Reality Check : Do we need 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox One?

Always with the making fun of PC gamers. I think its "eye of the beholder". There is a difference and if you notice it you can't do without unless its a slower game type. Also the video itself is dropping frames constantly and not a nice smooth 60fps :p
 
Good video. ≥60 or bust.

Of course, in the end I think it's mostly personal preference. Some people either really can't see the difference or they just don't care. 30FPS just feels too laggy to me, especially since I played Alan Wake on the 360 and then later on PC and it was so much smoother. Maybe the 360 version wasn't even hitting 30FPS.
 
I wish there was an end all to the argument. As informative as the video is, especially with it being shot in 60 fps, there will still be people unsatisfied.
 
I'd take high resolution every time over 60fps on a consoles. Consoles simply can't handle of the task of reaching 60fps with ever increasing engine complexity and graphics. On top of that not all games have the "cod" effect of looking amazingly smooth at higher frame rates because the animations and overall game world isn't synced or built around it. I playing far cry 3 and it looks incredibly smooth at 80fps however i jump into skyrim and i can barely tell the difference between 45fps and 120fps most of the time.
 
Last edited:
In fast paced games like shooters, there is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, and I'm not even a hardcore gamer. 30 is just annoying and unplayable (for me).

Anyway, when there is a noticeable difference, the answer is always yes of course we need 60 fps, Why settle for lesser when we can have a better experience at 60fps
 
Hornet said:
In fast paced games like shooters, there is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, and I'm not even a hardcore gamer. 30 is just annoying and unplayable (for me).

Anyway, when there is a noticeable difference, the answer is always yes of course we need 60 fps, Why settle for lesser when we can have a better experience at 60fps
Click to expand...

Not just shooters, but I can see the difference in all games. Though it does depend on the game, I do like to get over 45. 60 is my preferred though. Over that it becomes harder for me to see the difference, but my monitor is 60hz anyways.
 
No, we don't nee 60 fps on the consoles as we don't the consoles.

120 or bust for me. 60 is acceptable for SP, though I still hate it.
 
I'm happy enough with 60fps. I only remember ever wanting more back in the day with CS1.x and BF1942 when I had a really nice CRT that could do 120Hz and still keep a sharp IQ.
 
We don't "need" 60 fps, but it is significantly better than 30.

More importantly, most games that run at 30 can't keep it up consistently. The nice thing about 60 is that if it drops a little (say, down to 50 fps), the movement remains fluid. But when 30 drops to 20 or 25 it impacts gameplay negatively. Grand Theft Auto games are a good example of this.

The Call of Duty games for Xbox 360 were marketed as being 60 fps. But if you read articles on Eurogamer in their Digital Foundry you would learn they sometimes dropped into the 40s and 50s. Fortunately, it rarely if ever affected the gameplay.

But actually, I have played a handful of games that were so good at keeping 30 fps that I did not mind. Mostly racing games.

Edit: good example of a 30 fps game that is fine is Split/Second. Now I am sure it would be even better at 60. But the 30 was perfectly consistent and thus did not hurt gameplay.
 
Last edited:
A better question is - do you think <60FPS is acceptable in 2013 with technology where it is?

I sure the hell don't; I don't think it's ok to upscale a lower res to 1080P either.

The idea of "do we need" says one thing to me and that is 'should we, as gamers, accept less because a hardware company cheaped out on parts or a developer halfassed their efforts and gave up and said 'oh it's good enough'' and to that I say 'hell no'.

People get fed up with DLC and nickel and diming; I'm surprised more people aren't putting their foot down with the above shit as well.

Games that don't necessarily need 60FPS are platformers and puzzle games; that's about it. 60FPS is a lot better than 30FPS in shooters, fighters, and racing games. If people want to continue accepting 30FPS, then the upcoming generation is already going to be underwhelming.
 
I'll take FPS over details 100% of the time.
However there are plenty of people on here that are the exact opposite.
You can randomly open any game thread and see people posting a game "runs great!" when there's no possible way they're getting more than 30fps.
It's a preference thing.
 
Domingo said:
I'll take FPS over details 100% of the time.
However there are plenty of people on here that are the exact opposite.
You can randomly open any game thread and see people posting a game "runs great!" when there's no possible way they're getting more than 30fps.
It's a preference thing.
Click to expand...

Good point, and I agree wholeheartedly....if I have to turn down the sliders and the effects to get a solid 60FPS, then I'll do it. Until I can spend [new console money] on [newer gpus] I have no problems running BSI on 'Medium' to get 60FPS in Surround (for instance). Besides, when you run at that framerate, it also helps mask some of the visual loss (compared to running on Ultra at 30FPS).
 
Games with good motion blur hides it a bit, but even 60 fps can feel gross on my 120hz monitor. :\

Something like CS or Quake always exceeds 120 for me. Feels good man.
 
I'm 100% content with a stable 30 in exchange for more eye candy.
 
dgz said:
No, we don't nee 60 fps on the consoles as we don't the consoles.

120 or bust for me. 60 is acceptable for SP, though I still hate it.
Click to expand...

Are you using a TV or computer monitors? I'd rather game as a couch potato, but Few TVs accept 120hz input and overclocking input signal / finding the right TV is too annoying.
 
zero2dash said:
I'm surprised more people aren't putting their foot down with the above shit as well.
Click to expand...

How do you put your foot down? Either stop gaming? or switch to top end custom PC? I think neither option is realistic for most people.

In the end, if a game is fun, people will buy it. If a console can do 60fps, but is too expensive (think PS3 launch), people won't buy it. To me, the consumer has already spoken, most people are happy with their consoles.
 
15 years ago, all we wanted was 30FPS, because that was enough for smooth gameplay. now with power to spare we rationalize our demand for 60+

make it look pretty and keep it smooth. whether its 30/45/60 or more, I don't care so long as it isn't stuttering.
 
just panning around, 30 fps is choppy stuttery crap compared to 60 fps . there really has to be something wrong with someone to claim 30 fps is enough in any action type game especially using a mouse.
 
cannondale06 said:
just panning around, 30 fps is choppy stuttery crap compared to 60 fps . there really has to be something wrong with someone to claim 30 fps is enough in any action type game especially using a mouse.
Click to expand...

Funny enough, the mouse makes an even bigger difference. Because the analog sticks pan slower, the 30fps isn't as noticeable. With a mouse (or games that pan quicker with the analog sticks) it's tough to mistake, though.

One other factor a lot of people forget is "smoothmotion." By default most TV's have it on. That's the interlacing feature that takes a 24 to 30 fps TV signal and bumps it to 60 or 120 fps. With that turned on it makes games look smoother than they really are...but at the price of introducing input lag. With an analog stick you don't notice it as much, but with a mouse it slows everything down by 50% or more.
 
I can definitely notice a difference in my gameplay and reaction times when I have less than 100fps. Every console game just feels sluggish to me compared to my PC games. For some games, it's not as bad, like sports game. Although I still preferred all my sports games on PC.

That being said, visually I can't normally tell much difference between 100FPS and 60FPS. Now and again there may be a slight stutter, but other than that seems fairly smooth to me. Now going from 60-30FPS? I definitely notice a difference then.
 
blood said:
Are you using a TV or computer monitors? I'd rather game as a couch potato, but Few TVs accept 120hz input and overclocking input signal / finding the right TV is too annoying.
Click to expand...

I am using a monitor and a TV, both hooked to the same PC. The only thing a TV is good for - gaming wise - is MAME/Gens with a wireless 360 controller. According to me, that is.

TV accepting 120 Hz input is news to me, honestly. I suppose it's doable if you go the DIY road, though. I expect OLED to fix this naturally as TV manufactures don't seem to take additional steps in order to turn their perfectly good tech to shit with "features".
 
The only caveat is that whenever anyone suggests "voting with your wallet" you might as well go ahead and write that cause off. Not sure why, but that saying only comes up with lost causes :p
 
I think it should be 60fps or 120fps in 720p, 1080 is such a waste imo for a console game, smoother fps at 720 are always better then lower at a higher rez
 
cannondale06 said:
just panning around, 30 fps is choppy stuttery crap compared to 60 fps .
Click to expand...

The type of game you play does matter. 30 fps isn't nearly as bad in a top down RTS game, as it is in a shooter. 30 fps is awful in a first person shooter.
 
BladeVenom said:
The type of game you play does matter. 30 fps isn't nearly as bad in a top down RTS game, as it is in a shooter. 30 fps is awful in a first person shooter.
Click to expand...
I dont understand why you quoted the first part of my post and left off the part where I basically said what you are saying here. :confused:

cannondale06 said:
just panning around, 30 fps is choppy stuttery crap compared to 60 fps . there really has to be something wrong with someone to claim 30 fps is enough in any action type game especially using a mouse.
Click to expand...
 
cannondale06 said:
I dont understand why you quoted the first part of my post and left off the part where I basically said what you are saying here. :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm agreeing with you. I was just being a little more specific. The type of action can increase the perceptible difference. Turning in a first person shooter is probably were it's most noticeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top