Why the 30fps?

[BurningVigor]

Why the 30fps?

I know that the console can't handle the graphics at 60fps, but what I mean is why up the graphics to the point the game has to run at 30 fps with frame dipping?

Is that what people these days want? Graphics over gameplay?

I'd take 60fps with little to no frame fluctuation for worse shadows water etc.

 

[MaKaan70]

30fps are totally enjoyable.

 

[papnaruto]

Most people playing on console are what you could call "casuals". Most of them don't want to have anything to do with tweaking, etc.
One of the advantages of the console is plug & play, you don't have to ask yourself anything. Way different from PC.

But I agree with you on one thing: Devs could let people play on an "ultra low" setting to get 60 fps. Still, the games would look horrible as you would have to use half of the power of the card in getting to 30 fps. "Double the fps, half of the graphics" (in some way, you obviously can't get half of the graphics but I hope you get what I mean).

Another thing: People believe 30 fps on console is okay, and as a former console player, you can easily play on 30 fps ... until you experience 60 fps.
Then your life is doomed and you will have to play on 50-60 fps your whole life.

Tldr: Never experience 60 fps or your life will be doomed.

 

[spookypuppy]

Maybe I'm getting old, but I really can't tell the difference between 30 & 60 myself

 

[NoBlackThunder]

to make a fluid video you need at least 24 images in a second .. all tvs show normally 24 or more images in a second .. they sett 30 fps as a total acceptably minimum frame rate .. tho the higher fps you get the more fluid the images are .. hope that helps tell you why 30 fps

 

[papnaruto]

to make a fluid video you need at least 24 images in a second .. all tvs show normally 24 or more images in a second .. they sett 30 fps as a total acceptably minimum frame rate .. tho the higher fps you get the more fluid the images are .. hope that helps tell you why 30 fps

Yes and no. Yes, 24 images per second in a video/movie makes it look smooth/fluid. But I think that, on a game, 30 fps is not enjoyable when you have experienced 60.

 

[BurningVigor]

30fps to 60fps is night and day though.

I mean 30fps is fine and all but... my preference would be 60fps and worse graphics.

 

[papnaruto]

I agree with you, but games on consoles would look like shit on 60 fps, and the "next gen" advertising would be torn to pieces.
Still, an option to heavily turn down the graphics on console could be something to think about.

If you're a console gamer, well, your only resort is to join the PC MASTER RACE§!§ :victory:

 

[BurningVigor]

I agree with you, but games on consoles would look like shit on 60 fps, and the "next gen" advertising would be torn to pieces.
Still, an option to heavily turn down the graphics on console could be something to think about.

If you're a console gamer, well, your only resort is to join the PC MASTER RACE§!§ :victory:

haha yeah.

It's kind of sad that gamers these days tend to care more about graphics over gameplay. The fact that I can totally imagine how much people would hate on W3 if it had worse graphics for 60fps.... also reviews would probably slam it also for that.

PC master race indeed. I haven't upgraded by PC for 3+ years so probably my PS4 is stronger lol. Owell when I upgrade some time later, I can always try W3 on pc at that time I guess. My eyes will probably adjust to 30fps after a little bit also, I just have to make sure I don't look at 60fps W3 vids or else it'll be jarring again.

 

[HellKnightX88]

If you think you can't tell the difference look at this website: http://30vs60.com/bf4running.php

Truth of the matter is the "next gen" consoles aren't as next gen as their predecessors when those consoles came out. Xbox 360 and PS3 had some pretty good hardware when they came out. They were outclassed by high-end PCs as expected but the hardware on them was decent at the time compared to most PCs.

With PS4 and Xbox One it doesn't feel like that. They seem to struggle with games that even mid-to-high tier PCs can run better or they run them at the same FPS but with better quality compared to the console. It's pretty funny and sad at the same time seeing how Sony and MS promissed 1080p@60FPS and can't deliver while PCs are moving past that now with 144Hz monitors and 4K displays.

EDIT
That being said, I don't think graphics should be prioritized over gameplay.

 

[Hesgad]

just to make it look like a movie obviously

 

[MasterfulGear117]

to make a fluid video you need at least 24 images in a second .. all tvs show normally 24 or more images in a second .. they sett 30 fps as a total acceptably minimum frame rate .. tho the higher fps you get the more fluid the images are .. hope that helps tell you why 30 fps

Movies are different though, as you know what the next frame is. With a game you don't, so whilst 30 fps is a minimum and is perfectly fine to play at it's not really analogous to TV. Also part of it is more about latency. As you are inputting the latency between you seeing a response on the screen and having a movement take place is important. With 30 fps there practically twice as much latency than with 60, thus why 60 will feel much more immediate and snappy.

I would say that with a controller 30 fps is quite acceptable due to the input method, but on a mouse it's murder. I've found that personally 40+ is okay to play with M+K, but lower than that and it just feels too choppy. So you're not exactly wrong when you say 30 is fine, but it is the absolute minimum really when it comes to games and more frames is always better.

 

[OliverDK]

I can accept 30 fps but only for shorter periods - around a hour and then a long break. If I play on I actually get ill (like sea sick) especially in fast paced games. That's why I would never buy a console as long as this is standard for whatever reason.

 

[jmcc84]

Truth of the matter is the "next gen" consoles aren't as next gen as their predecessors when those consoles came out. Xbox 360 and PS3 had some pretty good hardware when they came out. They were outclassed by high-end PCs as expected but the hardware on them was decent at the time compared to most PCs.

With PS4 and Xbox One it doesn't feel like that. They seem to struggle with games that even mid-to-high tier PCs can run better or they run them at the same FPS but with better quality compared to the console. It's pretty funny and sad at the same time seeing how Sony and MS promissed 1080p@60FPS and can't deliver while PCs are moving past that now with 144Hz monitors and 4K displays.

That's indeed the truth. Actual hardware (PS4/XOne) can't even match a mid-end PC performance in most cases. Sony and Microsoft were very cautious on choosing their consoles hardware because of the problems on the last gen (3 Red lights of Death and YLOD, for instance) and because of the costs too. So to fit on the U$399/499 price and avoid hardware problems, they were conservative.

CDPR could have done TW3 run at 60fps, but the graphics would look worse and so 80% of the internet fanbase that weeps about downgrade would have a heart attack.

 

[BurningVigor]

CDPR could have done TW3 run at 60fps, but the graphics would look worse and so 80% of the internet fanbase that weeps about downgrade would have a heart attack.

That's the sad thing in general about games these days. People constantly want to see graphics flexing, so devs spend a ton of money into graphics at the cost of gameplay. Not saying Witcher 3 is like this, I have yet to play it, but it's just something I've noticed with games.

Games feel a lot like movies now rather than games. Everything is pretty, but when you strip it down the actual game is restrictive, basic, and boring.