Discussion

1567 comments
cristi1990an
cristi1990an

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!!! 

Bryjoered07
Bryjoered07

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.

wowwow27
wowwow27

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.

wowwow27
wowwow27

definitely,  anyone who ever tinkered with a pc should agree.

leonstrydom1
leonstrydom1

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!

socialistsmurf
socialistsmurf

Higher FPS makes a big different in First Person Shooters.

FPS for FPS

DAP2010
DAP2010

Hey can anyone please please let me know what the song/instrumental at 5:16 is? it really was beautiful...

holidaysins
holidaysins

my brain just exploded with knowledge

terumikami68
terumikami68

would be nice if the video actually ran at more than 2fps... player sucks...

AboAlwe
AboAlwe

Having 60 FPS is a minimum requirement for any gamer. More is a luxury I think.

lilflipp
lilflipp

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.

zajuruk
zajuruk

- "a slideshow of imijizz" 0:45

H0RSE
H0RSE

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.

x-2tha-z
x-2tha-z

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.

revlux88
revlux88

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)

d00hicky
d00hicky

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.  

Fursnake
Fursnake

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.

AlexFili
AlexFili

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

Razor10000
Razor10000

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.

Poordevil
Poordevil

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.

skepticidiot
skepticidiot

Great show. Keep it coming. Thumbs up Cam !

Falzonn
Falzonn

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.

cryingdevil63
cryingdevil63

Great reality check this week Cam,I mean they're always very informative,but this one was especially well presented,love it.

garrybubba
garrybubba

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.

Phatmista
Phatmista

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.

salmon71
salmon71

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.

zombieweekend
zombieweekend

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.

gt350tsc
gt350tsc

Between 30-60fps seems work best for me.

 But as long It doesn't dip below 30 I'm fine.


Printul_Noptii
Printul_Noptii

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.

wildamnesia
wildamnesia

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.

ESPM400
ESPM400

@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. 

masaaki_hosoi
masaaki_hosoi

@Bryjoered07  It's better to aim above 60 FPS. Reason being, typically you want to employ VSync to get rid of screen tearing (which I find incredibly distracting). If you're running at 40 FPS, then maybe you'll be mostly 60 FPS but when it dips even slightly below it will basically hard crash down to 30 FPS and look incredibly stuttery.

But, if you aim *above* 60 FPS, VSync will basically just cap you to 60 FPS.


This could all change with NVidia's GSync technology, as that adapts the monitor's refresh rate to the GFX card, so the game can leave VSync off without suffering from annoying screen tear.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@leonstrydom1 pc gamers knew this for years, glad the consoles are catching up.  i love my consoles!

kamikazeespleen
kamikazeespleen

@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.

leonstrydom1
leonstrydom1

@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

H0RSE
H0RSE

@x-2tha-z  

Perhaps, but gaming at 720p/60fps would not be.

wowwow27
wowwow27

@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.

d00hicky
d00hicky

@Razor10000 Yea after switching to PC playing on a console is a miserable experience. 

d00hicky
d00hicky

@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. 

PutU2REM
PutU2REM

@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.

And 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.

revlux88
revlux88

@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.

leonstrydom1
leonstrydom1

@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!

_Witchunter_
_Witchunter_

@H0RSE @x-2tha-z Actually 720p/60fps would be ridiculous as well. Remember what you used to play in 2005? 720p/30fps. Fast forward 16 years and you're still playing 720p? Where's the progress?

revlux88
revlux88

@d00hicky @Razor10000 I love my rig but find all the awesome console exclusives far from "miserable." Besides, after the 2nd or 3rd game gen. the X1 and ps4 will be hitting native 1080p at 60fps consistently. It just takes devs time to get familiar with new hardware.

H0RSE
H0RSE

@_Witchunter_ @H0RSE @x-2tha-z  

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.

drat333
drat333

@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).