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

60fps is always preferable. When playing games on my PC I refuse to play anything at less than 60fps since I have the option to - sometimes this means taking a few graphics settings down in demanding games like Crysis 3, but I will pretty much always choose 60fps over maxing out a game. It's just smoother, looks better, is more responsive, and feels more natural.

Having said that, 30fps isn't a deal breaker by any means. I definitely notice the difference once I start playing a console game that's at 30fps after playing a PC game, but it's never taken actually taken out the enjoyment of playing Uncharted, Halo, or any other console game. I would prefer if they were in 60fps, but once I've been playing for a few minutes I'm not even paying attention anymore.

Always depends on the game. If the next Gears of War game is 30fps , it wouldn't matter because all of the other 360 Gears games were 30fps. Better be 1080p though. I care most about lighting and detail in terms of visuals.

Most 60fps games with people generally look weird to me. Literally everything that moves looks fake and unnatural. I think that if a game is going for any shred of realism in its visual then 60fps completely throws that out the window. Some games do it fine though. I believe Street Fighter 4 is 60 and that looks great, although it's not going for any shred of realism. I think Marvel vs Capcom 3 is 60fps and that's one where I don't like how it moves but it isn't as bad as stuff like Call of Duty. I think the divide on those two is that Street Fighter is totally stylized in every way, Marvel has somewhat realistic character designs for characters but the actual actions on screen are ridiculous, meanwhile Call of Duty shoots for realistic characters and realistic movement. The more realism you go for, the worse 60fps looks.

30 just looks like regular stuff to me. It's not like a movie but it does look like a live TV show. Something well animated moves the way I'd expect it to in real life and doesn't have any of the fakeness I associate with 60fps.

I'd prefer 30fps. I've played tons of sub 60fps games and they were totally fine. Totally fine gameplay + non-crappy looking motion is a win.

Let me settle it once and for all, 60 fps is a must for multiplayer games. But for single player games I don't care, 30 fps is fine and yes it looks more like a movie, but if its 60 fps for single player its fine too.

60 fps is a must for racing and fps games.

Other titles can get away with 30 fps if the game isn't all that fast paced and it's mostly for immersion.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

In the case of OoT, the original version ran at a glorious 16-24fps. 30FPS is an improvement by comparison.

Does it excuse Order 1866 for running at only 30fps for "cinematic" purposes?

@Pray_to_me said:

@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 ;)

Cinematics vs gameplay? Try harder

If the game can have better animation, visuals, physics, and more, when using 30fps, I prefer that. But of course, it would have to be stable, not drops much under 30fps. On last gen consoles people seem to prefer COD's 60fps and lower latency over Battlefield's more visual pleasing 30fps, but with the better visuals, sound, and the more realistic feel in the Battlefield games, I enjoy those games alot more.

There is absolute no reason in my mind to have games like Uncharted and TLOU in 60fps, what's important in those games are a stable framerate, and awesome visuals and animation.

Sports games must be 60fps though.

Prefer 60fps, obviously, but don't really care on console. Just make the fps stable.

I don't mind 30, except for a few genres.

RAD's excuse is laughable though. They're just trying to push graphics as hard as they possibly can.

Movies are played at 24.1 fps, not 30 fps.

But movies =/= games.

60 fps is obvioulsy better than 30 fps, but jesus the difference is much smaller than you guys make it seem. As a PC gamer, I've had the "choice" between 60fps at medium graphics and 30 fps with ultra graphics, and I pick ultra high graphics 10 out of 10 times.

When I bought my high end PC in 2009, there wasn't a single game I couldn't max it, because I was fine with 31 fps on Metro 2033 or 40 fps on Crysis 1. Even to this date, 5 years later I haven't upgraded it since and run all my games in 1080p, though there are plenty of games that I can't max out anymore, I still aim for the best graphics @ 30 fps stable, which usually ends up being medium-high mixes, or sometimes still maxed out.

The reason I laugh at them instead of other developers, is because they claim it's for a "cinematic effect". Something I don't see other developers come up with, because they don't feel the need to justify their 30 with some lame excuse.

Not to mention those black bars. Again, for "cinematic" effect.

I'm not saying the game will be bad because it runs at 30. I'm saying their excuse is laughable.

Because it is bullshit. If they could make the order 60fps, they would. They simply couldn't achieve it, and Sony told them to come up with some excuse to not look bad.

But since anyone with a brain saw past it, they got laughed at. Honestly, it was simply more wood for teh fire, considering the game's increased grey pallete, black bars, and, ofcourse, extreme lack of gameplay and pathetic attempt at being a movie instead of a proper game.

LOL, "strategic".

60 is better than 30. There is not a single advantage to playing in 30 over 60.

@Pray_to_me said:

It makes everything look cheap like it was shot on video (video is 60 FPS and Film is 24).

Wrong.

And it's still a lame excuse. Have your game run at 30. Fine. I don't care, but don't try and cover it up by saying you're making a "cinematic" game.

I'll wait for proper gameplay until I judge the next Uncharted. I need more than some vague, lifeless cinematic. In-game or not.

We don't know if Uncharted will actually 60fps, how open it's levels are, and much more. Until the game is released, the'res no argument.

Regarding the hardware, i know the PS4 isn't that powerfull. Like i said, it's amazing CGI level visual detail is thanks to cut backs in gneral world and level design.

The cutscenes might be better at 30, but gameplay, considering the thrid person shooting mechanics, is simply better at 60. There is no argument about this.

If they could manage 60, they would have. Another bullet point for Sony obsession with resolution and frame rates, specially after that Watch Doge flop. If you believe they went with 30 if they could reach 60, you're simply delusional.

At any rate, TLOU will be a good way to measure of UC4 might have a chance at being 60fps.

I don't care what it's targetting. Until i see the final released game, i don't give a damm. My point about Wash Dogs is that Sony was, and is, obsessed with res and frames, so it was quick to pull that bullshit "1080p/60fps" on it. Like i said, TLOU remaster will be a good way to gouge if UC4 will be STABLE 60fps. Doing 60 while nothing happens on screen is easy. Higher frames are important in the middle of quicker combat situations, so dipping to 45 avg, like Shadow Fail during action is not that great.

As for WD being 60fps if PS4 only. HAHAHAHA. Right, tell that to Infamous SS. I haven't played the actual game, but apparently, Seattle is smaller than Chicago, if those that say that it's close to the size of IF1. Not only that, every time i see videos of Infamous, the streets are deserted, with new npcs and some cars roaming around.

So, if a game with a smaller map and less on-screen AI is doing 30fps, with dips to 20 in many action sequences (sometimes actually goes to 40, surprisingly), i dont' see Watch Dogs beign 60fps if it was a PS4 exclusive. Keep in mind, i'm not actually bashing the game itself.

You're fanboyism shows.

No games look better at 30fps. 30 fps is a blurfest with choppy animations.

Playing a game is far different from watching a movie. One of the most important aspects of a game is immersion. Higher fps gives more lifelike animations which results in more immersion.

30 fps doesn't bother me for certain games. Fighting games on the other hand, seem completely unplayable once they dip below 60 fps.

Its a fuzzy boundary for me. I love 30fps but sometimes games will take a dip below 24fps and really stutter. At least with 60fps the dip won't be as noticeable.

Higher FPS also reduces input lag. 30fps will not feel as responsive as 60fps which will break immersion.

Anyone stating they prefer 30FPS over 60FPS for gaming is either a loon, lying or just plain blind. I don't think it's that big a deal if a game is 30 (it's playable, IMO) and I doubt most people have a TV with that high a refresh rate anyway (I could be wrong) so when it comes to console games it's almost unnecessary.

Now TV and film is a different story; I cannot stand the look of a high Hz TV while watching pretty much anything. Everything looks like a soap opera. Ew.

Isn't videotape 60fps interlaced?

fields, not frames. max frames is 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS#Signal_standards a deinterlace will reveal 30 frames.

i've had experience recording 60 fps gameplay to vhs tape and playing it back, the tape is definitely not a 60 fps medium!

i believe P2M is talking about the soap opera effect; they're typically shot in 30 fps, giving them a different look to films - yadda yadda yadda.

anyway i'm on a 144 Hz display now. it's lovely.

Cinematic 30 fps is just bullshit for games which are interactive unlike movies.

On motion blur heavy LCD displays 30 fps is probably not that much of a problem, but on my Plasma HDTV which has a ridiculous low response time, 30 fps looks choppy, I can see individual frames when turning, it's often not enjoyable unless I turn on Intelligent Frame Creation which introduces input lag.