The only time 30 fps is superior to the other options is if we’re talking about an old game where speedrunning glitches can only be reliably replicated at a lower framerate. Or if for whatever reason the devs designed the game to have physics and other things be tied with the framerate. Other than that 60 and higher is objectively better.
Personally, idaf about the framerate. I'm not a framerate whore. I will jump back and forth between my laptop which runs at around 60-120fps, my PS4, which is mostly locked to 30-60, and hell sometimes even my PS3, which was 100% locked at 30fps.
@@emrickazor2610 "I'm not a framerate whore" then the fuck is that shit about then? you are insinuating that those that want better framerates are framerate whores.
helldivers 2 has proven to me that a game doesn't need to run at 30fps to be cinematic. I knew this already from other games, but taking down a bile titan with a 500kg and laying down covering fire as your team retreats from the advancing automaton forces feels like something from out of a movie and they don't even need to drop the framerate to achieve that feeling.
I completely agree with what you said. A lot of companies are obsessed with games being photo realistic. Instead they should be focusing on the actual gameplay of the game. If it's not fun nobody will play it.
24 FPS was decided on because it was the lowest framerate that still felt "smooth enough" (and because Americans measure in 12s. UK measures in 100s, so our 60 FPS is 50 FPS to them. That's why old PAL region games are 17% slower. Because gameplay was tied to framerate)
24FPS is where I draw the line. I can do 30, I can do 45, but anything below 30 is not good. Gotta have that 4fps grindset from when you accidentally downloaded a cryptominer on the family computer to play Gmod for free.
@@Stangrex I know, I pointed that out. And added that many games tied their playback speed to the framerate, which means PAL versions of games ran 17% slower on average, making them easier.
I played Doom 2016 and Eternal on Switch to completion at 30fps - Normal (Hurt Me Plenty) difficulty. When I booted the games up on PC later, I was getting a minimum of 120fps and found Ultra Nightmare to be easier than Hurt Me Plenty on Switch. Even at just 60fps on Steam Deck both games are easier at the higher difficulty than on Switch at 30 with the lower difficulty.
You know, it's funny because Metroid Prime released in 2002, looks beautiful for its time, and it still managed to hit 60fps. Hell, the Remaster on the Switch is also constantly nailing 60fps and it looks legitimately gorgeous, even by today's standards. Many other Switch games also run at 60 and still manage to look very appealing. If games like that can run at 60fps with substantially weaker hardware, then I don't see the excuse here. The funny thing is the Original Doom, back in 1993, had a framerate of 35, which is still greater than the 30 that many game devs are shooting for right now, the performance is a little bit worse on many games in 2024 compared to the great milestone of first person shooters in 1993.
Oh god... SupaNova... I remember those koala tea videos of his. So you know how he would put low resolution gifs randomly in his videos? Not very unique or original, I know. But there was this one particular video of his probably about something something Xbox bad. Anyway, there was a gif he used that was on the more "hardcore" side of a woman with no pieces of clothing to cover her torso. Everything was out of frame, but a slip or two did occur and was noticeable. She was also putting a two-sided purple object in and out of her mouth rapidly. Needless to say it had nothing to do with the context of that video and was a strikeable offense according to TOS.
I'm with you in that games should offer the option. But here's the question. Why. Why isn't it there? You asked it, and here's the thing, you don't know, and neither do I as neither work in the game industry. What I can tell you is that there is definitely a reason. Game studios absolutely made this decision. I suspect not as many people care as you want to believe. I'm sure game studios have read all those studies and yet, chose against it. They definitely know something you and I don''t.
I don't think it's some sort of accessibility conspiracy, i think it's the result of several, smaller, simple factors. We'd like options, devs know we'd like options, but how much profit would you think adding that option will generate for the company making the game? With that in mind, how long would you think it would take to integrate it? How about 30 different options, none of which are even remotely likely to generate a return for the effort? Thats why companies would rather invest that time and money into coding infuriating BS like loot boxes and expensive cosmetics items to sell in the in game store - that stuff DOES generate them revenue. It generates a relatively large return proportional to the work it likely takes to add those mechanics, and because 99% of companies are hyper focused on making profits in the short term and nothing else, is it really any surprise that games keep coming out with little to no accessibility options and an 11 page store full of colourful novelty items and pop culture reference cosmetics? Money, my friend. It's always because of money.
If its older games running on console and that dont run at 60fps fair enough, its a treat that we get so many patched 60fps games. But honestly any game coming put now at 30fps is just not good enough
Sometimes when a game has a performance mode, it tries to make 60 fps game run at 30 fps and it looks choppy compared to a 30 fps game that was on the PS2
Ok so I know I’m late to this video but the reason that the avengers looks weird at 60 fps is that the process of upping the framerate also known as interpolation often uses ai which makes the movements look more stiff and linear
Theres nothing wrong with having options. Almost all games on PS5 get an Performance Mode(2k 60fps) and Graphics Mode (4k 30fps). I hope that choice is available for future games as well.
The first clip says enough. 30fps is better because of cinematic feel? Yeah, in cinematic scènes only. Which good games do: run at unlocked FPS, and do cinematics at 30. It's still wild to me that people think games running at 30 all the way through is a better experience for cinematics. Games are just better at 60+ FPS. Playing games at 30FPS is actually unnatural because most people perceive reality at 60+ FPS. Being in control at 30FPS when the world around you is faster, is nauseating at best. I unironically get sick playing at under 60FPS.
if the movie was sent to theatres in 24fps, the copy you have of the movie is most likely 24fps as well and thus you couldn't send a 60fps copy anywhere unless you had the original copies of the film
I want to talk about the movie thing. The reason why movies look strange at 60 fps, at least in the example that he gives is because it was ai upscaled to 60 from 24. That messes with motion, that is why you see ghosting and artefacts. I saw another example with mulan. The reason why 60 fps looks bad is because the original movie was animated at 24, it was never meant to be running at 60. Again, that is why you see artefacts and a lot of ghosting. Now let’s take cuphead for example. The game was animated at 60 fps, which is why you don’t have issues like ghosting and strange animations and motion blur. And also like you said, you can have cutscenes running at 30 and the gameplay run at 60. Metroid dread does that as well.
all my monitors are 1600x900 running 1080p from my 1650, red dead redemption 2 just barely reaches 60 on literal potato settings, im not kidding people actually look like potatoes.
Only time I 'prefer' low FPS is in OLD games where animations were animated by the frame and things look jank as hell if you up the upscale it. These are incredibly few and far between, but man, watching a unit march in a 30 FPS animation across grass blowing in a 144 FPS breeze looks terrible. Thanks C&C Generals and Rise of Legends for hard locking your animations.
Also, before that, came F-Zero X on Nintendo 64, which ALSO ran at 60fps, they did have to make some sacrifices, the tracks are less detailed, but it works :)
@@NicholasVetter-sy8io Other 90s gams I remember running at 60fps are Sega's arcade games Virtua Fighter, Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Racing, Daytona USA, Sega Rally Championship, Sega Touring Car Championship, Fighting Vipers and the Sega Dreamcast game Sonic Adventure So basically by the late 90s 60fps in 3d console games was pretty much a standard, with the standard being set in the early to mid 90s in arcades
I think resolution and frame rate are over rated and are just seen as important for PC people to have their little pissing contest over which rig gets the most. Hellblade 2 is going to launch soon and it's going to look better than any other game and be more immersive running 900p 30 fps.
My only thought: [laughs in PCMR] Having said that, FPS matters much more just for the sake of responsiveness. Ignoring that is being quite shortsighted
I don't see how having better graphics is complimented by a choppier framerate, even considering the filmic quality. Also, I'm pretty sure that MGS2 on PS2 ran at 60, so modern consoles running at 30 is just sad.
I really don't mind 30 but do I prefer it no I think that is stupid to prefer something that's lower than 60 plus I kind of have bad eyes I don't know what elden ring was on what frame rate but I had no problems with beating elden ring if it was 30 or 60 on consoles I have no clue
I guess all this can be avoided by simply having more customization options available on console like pc does... if people want to boost their frames in favor of worse graphics..let them i personally wouldn't do it but let people play how they want
Who promised 60fps? If it were the console manufacturers then whats the problem? The consoles are capable of doing it. Its the game creators decision which has nothing to do with the promise from the manufacturer, which actually delivered on their promise.
he only thinks so because of how bad game cinematics were for the longest time. now they're almost if not on par with Hollywood, which when played to where it can be observed in more intricate detail than in said movies, looks incredible
About the whole "games don't have to look good as long as they run well"...My favorite games, unironically, to this day, is still Mario Kart Wii. It runs at 60FPS and doesn't look very good. But it plays well. And at 60FPS.
People don't seem to grasp that movies _work_ at 24fps because it's a _movie._ It's not something the viewer controls. If you could pan the camera around to watch a movie at different angles, you'd _immediately_ notice how choppy it is. Video games can't _be_ cinematic outside of cutscenes, and even then, cutscenes _should_ run at 60. Movies really only run at 24 because it's all pre-renderer and takes up _A LOT_ of space, and putting it together would be _A LOT_ more work. Non pre-rendered cutscenes don't have these limitations because it's all rendered in real time by your own hardware. Cutscenes actually should be even smoother than the actual gameplay because they're completely scripted. 16:11 It's "weird" because it was shot in 24fps and it can't be magically made intp 60fps because those extra frames don't exist. Software that "makes" it 60fps either duplicates the frames or generates new ones with AI, which is so far from perfect. He clearly has no understanding of how framerates work.
@@emrickazor2610 500 dollars and some searching can get you a PC that can push higher framerates and better performance than the 9th gen consoles we have today. 4 years after the Xbox Series S launch, you still can't get a gaming pc for 300$, so if you just want to game, then PC is not for you. The benefit of PC is that you can do whatever you want on whatever you have. Pentium 4 or Threadripper 7990WX. Gaming or hosting discord bots.
@@emrickazor2610 for around 200 more dabloons you can get a decent gaming laptop that will run games better than the overpriced console, speaking from a country where the local currency is 5 times shuttier than the euro
Hold up, I own pc and ps5 while most games run at 60 and maybe higher on my low end pc I wouldn't say the ps5 flat out doesn't run games at 60 or 120 while yes its a certain amount of games that do but generally it can run games at 60 frames I don't know why people are saying games don't run 60 on ps5 when if you look in the setting for most games there's a damn performance mode button to click on, I obviously don't know what people are playing because the games I play ps4 or ps5 can run 60 fps, battlefield 4 and the division 2 and cyberpunk all run at 60 on ps5 so I don't know what to say about this guy who's complaining that it doesn't
People like him who are ok with 30fps are the reason consoles run at 30fp .Companies want to offer less for more, but gamers should demand more for less.
What even is this, he just agrees with us then goes 'yeah 30 fps isnt that bad in this small bit of games' like hes seent he silver liing and goes 'yes thats all there is'. Yappin..
I put it this way - I'm simply not buying anything that is not 60 FPS. I don't care if this game is the next best thing since sliced bread. No 60fps - no money from me (unless it's on 90% sale and I'm bored).
I won't stand for this PS2 slander, 60"FPS" (in quotation marks because someone is going to go "well acksually it was only fields per second and not full frames") was bordering on being a standard on PS2. Mostly only the challenging ports and massive games were targetting 30, but a ton of games and even many somewhat big and popular games had a 60 target. On PS1 the framerate target was commonly 30 (a pretty shaky 30) due to the move to 3D games, but 2D sprite based games were still 60. Even older generations were just 60 by default with a couple of games here and there doing 30 (like the TMNT NES game for example). PS2 was simply a refinement of what PS1 started, so 60FPS became pretty feasible again. PS3 was a shift to more realistic graphics, so performance was massively sacrificed and games often struggled to maintain 30FPS, although it was a bit different than on the PS1. PS4 didn't introduce much more 60FPS games, except for some situations like going from Battlefield 3/4 on last gen to Battlefield 4 on the new gen (not a locked 60 by any means, but it was a vast improvement over last gen). Now 60FPS is again basically a standard outside of few games that don't have the option for it. I blame the PS3 for messing people up and thinking 30FPS was always the thing in console gaming. It was a compromise that overstayed its welcome at times.
I'm honestly tired of hearing about frame rates whether something is 30 or 60, how about worrying if the game is fun. Most customer bases are casual gamers and from my observation and people i know, they have never mentioned frame rates, only time i hear that discourse is by nerds online. I understand its a topic that people use in their pathetic non existing console wars, however without any official data i can tell you that most people are unaware or do not care about frame rates.
The honest truth is ray tracing is crazy demanding, and cpu usage is becoming higher. Graphics have been less of an issue, and cpu bottleneck is real. This a thing on pc and consoles. We just want games, to be honest. This generation has been so bad. Everything is delayed to 2025 and 2026.
honestly, i don't care about framerate, as long as it doesn't look like a powerpoint presentation if it runs at 30, fine. if it runs at 60, nice. if it runs at 120, great. though i do agree that the new consoles should overall run better than the previous gen
"24 FPS is unplayable" >remembering that space station 13 natively runs at 20 because the engine is crap and there's 80 simultaneous players to account for. Oh no.
@@sneakycacti Yeah, it's a slow paced real-time simulation with MMORPG styled action buffers (you tell your character to do something and the "performing action" bar pops up) to compensate for it. But everyone hates the engine the game was made on so there's half a dozen different attempts to port it to something that can handle higher framerates and smoother animation.
Classic dumb stupid argument that cinematic chuggy messy ahh animations better than fast smooth and precise animations. It's like saying I prefer a bubble car over a sports car.
@@sneakycacti what I want to say is that it would be fair to "blame" game developer and not the console manufacturer. But if its the developers Vision to make it cinematic then I think this has to be respected and has nothing to do with console manufacturer.
8:37 the developers vision is what it is. I think the people who are complaining are the ones to blame because of mentally not being able to respect a developers vision.
Sony have found out that gamers prefer 60fos to graphics and they have found this out by the overwhelming majority of gamers choosing 60fps performance mode over 30fps graphics mode. Mark Cerny said he was surprised that gamers want the performance over the look! So to be fair every game that Sony PlayStation has dropped on Ps5 has given a 60fps option, and after they have seen the " over whelming " majority preferring the 60fps I do trust they will carry on giving the 60fps option. They know their customers prefer it and they have offered it with every game they have released. So yea. Props to Sony. Keep it up cos I definitely prefer 60fps.
The only time 30 fps is superior to the other options is if we’re talking about an old game where speedrunning glitches can only be reliably replicated at a lower framerate. Or if for whatever reason the devs designed the game to have physics and other things be tied with the framerate. Other than that 60 and higher is objectively better.
Or for some strategy games
Griffin did expose him already a few years ago.
Link??? 😂😂
@@Lyoko42o you can find it yourself not hard
But here to make it easier for you it might not be the correct video but you can do all on your own from now as i did my part
ua-cam.com/video/JIsdqS7SaS4/v-deo.htmlsi=ZrUEnocxBVAmkINw
@@Lyoko42o ua-cam.com/video/JIsdqS7SaS4/v-deo.htmlsi=l_v_NIe3QTAS9roJ
You can play F-Zero GX on your NINTENDO GAMECUBE at 60FPS right now but the next gen consoles can't hit 60FPS?
120 is a to big number I need to divide that by 4 also this video is 30 minutes long which is the same number as the best fps
has that guy never played on higher than 30 fps or something? its mindboggling how people even argue stuff like this
Theyre corporate bootlickers
Personally, idaf about the framerate. I'm not a framerate whore. I will jump back and forth between my laptop which runs at around 60-120fps, my PS4, which is mostly locked to 30-60, and hell sometimes even my PS3, which was 100% locked at 30fps.
@@emrickazor2610 tell you want games to be badly optimized without telling me you want games to be badly optimized.
@@Boomrainbownuke9608 That is not at all what I said. I said I don't care what the framerate is, as long as the game is fun, I could not care less.
@@emrickazor2610 "I'm not a framerate whore"
then the fuck is that shit about then?
you are insinuating that those that want better framerates are framerate whores.
going through the classics I see. well done.
I seen JordanCSNO make a video on this guy and couldn't resist joining in
@@sneakycacti I think I made a video on this too. If not it’s another for the backlog.
helldivers 2 has proven to me that a game doesn't need to run at 30fps to be cinematic. I knew this already from other games, but taking down a bile titan with a 500kg and laying down covering fire as your team retreats from the advancing automaton forces feels like something from out of a movie and they don't even need to drop the framerate to achieve that feeling.
I completely agree with what you said.
A lot of companies are obsessed with games being photo realistic. Instead they should be focusing on the actual gameplay of the game. If it's not fun nobody will play it.
The 24fps sweet spot is like believing diarrhea tastes great because that is all you were fed growing up.
24 FPS was decided on because it was the lowest framerate that still felt "smooth enough" (and because Americans measure in 12s. UK measures in 100s, so our 60 FPS is 50 FPS to them. That's why old PAL region games are 17% slower. Because gameplay was tied to framerate)
24FPS is where I draw the line. I can do 30, I can do 45, but anything below 30 is not good.
Gotta have that 4fps grindset from when you accidentally downloaded a cryptominer on the family computer to play Gmod for free.
@@Ultrox007 old PAL region games are slower because PAL CRTs were 50HZ while NTSC CRTs were 60HZ.
@@Stangrex I know, I pointed that out. And added that many games tied their playback speed to the framerate, which means PAL versions of games ran 17% slower on average, making them easier.
I played Doom 2016 and Eternal on Switch to completion at 30fps - Normal (Hurt Me Plenty) difficulty.
When I booted the games up on PC later, I was getting a minimum of 120fps and found Ultra Nightmare to be easier than Hurt Me Plenty on Switch. Even at just 60fps on Steam Deck both games are easier at the higher difficulty than on Switch at 30 with the lower difficulty.
Thank you for the volume warning it really helped
@14:35 : Audio Warning for if you're not paying attention.
You know, it's funny because Metroid Prime released in 2002, looks beautiful for its time, and it still managed to hit 60fps. Hell, the Remaster on the Switch is also constantly nailing 60fps and it looks legitimately gorgeous, even by today's standards. Many other Switch games also run at 60 and still manage to look very appealing. If games like that can run at 60fps with substantially weaker hardware, then I don't see the excuse here. The funny thing is the Original Doom, back in 1993, had a framerate of 35, which is still greater than the 30 that many game devs are shooting for right now, the performance is a little bit worse on many games in 2024 compared to the great milestone of first person shooters in 1993.
Oh god... SupaNova... I remember those koala tea videos of his. So you know how he would put low resolution gifs randomly in his videos? Not very unique or original, I know. But there was this one particular video of his probably about something something Xbox bad. Anyway, there was a gif he used that was on the more "hardcore" side of a woman with no pieces of clothing to cover her torso. Everything was out of frame, but a slip or two did occur and was noticeable. She was also putting a two-sided purple object in and out of her mouth rapidly. Needless to say it had nothing to do with the context of that video and was a strikeable offense according to TOS.
I feel like games should have options for performance or cinematic, like Shadow of the Colossus Remake had.
*snickering*
"Filmic Kraken"
Also, that sidewise shadethrow at Nintendo. Props.
I want to get within three steps of people who want lower frame rates. I like them at lower frames because it helps with my bad reaction times.
i would prefer to play on 60 fps, but if it runs at 30 i wont be pressed.
I'm with you in that games should offer the option. But here's the question. Why. Why isn't it there? You asked it, and here's the thing, you don't know, and neither do I as neither work in the game industry. What I can tell you is that there is definitely a reason. Game studios absolutely made this decision. I suspect not as many people care as you want to believe. I'm sure game studios have read all those studies and yet, chose against it. They definitely know something you and I don''t.
I don't think it's some sort of accessibility conspiracy, i think it's the result of several, smaller, simple factors.
We'd like options, devs know we'd like options, but how much profit would you think adding that option will generate for the company making the game? With that in mind, how long would you think it would take to integrate it? How about 30 different options, none of which are even remotely likely to generate a return for the effort?
Thats why companies would rather invest that time and money into coding infuriating BS like loot boxes and expensive cosmetics items to sell in the in game store - that stuff DOES generate them revenue. It generates a relatively large return proportional to the work it likely takes to add those mechanics, and because 99% of companies are hyper focused on making profits in the short term and nothing else, is it really any surprise that games keep coming out with little to no accessibility options and an 11 page store full of colourful novelty items and pop culture reference cosmetics?
Money, my friend. It's always because of money.
I was having trouble playing jedi fallen order. This was after beating sekiro. That's when I realized frame rate matters
If its older games running on console and that dont run at 60fps fair enough, its a treat that we get so many patched 60fps games. But honestly any game coming put now at 30fps is just not good enough
Sometimes when a game has a performance mode, it tries to make 60 fps game run at 30 fps and it looks choppy compared to a 30 fps game that was on the PS2
I don't know man I see some games act weird around 160 fps in some games but it's a confusing topic because of limitations
Ok so I know I’m late to this video but the reason that the avengers looks weird at 60 fps is that the process of upping the framerate also known as interpolation often uses ai which makes the movements look more stiff and linear
Hope he keeps this energy for the Hellblade stuff
Theres nothing wrong with having options. Almost all games on PS5 get an Performance Mode(2k 60fps) and Graphics Mode (4k 30fps).
I hope that choice is available for future games as well.
Hmm this the same clown that was trashing starfield for 30 fps and saying if it was on PS5 it would be 60fps on Twitter. He so phony
Remember this guy saying he was only gonna play Battlefield is all about the campaign
I don’t think my Roku tv can handle 60 frames
The first clip says enough. 30fps is better because of cinematic feel? Yeah, in cinematic scènes only. Which good games do: run at unlocked FPS, and do cinematics at 30. It's still wild to me that people think games running at 30 all the way through is a better experience for cinematics. Games are just better at 60+ FPS. Playing games at 30FPS is actually unnatural because most people perceive reality at 60+ FPS. Being in control at 30FPS when the world around you is faster, is nauseating at best. I unironically get sick playing at under 60FPS.
if the movie was sent to theatres in 24fps, the copy you have of the movie is most likely 24fps as well and thus you couldn't send a 60fps copy anywhere unless you had the original copies of the film
I want to talk about the movie thing. The reason why movies look strange at 60 fps, at least in the example that he gives is because it was ai upscaled to 60 from 24. That messes with motion, that is why you see ghosting and artefacts. I saw another example with mulan. The reason why 60 fps looks bad is because the original movie was animated at 24, it was never meant to be running at 60. Again, that is why you see artefacts and a lot of ghosting. Now let’s take cuphead for example. The game was animated at 60 fps, which is why you don’t have issues like ghosting and strange animations and motion blur. And also like you said, you can have cutscenes running at 30 and the gameplay run at 60. Metroid dread does that as well.
Who's the paste eater saying 30fps is better than 60fps?
I can't even run 30fps 💀💀😭😭
@Banded2 you will eat paste and you will like it. jk lol
all my monitors are 1600x900 running 1080p from my 1650, red dead redemption 2 just barely reaches 60 on literal potato settings, im not kidding people actually look like potatoes.
Only time I 'prefer' low FPS is in OLD games where animations were animated by the frame and things look jank as hell if you up the upscale it. These are incredibly few and far between, but man, watching a unit march in a 30 FPS animation across grass blowing in a 144 FPS breeze looks terrible. Thanks C&C Generals and Rise of Legends for hard locking your animations.
Hey Sneaky, if you're reading this comment, please look up "Crime Killer PS1 Box Art" - a game from 1998 advertising on its cover "Runs at 60 FPS".
I'm pretty sure some PS2 games run at 60fps, so the fact that 20 year old games run better than modern AAA games on PS5 is sad
To be fair those games are far less demanding
But yeah
Also, before that, came F-Zero X on Nintendo 64, which ALSO ran at 60fps, they did have to make some sacrifices, the tracks are less detailed, but it works :)
@@NicholasVetter-sy8io Other 90s gams I remember running at 60fps are Sega's arcade games Virtua Fighter, Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Racing, Daytona USA, Sega Rally Championship, Sega Touring Car Championship, Fighting Vipers and the Sega Dreamcast game Sonic Adventure
So basically by the late 90s 60fps in 3d console games was pretty much a standard, with the standard being set in the early to mid 90s in arcades
@@RawrX32009 You wanna know something else: SUPER NINTENDO games also ran at 60 fps.
@@NicholasVetter-sy8io Yea
I mean the 3d ones ran at 15 but still
I think resolution and frame rate are over rated and are just seen as important for PC people to have their little pissing contest over which rig gets the most. Hellblade 2 is going to launch soon and it's going to look better than any other game and be more immersive running 900p 30 fps.
8:06 i started laughing uncontrollably during my shift at work and every1 was wandering what's wrong with me lmao
My only thought: [laughs in PCMR]
Having said that, FPS matters much more just for the sake of responsiveness. Ignoring that is being quite shortsighted
I prefer 60+, but sometimes, there's a reason for it
I don't see how having better graphics is complimented by a choppier framerate, even considering the filmic quality. Also, I'm pretty sure that MGS2 on PS2 ran at 60, so modern consoles running at 30 is just sad.
I really don't mind 30 but do I prefer it no I think that is stupid to prefer something that's lower than 60 plus I kind of have bad eyes I don't know what elden ring was on what frame rate but I had no problems with beating elden ring if it was 30 or 60 on consoles I have no clue
I guess all this can be avoided by simply having more customization options available on console like pc does... if people want to boost their frames in favor of worse graphics..let them i personally wouldn't do it but let people play how they want
Who promised 60fps? If it were the console manufacturers then whats the problem? The consoles are capable of doing it. Its the game creators decision which has nothing to do with the promise from the manufacturer, which actually delivered on their promise.
he only thinks so because of how bad game cinematics were for the longest time. now they're almost if not on par with Hollywood, which when played to where it can be observed in more intricate detail than in said movies, looks incredible
About the whole "games don't have to look good as long as they run well"...My favorite games, unironically, to this day, is still Mario Kart Wii. It runs at 60FPS and doesn't look very good. But it plays well. And at 60FPS.
Subsequently, Mario Kart 8 runs at 60 fps and *does* look great, so sometimes you can even get both
Why do do people want to watch a movie when playing games?
Cause most of the mass appeal games are cinematic more than gameplay focus would be my guess
www.youtube.com/@playerlink782 Because overrrated mainstream goyslop like, Uncharted and The Last Of Us
thats not how it works.
@@gondorianslayer4250 I know was just trying to embrace the illogica
People don't seem to grasp that movies _work_ at 24fps because it's a _movie._ It's not something the viewer controls. If you could pan the camera around to watch a movie at different angles, you'd _immediately_ notice how choppy it is.
Video games can't _be_ cinematic outside of cutscenes, and even then, cutscenes _should_ run at 60. Movies really only run at 24 because it's all pre-renderer and takes up _A LOT_ of space, and putting it together would be _A LOT_ more work. Non pre-rendered cutscenes don't have these limitations because it's all rendered in real time by your own hardware. Cutscenes actually should be even smoother than the actual gameplay because they're completely scripted.
16:11 It's "weird" because it was shot in 24fps and it can't be magically made intp 60fps because those extra frames don't exist. Software that "makes" it 60fps either duplicates the frames or generates new ones with AI, which is so far from perfect. He clearly has no understanding of how framerates work.
The console peasantry in its natural 30fps environment.
Yeah see, this is that PC gamer entitlement I mentioned in another comment.
Chill, we paid 500 dollars for a console, not 4000 dollars for a PC.
@@emrickazor2610 500 dollars and some searching can get you a PC that can push higher framerates and better performance than the 9th gen consoles we have today. 4 years after the Xbox Series S launch, you still can't get a gaming pc for 300$, so if you just want to game, then PC is not for you. The benefit of PC is that you can do whatever you want on whatever you have. Pentium 4 or Threadripper 7990WX. Gaming or hosting discord bots.
@@emrickazor2610 for around 200 more dabloons you can get a decent gaming laptop that will run games better than the overpriced console, speaking from a country where the local currency is 5 times shuttier than the euro
lol good try changing the narrative about Hellblade 2. lol. Oh the hypocrisy!!
hellblade 2 30fps is unacceptable. I have an entire video talking about this
Hold up, I own pc and ps5 while most games run at 60 and maybe higher on my low end pc I wouldn't say the ps5 flat out doesn't run games at 60 or 120 while yes its a certain amount of games that do but generally it can run games at 60 frames I don't know why people are saying games don't run 60 on ps5 when if you look in the setting for most games there's a damn performance mode button to click on, I obviously don't know what people are playing because the games I play ps4 or ps5 can run 60 fps, battlefield 4 and the division 2 and cyberpunk all run at 60 on ps5 so I don't know what to say about this guy who's complaining that it doesn't
As a pc player I prefer the 60 with slightly worse graphics. And I'm really sick of devs making games with good graphics but with stuttery gameplay
Super Mario Bros. 3 I believe runs at 60fps. enough said.
They want there games to have bright colors and to be sharp when most AAA console games these days are neither.
People like him who are ok with 30fps are the reason consoles run at 30fp .Companies want to offer less for more, but gamers should demand more for less.
the only case i found 30 fps better is nuclear throne
What even is this, he just agrees with us then goes 'yeah 30 fps isnt that bad in this small bit of games' like hes seent he silver liing and goes 'yes thats all there is'. Yappin..
I play on console and pc.. and I find it kinda stupid if someone says that 30fps is better than 60 or 120fps... Stop fanboying.
I put it this way - I'm simply not buying anything that is not 60 FPS. I don't care if this game is the next best thing since sliced bread. No 60fps - no money from me (unless it's on 90% sale and I'm bored).
I won't stand for this PS2 slander, 60"FPS" (in quotation marks because someone is going to go "well acksually it was only fields per second and not full frames") was bordering on being a standard on PS2. Mostly only the challenging ports and massive games were targetting 30, but a ton of games and even many somewhat big and popular games had a 60 target.
On PS1 the framerate target was commonly 30 (a pretty shaky 30) due to the move to 3D games, but 2D sprite based games were still 60. Even older generations were just 60 by default with a couple of games here and there doing 30 (like the TMNT NES game for example).
PS2 was simply a refinement of what PS1 started, so 60FPS became pretty feasible again.
PS3 was a shift to more realistic graphics, so performance was massively sacrificed and games often struggled to maintain 30FPS, although it was a bit different than on the PS1.
PS4 didn't introduce much more 60FPS games, except for some situations like going from Battlefield 3/4 on last gen to Battlefield 4 on the new gen (not a locked 60 by any means, but it was a vast improvement over last gen).
Now 60FPS is again basically a standard outside of few games that don't have the option for it.
I blame the PS3 for messing people up and thinking 30FPS was always the thing in console gaming. It was a compromise that overstayed its welcome at times.
bullshit if stellar blade can do 60fps all other game can do the same
When does the watchstation 5 come out?
I'm honestly tired of hearing about frame rates whether something is 30 or 60, how about worrying if the game is fun. Most customer bases are casual gamers and from my observation and people i know, they have never mentioned frame rates, only time i hear that discourse is by nerds online. I understand its a topic that people use in their pathetic non existing console wars, however without any official data i can tell you that most people are unaware or do not care about frame rates.
The honest truth is ray tracing is crazy demanding, and cpu usage is becoming higher. Graphics have been less of an issue, and cpu bottleneck is real. This a thing on pc and consoles. We just want games, to be honest. This generation has been so bad. Everything is delayed to 2025 and 2026.
Could as easily been a Nintendo fanboy defending low switch FPS
This fanboys logic is like saying you should be happy buying a Mustang with a v8 but it can only go 55mph.
yes, you shouldnt focus on 60 fps, but focus on 120FPS!!!
not to say that 30 fps is better but i just wanna know. does the 30fps lock stop it from jumping from 60 to 24 fps?
Oh, god. I remember this video, lmao.
honestly, i don't care about framerate, as long as it doesn't look like a powerpoint presentation
if it runs at 30, fine. if it runs at 60, nice. if it runs at 120, great.
though i do agree that the new consoles should overall run better than the previous gen
2:28 ehhh...idk about that.
LOL A lot of the time I play it up for the video lol
14:40 ow! My fucking ear balls! Can you please give a warning next time?
my bad, will put warning next time
@@sneakycacti appreciate it and thank you
"24 FPS is unplayable"
>remembering that space station 13 natively runs at 20 because the engine is crap and there's 80 simultaneous players to account for.
Oh no.
20 FPS bro?! 😭😭😭
@@sneakycacti Yeah, it's a slow paced real-time simulation with MMORPG styled action buffers (you tell your character to do something and the "performing action" bar pops up) to compensate for it.
But everyone hates the engine the game was made on so there's half a dozen different attempts to port it to something that can handle higher framerates and smoother animation.
Why’re you so fucking cracked at COD!? 😵
played it as a kid lol
@@sneakycactihell yea same here
if anyone accepts 30fps, it's the Xbox community
Hell no dont say that about me 😂
RIP my ears
Games nowadays run as well as caseoh
🏋️🏋️🏋️
As a playstation user, this funny. At this point I really think he is doing for the clout
Bro is just coping
UnrealEngine5 is worse thing that have happened this gen
Classic dumb stupid argument that cinematic chuggy messy ahh animations better than fast smooth and precise animations. It's like saying I prefer a bubble car over a sports car.
For some games fps really doesn’t matter first one that comes to my mind if command modern operations but those are definitely an exception
candy cotton drom my walls are yummy 🥶
Notto dissu shitto agen
Who promised 60 fps?
console manufacturers said 60 would be the standard output and 120 would be the target
@@sneakycacti so they delivered. Its not their job to Interfere with creators decision. Game creator to be clear.
@@sneakycacti to be fair. The console is capable but game developer choose otherwise
@@sneakycacti what I want to say is that it would be fair to "blame" game developer and not the console manufacturer. But if its the developers Vision to make it cinematic then I think this has to be respected and has nothing to do with console manufacturer.
30fps is playable but not superior. 😂
Nier runs better and looks better on Xbox than Playstation
I totally agree with the guys video.
To be clear, I mean the video sneakycoward is yapping about
8:37 the developers vision is what it is. I think the people who are complaining are the ones to blame because of mentally not being able to respect a developers vision.
What… the… fuuuuk
FIrst in the comments and probably also watching it.
Ps fanboy xbox fanboy all the same to me they all console scrubs
Bro just get a PC lmao
Sony have found out that gamers prefer 60fos to graphics and they have found this out by the overwhelming majority of gamers choosing 60fps performance mode over 30fps graphics mode. Mark Cerny said he was surprised that gamers want the performance over the look! So to be fair every game that Sony PlayStation has dropped on Ps5 has given a 60fps option, and after they have seen the " over whelming " majority preferring the 60fps I do trust they will carry on giving the 60fps option. They know their customers prefer it and they have offered it with every game they have released. So yea. Props to Sony. Keep it up cos I definitely prefer 60fps.