Lol! Did anybody noticed any difference at 3:45?... No?... Well, that's good, because there isn't any! AC4 on the PS4 runs at 30fps all the time!!!
Honestly, there is a difference, but not DRASTIC. 30fps looks smooth to me and 60fps looks perfectly smooth. I think as long as you can maintain a constant 40fps that's good enough, actually Nvidia states that if you're framerate is always above 40 you're in the most optimal zone. If you're framerate is always at 40, then it probably is at 60 most of the time and maybe dips to 40. Geforce Experience is actually pretty good at giving you settings that are a great balance between quality and performance.
my mongaloid brain only can perceive 8 fps,... no one can perceive anything greater.... errrrrr........ but seriously, the refresh comparison is just semantics. higher frame rate is just smoother,... period, end of story. 120fps max. probably anything more is overkill.
Read the comments on this thread (the thread isn't even about frame rate)
HELL YEAH 60FPS MAKES A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!
I am totally blown-the-F-away by the fact that some people can apparently not see the difference...it's night and day, man! 30fps looks like slow-mo in comparison. 60fps adds so much to the overall experience...BF4 on PS4 is amaaaaaaazing....BF3 on ps3 sucked ass!..and for me the biggest and most glaring difference, if there was ever only one difference, is the framerate.
It should be STANDARD! If a gamedeveloper can make its game run at 60fps, then SPARE NO EXPENSIVE!!!! -- That's (mainly) addressed to you, Respawn Entertainment!
Hey can anyone please please let me know what the song/instrumental at 5:16 is? it really was beautiful...
Consoles are so fucked anyways with 4k monitors, 120hz and G-sync.
You see back then, blu rays were new, HD was relatively new.
Today's filming, movies, shows, are starting to film 4k and 5k quality.
4k is to HD, what HD is to regular quality.
Now if your "next gen" console can't even run at the current gen's resolution. Wtf is your console going to look like in 1-2 years.
In conclusion, asking for 1080p at 60 fps is reasonable. It's not asking too much.
Do we "need" it? No, is it expected or wanted? Yes. The expectations however, is largely little more than wishful thinking and arbitrary reasoning about what constitutes "next-gen," which is largely just a buzzword itself, with no real, definitive meaning.
That being said, 60fps has it's advantages over 30fps in certain circumstances, specifically fast paced action-oriented games, like shooters, as was mentioned in the vid. I'm really glad he addressed the differences between film and games, because this is one of the big things many people never mention or do not even understand.
These new consoles should be powerful enough to run their games at 1080p @ 60fps. Especially when you consider they might be the hardware you'll be using for the next seven or eight years. Imagine if you were still gaming in 720p @ 30fps in 2021!! That'd be ridiculous.
Great job Cam. That's one of the best frame rate pros/cons explanations for the layman that I've seen.
Who has two thumbs and freely admits to being a layman?
"This guy!" (thumb-points to self)
More fps doesn't "look better" as much is at does "feel better". With high fps the latency between your controller and you monitor is less.
30 fps sucks compared to 60 fps and I can clearly tell the difference between the two. Next-gen has no business calling itself next gen if it can't even do 60 fps.
Just to give my opinion on the topic, I can't really tell a huge amount of difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. I've played Assassin's Creed III on my PC and when it dips to 15-18 FPS I can really tell the difference and the game becomes a lot less enjoyable. My optimal range seems to be 25-35 FPS, when I play Skyrim and get those numbers it feels fine.
It depends a lot on player preference, I think console gamers are more likely to be used to a lower frame rate. I would expect XOne and PS4 to aim for 60, or at least get something like 40/50
60 fps should be standard for nextgen. it´s just more smooth. the game feels better and more enjoyable to play. 30fps to 60fps is like sd resolution to hd resolution. once you go hd is difficult go go back to sd.
The key for having a really smooth gaming experience is having the FPS match the hz or refresh rate of the monitor. I was playing the old PC game Rune on my Viewsonic P225f which is a high end CRT. My PC was able to run the game at a steady 75fps while the monitor was refreshing 1600X1200 @ 75hz. Having the fps and refresh rate in sync like that is as good as it gets.
I definitely prefer 60fps. Since my PC isn't quite the greatest, I can usually only get 20-30 fps on newer games, but on the occasion where the game puts me in a small room with not much to render, that 60fps I'm suddenly getting is MUCH smoother. The other thing to remember is that the game won't always be at 60fps all the time. It will rise and fall depending on what's happening on screen, and its much better to drop from say, 60 to 40 than from 30 to 15. Not even mentioning stutter, which can have a much more jarring effect on fps perception.
Great reality check this week Cam,I mean they're always very informative,but this one was especially well presented,love it.
The first question that comes to my mind is why don't games employ motion blur like films do to make lower frame rates less jerky.
There was a game that I was following years ago being made by a very small team with the working title "Project Offset" that used this exact idea very successfully as I recall.
Excellent video Cam. The first thing I said to myself was, "I think this video is in 60 fps." It really makes a difference and I hope this becomes the standard for all video/games. Although, I've seen 120 and it is amazing, but as you mentioned, not many people have the hardware capable of that. Furthermore, I would rather see 4K (2160p) resolutions more abundant at this point than 120 fps/Hz.
As Cam pointed out in the video, each frame in game is a perfect render, we all hype up about fps, but do the games have that many frames to display and the hardware capable to display that in a second? Not like in movies where the camera has to try to catch as many frames as it possibly can (comes high speed camera) to display later. Of course, the cost of 60 fps in game with MORE details will leave less profit for game company. So, they can choose to do 30 fps in 60 fps enable system and still don't hurt no one if game still run fine and play great. Even with the worst game, who's going to complain enough to hurt the game makers about the frame rate? We all know the answer.
Same argument since the dawn of computers. 30 years ago I was asking if I needed 64k RAM, or a CGA graphics card. You don't need any of it. You buy it to play newer and better games. Faster is always better.
you can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS but most people are used to 30 FPS anyway. The only time I really noticed a slowdown in gameplay was for the ZOE HD collection on the Xbox 360 which runs at 30 FPS in 720p and I was used so much to ZOE 2nd Runner on the PS2 which runs at 60 FPS in 480p and the HD collection felt slower especially the first fight with the 100 of mosquitos onscreen ! Other than that I cant recall having a problem with steady 30 FPS on consoles really.
Games running at 60fps look like TV game shows. Games running at 30 fps look like movies. So I prefer 30 myself. Use the extra juice for other stuff.
@cristi1990an Although I'm not saying that's the case here, you can hook a PS3 or 4 controller up to your PC.
Also, as someone who started gaming on PC, switched to consoles in '07, then about six months ago built a fairly high-end gaming rig (http://pcpartpicker.com/b/EII) and ditched my 360, I can tell you that there's a very noticeable difference between 30 and 60 fps.
@leonstrydom1 pc gamers knew this for years, glad the consoles are catching up. i love my consoles!
@AboAlwe nowadays anyway.
@AboAlwe I completely disagree with that. 30FPS is perfectly playable in my eyes and I'm a PC gamer so obviously I would like at least 60 but that is definitely not the minimum requirement for any gamer.
@H0RSE even with slow paced non-action games, 60fps is just simply a better experience...i mean i dunno about you, but my eyes don't see in the slow-motion of 30fps..everything is smooth and seamless
Perhaps, but gaming at 720p/60fps would not be.
@AlexFili your right about the ps4, but I'm not sure if the xbox will get more than 15-20 since the hardware is scaled back.
@Razor10000 Yea after switching to PC playing on a console is a miserable experience.
@Falzonn The ideal situation is to set a your v-sync or fps cap to match your monitors refresh rate and than adjust your graphics settings to never let the game drop below that cap. In order to do this with ultra settings on new AAA games you need a really fast and expensive computer.
For most of us "PC gamers" we try to keep the frame rate above 40 and to hover around 60 most of the time.
@garrybubba It takes a lot of extra work to create motion blur, and in some cases might actually be more computationally expensive than just rendering more frames.
regardless of how good it looks, motion blur wouldn't reduce the lag
between action and onscreen feedback. My own reflexes are meh and I can't
see any visual differences past ~40fps, but even I notice how much easier games are to control when running at 60fps.
@salmon71 I'm certain we'll see X1 & PS4 games reach 60fps in multiplayer consistently in 2014. It may take a bit longer for devs to become familiar enough with the hardware to get native 1080p @ 60fps in all single player games as well, but I'm confident it will happen soon.
@wildamnesia Someone who also prefers this. I like to keep between 35-45 to get a nice balance between.
@wildamnesia Why not both?
@kamikazeespleen @AboAlwe That's a matter of opinion (as is everything on every thread i suppose, lol)....60fps enhances the whole experience sooo much...it's one step closer to reality...your eyes don't "see" in slow motion, c'mon. But i stiull, i hear ya, 30fps, the game remains playable at least...but it will be twice the game at 60fps, that's wassup!
The progress is seen in other aspects, like the scope of the games we're playing, and features and functionality of the consoles we play them on. For instance, BF4 is not 1080p on either next-gen console, but it does support 64 player servers. Dedicated servers are another aspect that is becoming increasingly popular on console, an idea that was little more than pipe dreams in 2005.
Then you have features like Game DVR and uploading/downloading content via the cloud, apps like Netflix and Twitch.tv, features like the marketplace that allow players to download full games straight to their console, TV integration, motion controls and voice commands, among others.
Consoles are a closed system, so essentially the amount progress you are talking about - graphics and performance, are essentially dictated by the companies that own them (MS, Sony, Nintendo.) This is one of the reason wy so much progress is seen on PCs, since users are not forced to simply make do with what they have, and can upgrade and swap parts where they see fit.
@revlux88 @d00hicky @Razor10000 This is simply not true. The next gen consoles are not using tri-cores or cell processors, they're using the x86 PC architecture. Which, as evidenced by the whole freaking PC market (games and otherwise), is not a mystery at all. There are very few, if any, optimizations that can be made to have the next-gen consoles have better performance, and we certainly will not see the optimizations that were making a huge difference in the last-gen. Saying that there are is simply wishful thinking/buyer's remorse (though you may be unaware of it).