth on an OLED. But 30 fps is a juttery mess... Before I figured this out I thought the games were unoptimized or something at 30 fps but no - it's the OLED + 30 fps that's a problem.
Same TV and honestly I don't see what you mean at all haha. Like I do notice 30 to 40 to 60 difference, but I definitely don't feel like a stable 30 looks like a juddery mess. That said I have never been an fps diehard whether on my ASUS ROG G55VW laptop when it was still competitive, then when it wasn't, then Dec 2020 to Dec 2023 with my PS4 or now with the PS5.
I just do not notice the difference quite as much nor does it bug me. Which I'm thankful for listening to you and John haha
I also have LG C2... 30fps is out of the question. 40fps is also too much for my eyes. Even 60 without motion blur is noticeably choppy. I've found out that, at least for me, the really smooth gameplay starts at 70fps. 120hz container with 119fps frame rate cap in NVCP + VRR + VSync is the best that I can get from this TV and it shows.
And they're ALSO ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in pointing out that 30fps or 60fps on CONSOLES is COMPLETELY a DESIGN DECISION! The developers know EXACTLY what hardware they're working with, so it's simply a choice of how designers want to ALLOCATE RESOURCES! These consoles are perfectly capable of outputting a game rendered at native 4K running at a locked 120fps, but they'll just be forced to impose a lot of sacrifices/limitations in order to reach that target...
Like, didn't that old Xbox 360 'Arcade' launch game 'Geometry Wars' run at 120fps & 4K nearly 20 YEARS AGO? Of course, it turns out that most gamers weren't exactly content with every new title looking like an updated version of PONG just so they could 'enjoy' the higher resolution & framerate. ;)
Yeah and oled has a fatal flaw,.. burn in ..
Lcd is the way to go.
@StreetPreacherr i am a simple man , i won't spit at a 30fps mode with motion blur .
Especially if i also have a 60 fps mode on the side .
But for Starfield I can make an exception.. this will put even the most powerful of cpu in pieces. 😂.
30fps is a non go for me that for sure, flat 60fps should be a standard today.
When I still had my plasma 30 FPS looked like 120 FPS. On my new OLED it looks like a cheap LCD. The difference is _that_ big. However, 60 FPS on an OLED looks significantly better. Still not as good as a plasma, but much better.
Devs needs to make their games focused on 60fps first and foremost!! Then focus on graphical detail and so on later. Unless its a very slow paced game like until dawn or something. 60 FPS all the way!
Considering consoles are the baseline, I'd rather see them go for the 40 fps marker since 60 fps is a lofty goal sometimes. Something like GoW Ragnarok at 40 fps is surprisingly a whole lot more playable than 30 fps, even though the jump sounds pretty small.
Also thanks for the clips channel. I know your videos have some good discussions but often I don't have the time to watch them fully, so being able to get a "best of" 10-15 minute bits is great!
No and I'll stick with the 1000s of games that support 60 forever before I ever play a 30fps game
The big problem with lower framerates for this gen is that you don't really see a huge graphical upgrade. I think FF XVI has some incredible scenes in the boss battles, Plague tale had incredible graphics overall (And didn't need a 60fps patch that much, although it got one), but aside from those 2 and Starfield (Which is likely CPU bound), it's pretty hard to justify the lower frame rate to consumers. And even on FF XVI, I think a lot of people would like to experience the hack'n slash combat at 60fps or even higher
The combat itself runs at 60 fps most of the time since they use super aggressive resolution scaling during combat specifically (DF video said as low as 720p with upscaling), but it makes it even more jarring when you go back to running around the overworld between 30 and 50 fps
Agree,that 30 fps have negligible impact on graphics fidelity
Something I wish Cyberpunk 2077 did is to run at 30FPS while you're out and about in the world with ray tracing enabled, then when you enter combat, disable RT and increase the frame rate to 60FPS
for a true generational leap in tech that would have to cost 1000 plus now for the console market is that physable i don't think so everyone would bash them i wouldn't mind paying that from the get go to see new ideas for game design and graphics eatch time but the console market is not aming for that so yeah the ssd for example could have been implemented a gen ago on the ps4 but it was way too expensive for that you get what you pay for with tech the market limits the product thus the potential don't expect big changes with 500 in graphical fidelity
@@Dyblio Yeah, that just makes it really worse. Like the exploration doesn't seem like it's really that impressive, so I really wish it was 60fps
I enjoy the new short form content for exactly these types of videos: snippets from podcasts or longer form videos I don't have the time to watch in their entirety. Love the new channel!
I don’t mind 30fps, long as it’s consistent. Games like Red Dead 2 on console is still very enjoyable at 30fps. But once you get used to 60fps or over it can be difficult to go back..
Me whios is playing, gta 5 , far cry 4, batman Arkham knight between 25 to 35 fps.. and still enjoying them
I went back to 30 FPS for Gotham Knights and it bothered me all along, never again, I won’t play Starfield until it gets a 60 FPS patch on XSX. I even prefer a 720p game at 60 FPS than 4K 30 FPS.
I'll take 144p (not a typo) yes 144p and 60fps over 4k 30 any day of the week.
Found that when we get higher level performance and assets we lack in going back, love more to the current performances occurred
My take as a console player, specifically a Series S owner: yes, a stable 30 fps is doable and honestly, depending on the game, totally fine. 60 is super nice, yes. But playing at 30 fps is not the end of the world. Can we get back to it? Up to each one's preference. I can very easily switch between games running at 30 and 60 fps, like the Dead Space Remake (30) and CoD (60). Some people can't. It's personal, I'd say.
I don't care too much, as long as the motion blur is good, although I do prefer 60 or higher, obviously.
I'm playing FFXVI at the minute in 30fps because it is more stable. I wish it had a 120hz 40fps mode, though. A Plague Tale Requiem and R&C felt great at 40fps.
No, once you play at 60 you can not go back.
Smooth gameplay trumps stunning visuals every time. Rather we stay at 1080p/ 1400p 60fps not 4K 30
As for motion blur, I hate to the core of my being.
Edit: I'm of course joking. I don't play games much, I just like DF because I like tinkering with computers. I still find it amusing how literal people take comments on UA-cam if you don't spell out sarcasm.
First world problems, trying going out of the house and travel the world instead.
per-object motion blur is actually a pretty solid compromise for systems that cannot consistently render 60 fps. What you probably hate is full-screen motion blur, which just smears everything.
You've got mental issues then if you hate a graphics effect "to the core of your being", feel sorry for the kid you're holding.
@@The_Ostrich people sometimes use colorful language to flesh out their opinions. The comments section is generally for expressing those opinions. He has poor taste, but don't tell him to not have an opinion.
I play the Xenoblade Chronicles series in 30 FPS on the Switch. I certainly prefer a smoother 60 FPS, but there are some games that actually work in 30 FPS, like some RPGs, racing car games etc. When you need less than 1sec reaction time in action games, 60 FPS is almost mandatory.
Not racing games, please no, I might die
30 fps in a racing game... You have no idea what you're talking about.
@@zaandam0172 For me it's fine Lol, it really depends on the game
For a lot of people, I don’t think 30 fps in a racing game is all that great anymore (myself included). It was a bit more acceptable 15-20 years ago because for one, CRTs were still in the majority of households and the motion clarity and input latency on those displays were (and still are, though OLEDs are a close second) so good and were infinitely fps scalable in motion and input. The only bottleneck was the system sending the display signal and whatever its performance was, be it console or PC. 60 fps racing games still felt doubly responsive for sure on CRTs, but it wasn’t like they were unplayable at 30 fps either for most. Now though, unless you’re one of those people that still has that CRT (and you have to use a digital-to-analog converter which can introduce its own latency) or you’re playing on a high quailty OLED panel, 30 fps will feel pretty bad for racing games.
TotK is 30fps (sometimes lower) and you tend to forget because the gameplay is so satisfying but I would take a graphical hit in a heartbeat if it meant I could run it @ 60fps. I know emulation is a thing but cmon Nintendo lol
I play all my games on performance mode. I go for better fps over 30 anyday. Played much of last gen at 30 , playing games at 60 is such a huge improvement. As I commented earlier I would be happy for a ps5 pro , if it means I can enjoy 60fps with better graphics fedelity. That way I can enjoy the experience the devs want me to see , whilst sticking to 60.
Tears of the Kingdom @ 60fps is light years better than @ 30fps, thank god for emulators. I ended up giving my Switch to my niece as I never use it, I just wait for yuzu to update then buy the games to play them on my PC.
40fps mode should be the minimum.
I go between 30 and 60 fps because I’m really into graphical quality but when playing I find 30fps too juddery and slows the control feel. Playing a game at solid 60 is silky smooth joy. At 30 always feel like playing through glue.
I totally agree, Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy and Atlas Fallen for me has to be played in 60, that 30fps just felt too sluggish. Although, Horizon FW and Jedi Survivor to me feel great at 30, considering the gorgeous visuals. It just depends on the game. I'm tempted to play FF16 on performance but I really do love the visual fidelity in my games as well. Pretty much any cellshaded/anime game to me can be playing in 60 since the art direction doesn't take a huge hit aside from some minor antialiasing
So your problem is not about the framerate itself but the control response, maybe, what you use to limit to 30fps is just not good. On Steam Deck for instance when you limit the framerate on the SteamOS panel you get input delay, on windows whe you limit the FPS direct on the GPU Driver you got zero increase on input delay. 30fps when done right is quite okey, 60fps is better for sure.. heavily depends on the game.
@stefanamaral7861 that makes alot of sense, since you put it that way. Input latency does play a huge part. 👍
I play a variety of games from different eras, so I’m pretty used to playing games at a variety of framerates. The consistency of frames is often more important to me.
I have fun playing Doom Eternal on my PC at 4K, 120 fps, with RT. But I also have fun playing FFXVI which is 30 fps, or Legend of Dragoon on PS1 which is 20 fps during combat.
There’s too many awesome games out there stuck at 30 fps to turn my nose up at them. If you only play games that are 60 fps or higher you’re missing out on some incredible experiences.
A favorite of mine is Okami. That game will forever be 30 fps, and there’s simply no other game like it.
Bloodborne on ps5 is butter smooth at least, and I guess I'll wait for emulator community instead of sony
I can't play at 30 fps any more, I've recently replayed some PS3 games running at 30 fps and I just can't do it so I ended up emulation some of those game on PC playing them at 60 fps.
PS3 often runs bellow 20 fps in quite a lot of games. In GTA 4 it reaches like 15 fps at certain points.
No. Which is why I’m getting starfield on pc not my Xbox. I’ll try it on Xbox because gamepass. But I’ll probably get sick from the motion blur.
You can use gamepass on pc.
Most important is frame rate stability. We appreciate having a variable option, but the lower the frame rate, the more noticeable the frame drops and the more tiring for the eyes at the same time.
Not really, if it dips between 90 and 144 with VRR its OK, butter smooth gampleay. XD
If it hoovers around 70 its acceptable
If it cant keep up with baseline 60 its garbage tier and considered unplayable.
@@randalldraco3822 Yes, I hope more titles will support VRR in the future, as the number of PS5 titles that support VRR doesn't seem to be growing too steadily.
Here's how I see it:
When the Demon's Souls remake released, everyone was like WOW THE PS5 IS POWERFUL IT LOOKS SO GOOD AND IT IS 60FPS!!!
Now we have games like FF16 running at 30fps, and Remnant 2 running internal 720p, dropping frames and running abysmal SSAO just to say they used UE5... and I can't figure what's going on, because to my eye, the Demon's Souls remake looks as good, if not better than both of these games... what gives? You can say FF16 and Remnant have larger scale, but do they? Really? Honestly?
Demon's Souls has a ton of detail, great textures, awesome lighting... to my eye, I'm not even seeing the massive gains something like Nanite is bringing over the immaculate details bluepoint stuffed into DS remake... I just don't get what's going on with these devs right now.
Simple , gaming engines like Unreal Engine 5 have a huge part do to drops in fps. The more demanding a gaming engine is the more it's a challenge to maintain a constant 60 or more in fps. Both the PS5 and Series X should of went with a Zen 4 instead of a Zen 2 processor. Unfortunately most console gamers think that a $600 or more price tag is just as shocking as it was nearly almost 17yrs ago as it was on the PS3. Which in itself is extremely ridiculous when you into account things like inflation.
I am willing to bet the only reason developers "choose" 30fps is due to hardware limitations.
People buying 60 fps with a 300-500 dollar console will cause them not to buy a PC. This angers the PC lobby and they put pressure on the gaming companies. Manufacturers cant sell graphic cards, rams and processors and go bankrupt. They tell game makers, don't give 60 fps to console buyers, people won't buy parts from us. That's why no console will ever play all its games at 60 fps. Not allowed. The keyboard and mouse can be used. This is not allowed either. They want people to go and buy a PC for 1500 dollars.
I don't really mind slower paced games to run in 30 fps as long as the controls are responsive and the performance is consistent
Yes I do it on steam deck and I’m used to 240 fps gaming in 1440p so if I can anyone can. As long as the frame rate is a consistent 30fps with perfect frame timing it is smooth and very playable especially when it’s not a twitch shooter. Frame timing and consistency is everything and the key to enjoying 30fps content.
Somewhere there’s someone from Nintendo reading these comments preparing to report the results of this back to a meeting lol.
It’s 2023, 60 fps should be a minimum.
Go back? It's still here!
I can just about do Tears of the Kingdom at 30fps because it is such a slow and chill game, but I'd really love to have a 60fps mode accompanied by a higher resolution. Everything else that require extremely precise movement, games like Bloodborne, I'm not going to touch again at 30fps.
The only 30 fps that didnt annoy me was the last of us 2 on ps4 for some reason the motion blur was perfect and the game felt "smooth" for only 30 fps
SpiderMan on PS4 actually was something that I couldn't exactly tell was 30 at first. The per object motion blur on that was SMOOOOTH. Felt like a REAL 30 FPS footage, kinda like films still look good at 24 FPS.
Please stop referencing Zelda sales nintendo console is a literal toy and those games run like shizz.
I've been a PC gamer for a while(I own a 1060, so not the highest spec) and have a PS5. Well, yes, I want 60fps and would never take RT over it, the simple truth is I can play 30fps and I won't skip a title I want to play because of it, You have to remember a CPU bound game won't get more FPS by dropping the resolution. I think people forget this.
@@Spectral2k1 I disagree with that. You shouldn't sacrifice your vision for 60fps.
I grew up a console gamer, didn't buy my first PC until about 4 years ago and I built my first one about 2 years ago (gave the first one to my wife). So since I have over 25 years of almost exclusively playing on consoles I can very easily go back and forth between the two. 30 fps obviously does look and feel worse by comparison but since I don't play a lot of multiplayer games or first person shooters it's not the worst thing in world.
The fact that people are so in love with Bloodborne despite being locked to 30 fps is proof that it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. That's not to say it's not important at all but it's far from the worst.
They could try to meet the end user halfway with 45fps. Resident evil village with ray tracing did this on PS5 and the exp came out pretty good.
@@Salute503No it has no 40 fps mode. Only 30 and 60 fps mode that drops a lot of frames
@@Radek494ff16 drops frames at times while out of combat. It is a locked 60 in combat.
@@Radek494 ah somebody lied to me then lol
You can’t have perculiar number fps on set display hz.
You can do 30 fps on a 60hz display, the images will be synced naturally, the screen effectively displays each frame twice.
Having a little as 31 fps the two, image and display are no longer synced this causes micro-stutter and tearing.
You can do certain multiples on certain displays.
60hz - 15 fps, 30fps, 60fps.
120hz - can do everything 60hz can but can also do 40fps.
144hz - can do 24, 36, 48, 72, and 144fps.
165hz - very difficult display to work with, 165fps or nothing.
45fps is not a number anyone can use without adaptive sync, even then most adaptive syncs at min require 48fps.
most people don’t have that built into their tv so it’s not a viable option.
Hdmi 2.1 is too expensive and most console gamers refuse to elect for a much smaller monitor with a lower resolution like QHD.
I've been deliberately capping my games at 720p 30fps just to test how bad it would feel (I have a 4k 144hz monitor). I'm surprised by how fast I stopped caring when the game is good. Obviously there are cases when it's problematic. Like when I tried it with Warzone 2, I literally can't see far away people, and the low framerate is affecting my aim. But I got used to it surprisingly fast when I tried it on story-rich singleplayer games.
If you are still trying 720p on a 4k or even 1440p monitor, activate integer scaling. Thank me later. No more blurriness at non-native resolutions.
If you are 25+ yo, YES!
I get a very nasty headache within minutes of gaming in 30 fps. I have over 300 ps5 and ps4 games and the only 30 fps game in my library is Driveclub. I don't know whether it's the brute force power of ps5 but Driveclub never feel or felt like a 30 fps game to me.
I think it more to do with focus, racing games you’re on a fixed point of reference other games you look around and that’s where you really notice the shudder judder.
Even open world games run in a straight line, it’s fine, pan the camera and it’s earthquake city.
I think you guys might have confused Killzone 2 with 3. I never played 2 but I never heard of it being so horrible, I did play 3 a lot though and it was baaaad lol I just really liked the online multiplayer
I think I remember Killzone 2 mainly having the stutter through save check points where the game would literally freeze for about a second or so. Was a very nice looking game at times though with good lighting.
I really think 30fps adds an element of imagination to games. Where it isn’t “real” which is why we look back at ps3 games and such as being so iconic. Because it wasn’t real but an imagined view of reality.
@6:50 "Going down to 720pville and they don't care" That should a song😅
It's egregious that they are making games that drop to such low resolutions on the new consoles. Games ran at higher resolutions on the Xbox 360.
It's a design decision but ultimately no designer should be building a game that runs at 30fps only. The main mode should always be the 60fps mode with a quality mode at 30fps.
Can every game run 60fps? Sure, it can. There's no game made to date that can only run at 30fps on the new consoles - it's simply that the designer is aiming for 30fps and/or is just lazy or bad.
From what I've seen in games with unlocked FPS for VRR, to hit 60fps, you need to aim for 90fps at the target resolution so that when there's a bottleneck, the game can lower the resolution and still remain at 60fps. If it dips below then you need to reduce the graphic effects (alpha effects) or optimize them.
As for CPU bottlenecks, that just means that they built a game that can't run on the target machine. Everyone knows the specs of the PS5 and XSX and that's the target. Anything else is a later port for ideally much more powerful hardware (or much less powerful hardware for the Switch/PS4/XO).
Honestly, i didn’t notice the frame rate jumping from 30 to 60. But playing AC Valhalla at 60 right before playing Plague Tale Requiem at 30 makes Requiem feel almost unplayable. Now I find I can notice more and more when things are at 30, and every time I choose 60 because it feels much smoother and I don’t really notice the frames like I do at 30.
I can’t speak on 40fps, since I don’t have a 120hz tv.
I’d rather have a stable 30 versus an unstable uncapped frame rate. Same applies to the higher frame rates.
Insomniac shouldn't be treated like some outlier - they don't have access to different tools than any other developer. 60FPS with RT is achievable this gen, and with great visuals. Game development seems to have hit a brick wall which is largely due to 2 specific, yet related issues: GAAS and gaming subscriptions. The sooner we get over that wall, developers can get back to pushing boundaries.
I will ALWAYS go performance at this point. 60 or nothing for me.
The last statement in the video says it all. Halo and GTA 3 paved the way for 30fps gaming, whether it was for higher graphical fidelity or computational fidelity.
Popcorn at the ready for Starfield.
Currently playing a game on Switch called Null Drifter, cost 89p - best video game fun I've had in ages.
1 bit visuals for the win - maybe 🙂
I just looked at it: They call it 1bit, but that game probably couldn't be rendered on an actual old computer. - It's probably in Unity or something.
Also check out Downwell, if you don't know it, which is actually a game I could see on the NES or Game Boy or something.
No, we should never go to 30. Games were able to run at 60 even during the PS2 era, devs should stop making 4k textures and 8k skyboxes, because two or three or more years later the game will no longer be cutting edge, and it will be playable only at a terrible framerate. As someone who plays games and is not some low common denominator "consumer", i tend to play many games even years after release. To then discover it would run at the terrible 30 fps would be a turn off.
Look at what Sony did with Driveclub. The best racing game I ever played but I'm forced to play it in 1080p 30 on my ps5. I've bought GT7, Dirt 5, Grid Legends, Wreckfest and NFS Unbound but still helplessly return to Driveclub despite it's low resolution and abysmal framerate. Even on a ps5 pro and inevitable ps6, this jewel will still be 1080p 30 fps. May God punish you Sony you pathetic pricks!!
the whole thing is about optics. people view PS5 and xbox series x as next gen while nintendo is doing its own thing and not viewed as "next gen". So in that frame it doesn't matter that it has sold well and is 30 frames cause the expectation is not there.
How many copies did TOTK sell? Therein lies your answer.
People are willing to put up with 30 fps, and have been for a long time. Think about when UA-cam started allowing 1080p60 videos, finally showing your average PS4 owner what 60 fps looks like. Even after that point, people _still_ played games at 30 fps, and gave them unequivocal praise. Almost every late last-gen classic -- Horizon Zero Dawn, TLOU2, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Spider-man PS4, Final Fantasy VII Remake -- they all played at 30 fps. Nobody complained about the frame rates for those games.
And of course, TOTK is the best, most recent example. Despite running on ancient hardware that can barely hit 30 fps when it rains, the game sold bonkers, and people couldn't stop playing.
Tears of the Kingdom is better at 60 fps though. Every 30 fps game will provide a better gameplay experience when you double the framerate. I hate the fact that we made no progress on the console side in terms of FPS over the past two decades....If developers make the choice to have some many systems in the game that the CPU is the actual bottleneck then that just tells me that they don't value smooth and responsive gameplay as much as I do myself. So I just don't play those games.
BotW was glorious at 4k with 60fps.
What are you on about? With a few exceptions the majority of games on PS5 is 60fps. Some even supports 120fps.
@@Zenzuu I'm not talking about Playstation only and this also includes those games that cannot hold a stable framerate such as Elden Ring.
@@Zenzuu What are you talking about?
I just finished FF16 in quality mode at 30 fps a week or two ago. It was fine, didn't bother me at all.
I would still be happy if the only features of this generation are 60 fps at 1440p (everywere) and massive reduction in load times.
If a game is truly pushing graphics and isn’t a fast paced I don’t mind 30 tbh
I didn't think we even left it....
I never left. I prefer 30 cause it results in higher resolutions which is more important to me than frame rate.
I have been 60 fps champions since my involvement in PC gaming. Less effect,texture and particle are something Im willing to take to reach that 60 or at least fps inside my adaptivesync monitor range
If you are not going to at least come in a 40fps with VRR support, then I won't buy or play your game. That is how strongly I feel about it these days. With technologies like FSR/DLSS and VRR/Gsync putting up with 30FPS is over for me personally.
You can't tell me "you can't" budget for 10 more FPS when 30 FPS feels awful. Considering what is pushed out the door as acceptable, the "we will fix it in a patch" is nonsense already or how badly customers are treated when it comes to digital rights to owning media very few companies seem to want to do the right thing by their customers.
For me, I still love 30fps. Give it some good motion blur and you'll have a smooth experience as seen with cyberpunk. I'll choose resolution and detail over performance any day, it's just how I roll. There are some games out there like rdr2 and TLOU2 that I think benefits from 30fps as it makes the games feel heavy and cinematic. Going to 60fps kinda ruins the weightiness and makes things too light or responsive.
Totally agree. TLOU2 definitely plays better in 60fps but it is missing some of its weight.
@@Laytonmario especially when Ellie swings axes onto enemies, those moments are the heaviest 😄
kinda makes sense
I obviously want 60FPS+ to become standard on consoles but I can get used to 30FPS no problem. I played recently FF16 in 30 FPS fidelity mode because the "60FPS" mode was too inconsistant. I rather have a stable 30FPS mode than an unstable 60FPS mode.
30fps is not good in 2023 I don't care how you spin it. Developers should design games at 60fps and make sacrifices to meet that requirement. I don't care about RT on my series X, because, just like 4K gaming as a selling point on last gen, it was a completely unrealistic target for consoles.
Simple answer is yes. But we have been spoiled with 60-120fps that it would be unfortunate
Yeah, but most of those games have been cross generation games so they haven't been taking full advantage of the current gen hardware. As seen with more and more current gen only games, the more developers push these consoles the more difficult it's becoming to hold 60fps. Add features like Ray Tracing and it's almost impossible, at least at a native resolution.
@@mynameismud-qd9vu if in order to "take full advantage of the console hardware" you need to sacrifice 60FPS it means that the console is simply not powerful enough to push the graphic forward. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of players on console select the performance mode if the game give them the option to.
@@watashi1793 Not at 4K and or with Ray Tracing. Both are quite taxing on the GPU and framerates.
You're right that we'd have no choice but to accept that. However, it's sort of going from First Class to Economy while paying the same price simply because the developer was lazy or bad. The new consoles can run any game at 60fps - it's merely a design decision to stuff us all in economy so they don't need to do their part and make the game work the way it should.
Also, games should never drop to 720p. I think Sony and Microsoft need to establish a minimum resolution of 1080p for the PS5 and XSX (lower for XSS) and a caveat of how often the game can hit those resolutions.
Perhaps, even take it a step further and enforce a discounted price ceiling where they say "okay, you can render Jedi Survivor at 1080p for long parts of the game but you can only charge $49.99 as opposed to $69.99". Suddenly Jedi Survivor will run at 1440p for 90% of the game and hit 60fps throughout the whole game...
@@techsamurai11 Yes, console is the economy choice for gaming, especially when it comes to options and framerates.
Console warriors always blast pc gaming for having to adjust settings for games to get better performance, but it's very helpful in the knowledge you gain from doing so. Plain and simple, if frame rates are that important to you then pc is the only way to go.
I loved to play whatever the performance game is giving most of the time
I think people are getting spoiled with the idea of having all these different graphics modes and so on for consoles. I made the switch to PC because I wanted an open platform. Consoles are a closed platform. You spend $399 or $499 on a console you get what you pay for. I mean look at Starfield... Bethesda has a certain vision for the game and between CPU usage and graphical usage, they know that 30fps has to be the target to have the best experience. On PC, maybe you can brute force your way beyond that but it just surprises me when people on PS5 are like I don't get why FF16 isn't running 4k native with 120 fps.
Based on consoles/video games and phones, it's obvious that the market is dictated by the prioritization of "looks" over function. People wants good looking games a fast as possible. People wants edge to edge screens on phones even though the tech isn't ready hence the notches/punchholes.
I think it's pretty obvious now that consoles will still be primarily in 30fps. My hope is that it at least jumps a bit to 40fps as the minimum.
We never left 30fps gaming.
You like motion blur?
@@Stoddardian I do unironically
@@adityadas5820same bro. I’m glad I found the only other person on earth who enjoys it. I think well-implemented motion blur looks great, especially at high refresh rates. Also when I have to cap a game to 30fps (when I’m using Ray Tracing and can’t hit a stable 60fps, for instance), motion blur helps make the 30fps more palpable.
i think 30 fps is more natural
@@geraltofrivia2570 On a plasma, sure. On an OLED is unplayable.
With this hardware 30 fps is not necessary. its a Choice or terrible Developers.
choosing a 5 to 10% sharper image/better graphics over 100% Framerate increase is the easiest choice in the world.
back than the hardware couldnt do 60 or the graphical improvement by going to 30 was great (the wrong choice but at least it's an understandable option). this day the return for dropping to 30 for graphical increase aren't the same.
A 1080p 60fps game will always look better than it's 4k 30fps version except you're only interested in playing a picture. As soon as you move your character or camera, your sweet 4k turns into a stutter blurry pixelated mess.
I have no problems with 30fps, still play ps3 games, its just jarring going from 60 to 30 when switching games, give it half hour to adjust and ur golden.
I began playing since I was 5, and I am 26 now. I always play at 30 fps and sometimes 40 fps. When the game plays at 60, I always feel that I am missing on fidelity, and there is a weirdness about it, like it is not immersive.
I don't see what the big deal is with 30fps when it depends on the type of game, especially when the tech is always changing as fast as it is. The 16 bit days devs got everything out of systems within a year or two, theses days the games take a console generation to make in which the tech is redundant by the time the game comes out. Its why love Nintendo they don't care to much about the high end specs, they just focus on what they create within one platform!
A game would have to be *REALLY* good looking for me to stomach 30fps anymore. I mean really good looking.
Starfield looks pretty mediocre imo, with decent enough image quality but with noticeably reused assets, ugly textures, hideously low poly character models, and utterly lacking in basic aesthetic touches (take a good look at the trees on the main hub world-is there no wind on these planets? Not even a slight breeze? Everything is static and bland).
Oh and that isn’t even mentioning the cavalcade of glitches, bugs, and general piss poor optimization that are Bethesda hallmarks. I cringe to think how broken a state this game will launch in.
can they add 1080p 60fps mode? I don't need 4k, even 2k.
yeah, there's no way in hell that we should endure 30fps by today's standards. there's no good excuse for it. games should always target 60fps, no matter the cost. that's my vote.
THEN, if you want, you can have a 30fps4k raytracing UBER graphics Mode as an option, but not as the rule
I played Witcher 3 and immoratals fenyx rising on their 30 fps ‘quality’ modes and their 60fps ‘performance’ modes.
Stood still, I didn’t see much difference, studying the screen “ah, shadows are more realistic from the light source” I had to look for it.
Playing however, the performance mode looked instantly superior because the images were crisper and not strobing anywhere near what 30 fps does.
I’ve been so disgruntled about 30 fps I ditched my series x and built a PC.
Maybe it wouldn’t of been as bad if I was sat on a couch looking at a tv from far away, but I was on a desk using a monitor, 30fps really fatigues my eyes.
Gives me headaches to.
I think I might be the only human on earth that would appreciate another 24fps black bordered widescreen game that had obscene graphics. Like the Order: 1886. Something narrative heavy, with a focus on exploration and puzzle solving. Nothing too action focussed. Not having to render a 3rd of the pixels allows for a fair amount of increased visual fidelity. Something like this, using UE5, might look photo realistic on a PS5
I'm the same. I almost ALWAYS play my PC games with the graphics settings MAXXED out, even if that means I'm only getting 24fps... I'll take graphical fidelity over framerate every time.
The only visual setting I'm willing to 'sacrifice' is resolution, and that's because I think people are FAR TOO concerned about '4K' resolution. I sometimes still game on an old 720p projector, and think it looks fine. And most of these DLSS games are only using an actual INTERNAL resolution of around 720p these days anyway, and it's just AI upscaled to 4K...
I think 60 fps could be the norm for most games but I understand the reasoning in some cases for 30 fps. Tears of the Kingdom is definitely a game that on switch should be at 30 and not 60 due to so many mechanics along with the open world. More than anything I just hate when a game is 30 FPS and can't even keep it stable for its life. So many newer second party Switch games are struggling and it's so annoying to have inconsistent frame rate in a video game.
I disagree with Alex's comment that you can't get any game to run at any frame rate (mainly 60fps with this conversation) because there are many more elements in a game that you can change besides resolution. But I don't think he believes that in isolation. As John said, it's a design choice and developers are choosing their frame rates and resolutions. The only way you'll encourage developers to provide 60fps modes is if there was an incentive to create one. Like if the platform holders dropped their licencing fee a couple of percent or something similar so the developers are motivated to focus on certain features.
Some people just don't understand how specs effect anything. They dont understand what effects CPU performance or what effects gpu performance and how. Then you got people that get these expensive high hz monitors and they say 30fps is fine as they talk about their monitor being 120hz or greater, not realizing that they need higher fps to see it. Then there's people that think the game is running at 60fps because PlayStation says performance mode. Or they don't realize that dynamic res is a thing their dropping well under what they think its running at. But theyll tell you that you wrong, when you explain anything to them. People out there still think dlss is garbage because its not native. Now they like to dunk on frame gen eventhough they never tried it, and its only really bad for competitive shooters, which is just a small section of gaming.
Go back? Shit, we never left
Killzone 2?... How about Killzone 1?... I know, that's on PS2, but that's was probably the problem. - Guerrilla were always very ambitious and "literally" ahead of the times, as in that they needed more than the technology offered at the time of making and releasing the games, be it Killzone 1 on PS2 or Killzone 2 on PS3. - The HD-remaster of the first game was what it should have been and that's probably why they made that. - But it wasn't until they finally were on PS4 and the franchise was dying that they had enough juice, more or less. - Then again, they should remaster these games again and put them out on PC, kinda like that Halo-collection, but it seems like PlayStation wants to pretend those games don't exist, considering they even took down the website last year or the year before.
But anyway, the original Killzone on PS2 is quite a horrible experience. I kinda love it, but the performance, the resolution, the controls... Technology just wasn't ready for it.
Even casual console gamers who don’t really keep up with news flock to games who target 60 fps. NBA2K, COD, Madden, FIFA, Fortnite, Apex and many others. They may not know what fps even is but they know the feeling of a sluggish game.
We are still living in an age where there are 30fps games STILL. For some stupid reason.
I started at
Just played me some 30 fps Perfect Dark Zero on Xbox series X after some settings change it's feels just fine folks