PS4/Xbox One owners - which is it, is 30fps "more cinematic" or is 60fps better all around?

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by mikhail (1172 posts) 2 months, 29 days ago

Poll: PS4/Xbox One owners - which is it, is 30fps "more cinematic" or is 60fps better all around? (70 votes)

30 fps is more cinematic and provides a better gaming experience 4%
I prefer 30 fps for another reason (Details below) 3%
60 fps is better for video games because of more fluid action and faster response times 87%
I prefer 60 fps for another reason (Details below) 6%

I've noticed a tonal shift from many console owners recently since The Last of Us Remastered devs announced 60fps as their target frame rate. At first, next-gen console owners seemed to be firmly against 60 fps, especially with The Order devs and their "more cinematic" press release. Then, TLOU was shown at E3 and all of a sudden PS4 owners were saying how amazing 60 fps looks compared to 30 fps.

What do you think? Do you prefer 30 fps or 60 fps in games, and why?

#1 Posted by lundy86_4 (43047 posts) -

Both.

#2 Posted by blackace (20375 posts) -

Of course you want every game at 60fps if possible, but not every game needs to be 60fps for it to be great and still playable.

#3 Edited by UnbiasedPoster (751 posts) -

Here's the reality, not all games need 60 FPS.

Some genres do. Fighting games, action games (Ninja Gaiden), and twitch shooters should be 60 frames. Other than that, it's not a big deal if a game runs at 30 FPS.

Other than that, it's not a huge deal.

#4 Posted by commonfate (12252 posts) -

The world feels so small in this tiny little box I've been put in.

#5 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4508 posts) -

i want 144 fps.

#6 Edited by SolidTy (42541 posts) -

Depends on the game and what the developer is trying to achieve.

I'll give a console examples of older games to keep it simple.

I've enjoyed PS2 old school games in 60fps (Champions of Norrath, Mark of the Kri, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 3, Star Ocean 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, Timesplitters, Various fighting games, Rygar, God of War, Zone of the Enders, Jak and Daxter, Tekken, R-Type Final, Castlevania Lament of Innocence, & Ratchet and Clank for example) and 30fps for legions of games. PS2 had butt-loads of 60 fps games including some Gran Turismo games. Tobal 1 on PS1 was 60fps I believe.

60fps Shout out to Dreamcast games like Project Justice, Ikaruga, Soul Calibur, Crazy Taxi, Gamecube/PS2 Viewtiful Joe's 60fps, Metroid Prime series for GC, and Ninja Gaiden Black on Xbox. There's others at 60fps I did not list for PS2/GC/DC/Xbox like F-zero, but that list above is a good start.

#7 Posted by Jankarcop (9128 posts) -

60 fps is superior. Consoles are inferior.

#8 Posted by Morphic (4341 posts) -

You should really put a "dont give a shit" option as well. cause dats me.

#9 Posted by NFJSupreme (5187 posts) -

The cinematic experience is better at 60fps

#10 Posted by f50p90 (3754 posts) -

30 isn't a deal breaker but higher is always better.

#11 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

If I was dropping $400 on a "next-gen" console I would expect all my games @ 60fps.

#12 Edited by melonfarmerz (1132 posts) -

Cinematic is an excuse for "we're shit devs who can't do 60fps". In no world is 30 fps better than 60. Even in movies, The Hobbit was just so much more satisfying in 60.

#13 Posted by topgunmv (10193 posts) -

Either one looks fine.

#14 Posted by AmazonAngry (945 posts) -

60 fps certainly has done any favors for PC in winning a goty exclusive for the past decade. Consoles superior.

#15 Posted by lostrib (34969 posts) -

60 fps certainly has done any favors for PC in winning a goty exclusive for the past decade. Consoles superior.

lol

#16 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

60 fps certainly has done any favors for PC in winning a goty exclusive for the past decade. Consoles superior.

So more GOTYs = better system ? I need you to confirm that.

#17 Edited by sailor232 (4469 posts) -

60 is better in every way. Lower than 60 only means the hardware can't handle the game and compromises have happened.

#18 Posted by cainetao11 (16973 posts) -

just having fun playing. been doing it over 30 years, and it isn't nitpicking details that does it for me.

#19 Posted by wis3boi (31167 posts) -

"What's better, a McRib or a Filet Minion?"

#20 Edited by Nightflash28 (2071 posts) -

I honestly don't care to much. As long as the game doesn't start to stutter... 30, 60, 120 fps, whatever.


But for the people that claim BS on the "cinematic" experience: watch The Hobbit in the high framerate version. It looks so damn cheap and it really does not feel like a cinema movie anymore, but a cheap TV production. I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to games, especially if the dev's intention is to emulate the look and feel of a film.

#21 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10399 posts) -

Other than 60 FPS for racers, even for shooters it doesn't matter to me, I don't give a flying fuck. :)

#22 Posted by handssss (1827 posts) -

60fps is better, but 30fps is definitely playable. It's only when it dips below 30 things get annoying and even then it's really only if the dips are often.

#23 Edited by KungfuKitten (20900 posts) -

24 fps and motion blur 2.0 with a film grain is so cinematic.

#24 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4072 posts) -

Console fans have to love it if they want current gen graphics.

#25 Posted by CrashNBurn281 (391 posts) -
#26 Edited by KungfuKitten (20900 posts) -
#27 Posted by sukraj (22296 posts) -

I like both

#28 Posted by StormyJoe (4957 posts) -

I think it depends on the type of game - you wouldn't want Forza or GT running at 30fps, but other types of games may look better at 30fps.

#29 Posted by farrell2k (5823 posts) -

Cinemtatic is a nonsense word that people use to deflect from the fact that the hardware they write their code on is too weak to achieve a proper 60fps, to make it more palatable to console owners.

#30 Edited by SecretPolice (21544 posts) -

60 fps is sometimes needed in certain genres but taking advantage of using more graphical upgrades at 30 fps makes sense in other genres, just sayin. :P

#31 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4606 posts) -

Anyone calling 30fps "more cinematic" should be banned for life.

#32 Posted by mikhail (1172 posts) -

I think it depends on the type of game - you wouldn't want Forza or GT running at 30fps, but other types of games may look better at 30fps.

Have any thoughts as to which games you think may look better at 30fps? I'm trying to think of some, and I just can't. Maybe South Park: The Stick of Truth, but they were specifically trying to match the look of the show and 60fps clearly would not have been appropriate in that case.

#33 Posted by StormyJoe (4957 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@StormyJoe said:

I think it depends on the type of game - you wouldn't want Forza or GT running at 30fps, but other types of games may look better at 30fps.

Have any thoughts as to which games you think may look better at 30fps? I'm trying to think of some, and I just can't. Maybe South Park: The Stick of Truth, but they were specifically trying to match the look of the show and 60fps clearly would not have been appropriate in that case.

RPGs and Adventure games come to mind.

#34 Edited by Heil68 (43585 posts) -

I dont care as long as I'm having fun.

#35 Posted by High-Res (271 posts) -

I have always been told since the Ps2 Days that the human eye can't even process more than 30 frames per second and all the frame per second thing is a bunch of hooplah.

#36 Posted by PAL360 (26747 posts) -

1080p60 should be standard on PS4 and X1, with very few exceptions.

#37 Edited by Gue1 (9570 posts) -

since consoles have fixed hardware and you care about a cinematic experience then you drop frame-rate for better graphics and post-process effects. If you want a smooth experience you go with high frame-rate but lower graphics. The most important thing is to keep it consistent because with an unlocked frame-rate you still have lower latency but the image quality is slightly worse because of the judder effect.

It all depends on what the dev are able to achieve and what they want out of the game. The Order Dev clearly don't give fucks about making a shooter with tight gameplay as much as they care about a cinematic experience, so they rather push graphics instead of frame-rate. Meanwhile Naughty Dog always aim for the sky, which is why we got games like Uncharted and The Last of Us. To them high frame-rate is not even about the experience but about the challenge. They are aiming for 1080p/60fps with great graphics because that's what people want, the complete package.

#38 Edited by Flubbbs (2993 posts) -

Once you get used to 60fps it's hard to go back

#39 Posted by handssss (1827 posts) -
#40 Edited by scottpsfan14 (4036 posts) -

For me, it's not that I prefer 30 fps over 60, it's that I literally don't give a fuck what it is. I played games on PS1, N64, PS2, Gamecube, 360, PS3 at 30fps and consider some of them the most enjoyable games I've played. There was not one hindrance to experience that I ever noticed in my entire time playing them. In fact, I only learned about the response times being 'better' with 60fps about a couple of years ago. I think from some stupid PC clown somewhere that said something along the lines of '30 FPS is practically a slide show, 60 FPS is barely playable, and 120 FPS is the sweet spot". These people are the real cancer of gaming. Snobbery on any level and in any field is wrong. This talk of frame rate is nothing but fuel for a bored person to argue something. They make it more important than it really is. 30 FPS is unplayable? Bullshit. This is coming from somebody who has played many games on PC at 60fps. There are more important matters at hand. Put it this way, would I play Duke Nukem Forever at 60 fps, or Halo 3 at 30 fps? Option B every time. But I wouldn't be stupid and pick the 30 fps version of a game over a 60 fps version if I had the choice.

30 FPS is perfectly playable! Stop talking about frame rate and resolution now!!

#41 Posted by foxhound_fox (87839 posts) -

I remember when gamers scoffed at the idea of a low framerate.

#42 Edited by Chutebox (36750 posts) -

Can't tell the difference so I don't care

#43 Posted by santoron (7702 posts) -

I've never seen a subject evoke so much stupid from the "Master Race".

If you aren't smart enough to figure this out yourself by now, nothing anyone says here can help you.

#44 Posted by MclarenMaster18 (51 posts) -

To be honest, I prefer 60fps because it makes it a lot easier for me to play in racing and fps. For RPG I don't even care if it's 30fps.

#45 Posted by mikhail (1172 posts) -

@High-Res said:

I have always been told since the Ps2 Days that the human eye can't even process more than 30 frames per second and all the frame per second thing is a bunch of hooplah.

Wait, you don't actually believe that, do you? The human eye doesn't see in "frames" at all, frame rate is a limitation of digital devices. The human brain processes light and colors and detects scene changes in what you're looking at, in effect the "framerate" that your eyes can see at is infinite. The entire "humans can't see more than 30 fps" argument is scientific nonsense started by console fanboys.

#46 Posted by Krelian-co (10477 posts) -

@sam890 said:

If I was dropping $400 on a "next-gen" console I would expect all my games @ 60fps.

you get what you pay for $400 is too cheap for modern hardware tbh.

#47 Edited by ninjapirate2000 (3017 posts) -

I'd take 60 fps any day.

More responsive and smoother framessss>>>>

#48 Posted by hiphops_savior (7860 posts) -

Another reason why 30fps isn't an option.

#49 Posted by scottpsfan14 (4036 posts) -

Another reason why 30fps isn't an option.

OoT is 30 FPS. All of the greatest games of all time on consoles have been 30 fps for the most part. No gameplay hindrances have been reported with all of them. Stop overreacting.

#50 Edited by Pray_to_me (2834 posts) -

@UnbiasedPoster said:

Here's the reality, not all games need 60 FPS.

Some genres do. Fighting games, action games (Ninja Gaiden), and twitch shooters should be 60 frames. Other than that, it's not a big deal if a game runs at 30 FPS.

Other than that, it's not a huge deal.

Hit it right on the head. In fact I don't like the look of movies on the new LED's with the super high refresh rate. It makes everything look cheap like it was shot on video (video is 60 FPS and Film is 24). As mentioned, the only time I truly prefer 60fps is for fighters like Street fighter or perhaps CoD. Everything else, who gives a shit?

So to answer your question TC for a single player experience I would prefer 1080/30fps but for something competitive like a fighter or twitch shooter I could deal with a rez drop for higher fps.

We all know what this thread is really about though. It's about the fact that TLoU remastered is about to shit on Crysis3 and Hermits are going to have a meltdown when they realize their coveted 360 port is not only not graphics king, it's not even the best looking game from last gen.

Vs

Windows fanboys are about to get pounded out ;)