I can’t do 30fps any more.

[ImmaculateClump]

11 hours ago, Popo said:

Developers are well within their rights to determine how their games should run. 

 

1 hour ago, Popo said:

I don’t think any developer wants to limit their game to 30fps, it’s a compromise some have to make in the face of hardware limitations to make the game they want to make. 

 

Have you ever considered going into politics?

[Popo]

 

If a dev has to prioritise visual fidelity over performance, because the hardware doesn’t allow for both, I don’t see the issue. 
 

Of course they’d prefer it if they could do both. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement. 

[ImmaculateClump]

30 or 60, minister.

Answer the question!

[Strafe]

16 hours ago, Thor said:

I'm playing Persona 5 for the first time, graphics are shite (it looks like a fucking PS3 game) 

It is a PS3 game.

[mushashi]

6 hours ago, JoeK said:

I assume it's something to do with the slightly different tech used in TVs as to Monitors, but I do find 30fps isn't too bad on the former, whilst running anything at less than 60 on my monitor is almost impossible these days. I don't know how to explain why that should be, but it is. 

 

. 

It's because for whatever reasons game developers can't/don't bother ensuring the 30fps modes on their PC ports are actually properly functional (if they exist at all, it's sometimes a 40Hz mode as the lowest supported frame cap), but then again, they often don't do the same for their 60Hz frame rate caps either. But at least on PC, you can do it for them 99.9% of the time.

 

Also, once you've used enough of them, you begin to realise that monitors don't all actually have the exact same refresh rate, they actually differ slightly, which makes things more complicated if you are after that perfect sync, or just resort to G-SYNC, problem solved.

 

It's all about the framepacing, which will probably enter mainstream consciousness at some point in the next decade. It still isn't exactly a thing even PC gamers ask for, despite micro-stuttering being a thing on the PC.

[matt0]

31 minutes ago, mushashi said:

It's because for whatever reasons game developers can't/don't bother ensuring the 30fps modes on their PC ports are actually properly functional (if they exist at all, it's sometimes a 40Hz mode as the lowest supported frame cap), but then again, they often don't do the same for their 60Hz frame rate caps either. But at least on PC, you can do it for them 99.9% of the time.

 

Also, once you've used enough of them, you begin to realise that monitors don't all actually have the exact same refresh rate, they actually differ slightly, which makes things more complicated if you are after that perfect sync, or just resort to G-SYNC, problem solved.

 

It's all about the framepacing, which will probably enter mainstream consciousness at some point in the next decade. It still isn't exactly a thing even PC gamers ask for, despite micro-stuttering being a thing on the PC.

 

I will tinker endlessly trying to get rid of microstutter. A lot of the time the best way is to manually change my monitors refresh rate down to 60hz. Frame caps, vsync, all your Nvidia and AMD control panel shite - there's always that one game where none of it works.

[mushashi]

7 minutes ago, matt0 said:

 

I will tinker endlessly trying to get rid of microstutter. A lot of the time the best way is to manually change my monitors refresh rate down to 60hz. Frame caps, vsync, all your Nvidia and AMD control panel shite - there's always that one game where none of it works.

 

Do you use an external framerate limiter?, the 3 options being Special K, RTSS and then NV control panel, ranked in order of how consistent they are in terms of framepacing, the downside with Special K being it's obtuse to use but it's near perfect in terms of framepacing.

 

The built-in ones for most games should in theory be best, with lowest added input latency, but most of the time is broken.

[simms]

7 hours ago, Popo said:

but it’s not always possible and ray tracing effects will make it more and more likely that games will target 30 again as the new generation goes on. 

Yes this is likely

[matt0]

35 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

Do you use an external framerate limiter?, the 3 options being Special K, RTSS and then NV control panel, ranked in order of how consistent they are in terms of framepacing, the downside with Special K being it's obtuse to use but it's near perfect in terms of framepacing.

 

The built-in ones for most games should in theory be best, with lowest added input latency, but most of the time is broken.

 

I'll check them out. I've been manually changing the refresh rate through the windows control panel which isn't ideal! 

[MNFRMTMRRW]

1 hour ago, matt0 said:

I will tinker endlessly trying to get rid of microstutter. A lot of the time the best way is to manually change my monitors refresh rate down to 60hz. Frame caps, vsync, all your Nvidia and AMD control panel shite - there's always that one game where none of it works.

But "modern PC gaming is plug and play" and "I never have to change a setting" /s

 

Special K is an amazing tool. Without it Sekiro and NieR: Automata on a PC are broken. Square-Enix never even bothered to give NieR: Automat a patch to solve any problem. A lot of these ports are just quick money grabs. Port with minimum effort and don't support it afterwards. 

[TehStu]

8 hours ago, Popo said:

I’d rather play the game that best matches the developer’s vision. 
 

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather all games ran at 60fps - and all things being equal they would be - but it’s not always possible and ray tracing effects will make it more and more likely that games will target 30 again as the new generation goes on. 
 

I object to the notion that wicked developers are choosing not to implement higher frame rates. I’m sure all developers, given the choice, would have their game run in this way, but they’re limited by what the hardware can do. Ever was it thus.
 

Yes, you can choose not to play genre-defining, critically lauded games like TLoU 2 or Bloodborne because they run at 30fps, but that’s the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face. 

 

I don't think anyone here is saying developers are wicked. And surely performance and shines modes are what the developer envisaged because, well, they made the game. Like, if you don't run RT on Control, are you not fulfilling the developer's wishes? 

 

Also, I didn't play either of those games, but not because they ran at 30 FPS. Truthfully, I don't understand whom you're countering here. Maybe I've missed someone in this thread giving devs are hyperbolic hard time over 30 FPS? 

 

Edit - I just realized this may be a straw man, unless someone here said their no longer buying games that run at 30 FPS only. But even so, I'm not required to buy a game for any reason, however critically acclaimed. I'm not buying Cyberpunk, for instance. I believe I still have my nose. 

[Shimmyhill]

3 hours ago, englishbob said:

I've been more of a locked framerate snob than a 30 versus 60 person. Lock the framerate to what you can deliver, not what you overpromise. 

 

Seems clear from the latest gen consoles that they can promise 120 but not actually lock it. I'd rather play at 60 locked than a random number between 61 and 120 constantly.

 

However I did go back to try Bloodborne on the PS5 and found it quite jarring at 30, but that was coming off the back of Demon's Souls, so it could have just been time needed to re-adjust to it. Its unlikely thought that I'd replay Bloodborne now again at 30

VRR solves all that and will be far better when devs admit 120 is a pipe dream but can still hit over 60 most of the time but under on the odd occasion.

[TehStu]

That's something you need a fancy TV for though, right? 

 

I've changed my mind. It's not like we're bereft of entertainment. Don't buy games for whatever reason you want, including frame rate. 

[Thwomp]

There's people on Neogaf who claim to not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60. It's handy to have the option in a game so you can see how they compare. For me personally going back to 30fps is like slowly browsing a photo album of screenshots, it's that bad.

[Robo_1]

Honestly, I was never a gamer who needed that extra 30fps and used to argue for more graphical fidelity over extra frame rate. I don't know quite what's happened this gen, but I've completely flipped. I think it was toggling Control and seeing the difference back to back. You can get used to 30fps well enough, but combined with 4k, those extra frames seem to sharpen the whole image and enhance the experience so much. I really don't want to go back to 30fps now.

[Shimmyhill]

27 minutes ago, TehStu said:

That's something you need a fancy TV for though, right? 

 

I've changed my mind. It's not like we're bereft of entertainment. Don't buy games for whatever reason you want, including frame rate. 

Yeah, now it’s out of the realm of pc nerds tellies will all have it soon enough

[englishbob]

12 minutes ago, Robo_1 said:

 I really don't want to go back to 30fps now.

 

 

[Stevie]

21 hours ago, El Spatula said:

I've been PC only since the 360 gen so this is sort of the default. People took the piss out of PC peeps for years for caring about it.

 

Same here. Consoles have bugs, patches, updates and everything else that used to be a PC only thing. The traditional arguments for choosing console over PC is close to non existent. PC gaming is much more consumer friendly, and offers more freedom. I'm still going to buy a PS4 when the price has dropped enough and that's just to play TLOU2. If a developer delivers a proper product, there is no reason to chose the console version over the PC version. I guess the next logical step for consoles would be support for mods and a subscription free gaming service.

 

[Popo]

1 hour ago, TehStu said:

unless someone here said their no longer buying games that run at 30 FPS

Yes, you said (apologies for the messed up quote)

 

9 hours ago, Popo said:

just as we needn't buy it

Which I took to mean - if a game wasn’t 60fps you’d consider not buying it. Which is a silly notion. 

[mushashi]

It maybe a silly notion, but I've heard some of the vocal partisan gaming podcasters say exactly that, they ain't putting up with 30fps console games anymore. I think they'll have a problem with that stance as the generation eventually arrives for real, rather than this last gen assets with headroom to enable 60fps transition period that we are currently in. Or they'll have to put up with reconstructed resolution games being the norm as you'll only get 2 out of the 3 from the Holy Trinity the majority of the time I expect, Graphics/Rendering Resolution/Frame Rate.

 

PC gamers are already embracing that as the new reality with the fawning over DLSS. But as the UE5 tech demo proved, if that is what 1440p/30fps gaming is going to deliver, most people would find that acceptable on console.

[TehStu]

22 minutes ago, Popo said:

Yes, you said (apologies for the messed up quote)

 

Which I took to mean - if a game wasn’t 60fps you’d consider not buying it. Which is a silly notion. 

Ah yes, I see what you mean. No, I was just making a counter point in general that devs can absolutely do as they please (as you said) on any feature, just as we are free not to buy it. Hence win win for everyone. 

[b00dles]

All you need to do is blink more, then it's fine. 

[Pob]

11 hours ago, Popo said:

Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather all games ran at 60fps - and all things being equal they would be - but it’s not always possible and ray tracing effects will make it more and more likely that games will target 30 again as the new generation goes on.

Maybe, but this generation transition feels different. I can’t remember a time  during the 3D/HD era when console gamers have had so many games running at 60fps. Even Cyberpunk, which I really didn’t think would have the option on console. Do you think they’ll take that option away when the proper next-gen patch comes out? I doubt they will. 
 

There’s a chance that console gamers will realise what a genuine difference 60fps makes, and start to choose it over resolution and ray tracing. I expect the data can be tracked. 
 

I know that UE5 demo was 30fps, but gamers’ tastes might be changing during this period. I know mine is. 

 

I’m not saying I’ll never play another 30fps game again but it’s definitely going to factor into my decision when choosing what to play from now on. 

[simms]

1 hour ago, Pob said:

Maybe, but this generation transition feels different. I can’t remember a time  during the 3D/HD era when console gamers have had so many games running at 60fps. Even Cyberpunk, which I really didn’t think would have the option on console. Do you think they’ll take that option away when the proper next-gen patch comes out? I doubt they will. 
 

There’s a chance that console gamers will realise what a genuine difference 60fps makes, and start to choose it over resolution and ray tracing. I expect the data can be tracked. 
 

I know that UE5 demo was 30fps, but gamers’ tastes might be changing during this period. I know mine is. 

 

I’m not saying I’ll never play another 30fps game again but it’s definitely going to factor into my decision when choosing what to play from now on. 

The reason 60fps feel common so far is that most games have been last gen games or boosting backward compatible games.  Let see what happens when games made exclusively for this generation of hardware starts to roll out properly.

[Sarlaccfood]

7 hours ago, Thwomp said:

There's people on Neogaf who claim to not be able to tell the difference between 30 and 60. It's handy to have the option in a game so you can see how they compare. For me personally going back to 30fps is like slowly browsing a photo album of screenshots, it's that bad.

I can’t tell the difference either. Sorry!

 

 

[ScouserInExile]

6 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

I can’t tell the difference either. Sorry!

 

 

Me neither. 

 

But: I've always got motion sickness playing first person and done third person games. More recently, some driving games have also started making me feel sick, and I've been wondering if it's a frame rate thing? 

[Harrisown]

I came to the conclusion I can’t handle 30fps anymore a couple of weeks ago.

I haven’t played a 30fps game since ps5 launched. (I say that but I mean more than a quick 5 minute blast)

 

im not saying I won’t buy something if it’s 30fps but even the last of us part 2. One of the best looking game ever looks like it runs like shit now.

 

I think this generation should focus more on frame rate than overall looks. It would be cheaper from an asset point of view, plus we have new tech like dynamic resolution that’s matured enough to really help and you do t have to go to 4k to make a game look pin sharp.

 

[Pob]

7 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

I can’t tell the difference either. Sorry!

 

 

 

Even if games where you can switch between 30 and 60? You still can't see how much smoother it is?

[Harrisown]

1 hour ago, Pob said:

 

Even if games where you can switch between 30 and 60? You still can't see how much smoother it is? 

I told my mate who knows nothing about anything to try Spidey at 60fps and he said “hmmmm yeah it’s slightly smoother I guess but it doesn’t look as good”

He went back to 4k 30fps

Some people are just a bit strange

[Harrisown]

17 hours ago, Shimmyhill said:

VRR solves all that and will be far better when devs admit 120 is a pipe dream but can still hit over 60 most of the time but under on the odd occasion.

Yeah providing you have the right TV a game could quite happily sit at 45fps.

Add to that all the other stuff like dynamic resolution and TAA for resolution it feels like all the tools to get a super smooth ,high res ,graphical monster are there.

I just Hope....(they won’t) Sony will support Freesync as well as VRR