30fps is shit, even in "cinematic" games

You often hear the argument that 60fps for fast-paced games such as shooters and action games is much better but that 30fps for slower-paced games such as 3rd person story-driven games like Uncharted is fine.

I can attest that it isn't and that it's still shit. I was playing Persona 5 Royal on PC for a few hours. Switched to my PS4 to see how far I was to know when I could stop fast-forwarding when I was met with the wonderful 30fps cap. It's awful even for a game that is part RPG, part visual novel. It's especially jarring when going from 120 to 30fps. You might as well start watching a slideshow. That's how bad it is.

Here's hoping 30fps games don't actually make a full comeback on consoles and that there's always the option for 60fps because otherwise, it sucks for console-only gamers. 30fps needs to stay die and get buried never to be found again.

60 fps is just about passable in 2022.

30fps has always been shit. There is no defending it.

Yup, always been a nonsense rationalization. More accurate to say that 60+ is even more crucial to some game types than others, but they're all noticeably better off for it.

60 isn't even great, just a good baseline standard.

The other one that gets me is the "well I prefer better visuals if given the choice". Maybe if you're looking at stills, soon as anything is in motion that image quality turns to mud.

Side rant, but also annoying how some people frame this is as some new thing. When it's like nah, I was playing games with good performance in the 80s and 90s. And even after the slump that was gen 5, we still got back to plenty of great performing console games in gen 6.

30fps is fine for me.

As much as I dislike 30fps, I believe it is okay if you use motion blur to make it appear to have a higher framerate. This is because motion blur can blur the lines of where one frame ends and when the next frame starts, making it harder to notice. Do most console games use motion blur?

People defend it because they don't have standards.

Been on PC too long, anything below 60 is too noticeable. Its a shame that somehow they think 30 is acceptable again, I couldnt go back to being locked to that slideshow. Some visual fidelity should be sacrificed to get a smoother performance, especially since it can come down to something simple like shadow resolution or water physics.

True for many I'm sure. Most normies won't gaf. Some dedicated gamers truly don't care either.

But in these fanboy pits it's usually more about they don't have an option. You see the big brag about performance until a game doesn't have it. Ever shifting goalposts.

Doesn't bother me. Grew up in 8/16/32bit days and had a shitty PC barely cracking 25 frames.

The thing is, if they don't improve visuals by a lot, and the game comes out 3-4 years later, people will be bitching about it looking like an expansion, and that's bad for sales. Visuals are easy to market, while frame rate is not (to the casual demographic)

Yeah, it's crap.

Bought a PS4 a couple years ago, way late into the generation. Played some games on there, it sucked. One of the reasons I stopped using it was the framerate.

I think anyone saying 30 is OK is saying that because they don't have a choice. It's like hologram Rick said "I was only OK being a hologram because I had to be one", the implication being that since he was no longer forced to be a hologram and could be "real" it was a lot better.

or a choice.

I certainly think higher frame rates are better, can’t imagine why anyone would think otherwise, but I can still enjoy games with a 30fps.

Even as a PC gamer myself, it all falls down on the genre itself, but in general, I'll tone down the graphics to enable 60fps+ every time if given the choice. Some games/genres just really suffer with less fps which can increase input delays. Hell I can tell you all know, I didn’t put together a high-end PC just to play at 30fps now did I? And once you go 165hz with G-Sync, you'll wish you'll never go back to 30fps ever again. (Even I can admit, I cannot go back to 60fps at all...but I kinda don't mind, just not 30fps that's for damn sure)

One thing I want to point out regarding this gen with PS5/Xbox Series, its nice these consoles are offering console gamers a choice to play in 60fps whenever the option is available to the console gamer. The root of the problem is the developers are slowly getting lazy of not putting efforts into giving them a choice.

None of it bothers me. The over sequalization of the industry, Cash grab remakes and lack of original thought bother me... Fps is waaaay down the list.

Yup. It's fanboy bullshit when anyone tells you higher fps isn't better for XYZ genre. It's better for everything, always. This is literally and simply due to how how vision and eye hand coordination work. Movies are the only contradiction to this rule, because you aren't controlling them and we're used to that motion for them.

That's fanboy bullshit. Link it so I can laugh at them being objectively wrong.

@ConanTheStoner: Fanboys are weird in general. Most gamers don't probably even know that the 6th gen consoles offered a lot of 60 FPS games back then. The PS3/360 era just forced a lot of gamers to play at shit-tier 30 FPS.

@mrbojangles25:True. But with these modern consoles, they can have a choice now, mostly. But sadly, most casuals still pick 4k 30fps rather than 1440p/60 or even 1080p/60 just to brag 4k.

@TheEroica: “ Cash grab remakes”

I laugh now when I see Definitive Edition next to titles. Lets ruin that thing you love, call it the best and make you pay for it. Oh silly gaming industry, how you hurt me so.

Sometimes I regret returning to PC gaming (back in 2010 I believe) because I was pretty content with 30fps because it was all I knew.

After gaming at 60fps standard, I've tried and failed to return to consoles because of the 30fps cap.

I've even resorted to trying to use motion interpolation on my tv to try to simulate 60fps lol.

I can understand if 30fps is all you know and you're ok with it. But if you have a choice, I don't understand one choosing less frames

People argue the visual fidelity being better at 30 FPS, which maybe the reason(like RT/GI on consoles), but still, I'd rather have that off and get more responsiveness. That's why I play on PC, to have both fidelity and FPS.

Of course its bullshit. There is no excuse for systems that were marketed as 4k/8k machines not being able to handle 60fps when its permanently running at much lower resolutions.

I do love how the social media can be pretty brutal with devs/publishers, and completely destroying their PR, but what bothers me, is that gamers never go hard on console manufacturers. I would LOVE to see Sony fans pile the f*ck in on Sony for marketing the SSD as that alien tech, AND DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH IT because its just a storage device wtf do you expect it to do? Its sad cuz when the PS5 Pro is revealed, Sony will come out with new bullshit, people will believe them, and within a month the system will be just like the PS4 Pro, an overhyped waste of money.

@hardwenzen: Just spend 500 bucks more to get the pro versions of the consoles. lol

by next year. still waiting on cerny bs claim with a already out of date ssd. how said ssd was going to change how we created game worlds....

It's doable when you don't turn the camera around too fast and when you smear huge amounts of motion blur on screen.

PS: I hate motion blur.

Never had a problem with 30 fps in the previous generations of consoles but will always choose performance mode with the PS5.

Will play 60 fps with the new God Of War - never cared about playing in 4k/8k because I am a grown up. It adds nothing to the experience. A good game is a good game regardless of resolution. Frame rate and loading times can add to the experience - resolution doesn't.

The Rise Of Skywalker does not become a good movie because you can watch it in 8k, now, does it?

But 30fps really suits movie games for that real movie experience.

It's not the actual FPS that's the biggest issue here, it's how 30fps comes across when displayed on a modern TV or monitor.

Watch the section from 1:14 with the rock moving the view from left to right. Oh my god the blur!!

Once youve been spoiled with 120+fps in your games its really hard not to notice when youre playing at 30 or even 60. Its same with 16:9 displays from 4:3 or Ultrawide/Superwide from 16:9 too, once youve had a really good taste then anything else just doesnt feel right.

I'll always go 60FPS if i can. but its not a deal breaker. I wont make sacrifices in other areas to hit it. Most games that i play i can happily play at 30FPS.

60FPS is always better than 30FPs all other things being equal. Goes without saying. But dropping things like resolution, texture settings, shadows, RT (if available) to hit it. Nope. Not happening for me.

I agree with your first statement. After doing 90-144+ fps for years, going even 60 feels kinda meh. Not as horrible as 30 though. It will and should be this way for most humans who use high hz/fps for years on end, unless they are lying to themselves or have eye problems.

But your second statement is highly subjective. I liked my 21:9, but I moved back to a 32" and 42" 16:9 recently and actually don't mind them at all.

Rofl.

One of console's best advantages, price and not having to upgrades, completely deleted due to having to shell out another $500-600 on a "pro" upgrade every 2 years if you want to keep up with a low range PC lol. That's honestly not too far off of what you have to spend on average every few years on PC upgrades (with current good prices). Without the performance, gfx, library, online, features of PC.

I've always said we made the jump to a higher resolution too fast and too far.

1440p/2K should have been the standard before 4K. I'm worried about 8K; we already saw Sony pushing the "8K ready" narrative.

I mean in all honesty, 1080p is still good if you're on a smaller screen. Especially given the boost to detail and framerate you can get.

If you work for IGN, this is how you think, yea. The reality is, no matter the genre, 30fps is trash.

Play GoW at 30fps, you'll feel like you're really there.

How about 120fps instead? Do you allow me to try it?

PS... Can do that? :-O

My take on the matter is, everything below 30 FPS is shit. 30 FPS or any other FPS above it is good, if it is constant and does not decrease. Naturally, the more powerful hardware you have, the more FPS you want to get out of it, but somewhere there is a line where huge FPS numbers becomes a moot point.

Yes, and it can do that while not looking like Halo Infinite. Imagine that.

You mean not looking like the game would be worthy of a 9/10?

Im sure if you asked, the vast majority of people would not want to play at a lower aspect ratio than they are right now.

damn conan dunking on cup, the 30 frames shill.

@jg4xchamp:

In fairness to Cup, he probably had that PAL life while we were basking in glorious NTSC.

Molded in mud.

@ConanTheStoner said:

@jg4xchamp:

In fairness to Cup, he probably had that PAL life while we were basking in glorious NTSC.

Molded in mud.

Damn the scottish stay holding Ls. This is why Mel Gibson dies in braveyheart cup, because you mother fuckers are jobbers.

@ConanTheStoner: Na most of the games played C64/MS/GG/Voodoo2 etc.. ran like shit compared to what play now. Unless was fighting game or a racing game etc.. Depended on the genre.

Pretty much most of the PS1 games played chugged along looking like someone had thrown breadcrumbs at the screen.

In the case of the PC not only ran like shit, was rocking a 56k modem with 200+ ping on top.

On the PC side a lot of that was being young and stupid prioritizing graphics over the gameplay. Even back then something like Quake 3 or UT was incredibly scalable.

But being a kid with a graphics card, when a graphics card was a new concept, you were like a proto-version of those assholes who spammed (and probably still do) spam horrible ENB pictures that look like nuclear bombs went off with anime girls and mismatching textures.

Obviously 60fps+ is what want. Wouldn't play something like a fighting game without it.

Some rando SP game, eh, never bothered me that much.

Ya, visually speaking, used to be good with 30fps. The second the camera starts moving that goes out the window.

@uninspiredcup:

Yeah man, PS1 (and N64) were mostly shite for everyone. Understandable being console gamings foray into 3d, but holy shit. So few games that ran well.

What I was mentioning earlier in regards to 80s/90s gaming was stuff like NES, SNES, and Genesis games generally running great. Instances of slowdown here and there, some games worse than others, but most games just ran so smoothly. Though I've seen videos of their PAL counterparts running something like 15% slower lol. Weird af seeing Sonic like that. Don't know if that was your experience.

Just odd seeing a lot of gamers recently acting as if 60fps is some spoiled new shit we're asking for like 4k or RT. And it's like nah. Classic consoles, arcades, and gaming PCs were offering great performance way back when. And even in gen 6 we had tons of great performing games until the wack resolution chase of gen 7.

Sharpen + 100.

Contrast set to max.

Specular value cranked.

What is exposure even.

Nude cartoon models rocking DDDs.

Now we're gaming. Wonder whatever happened to that Dragonsomethingsomething guy.

@ConanTheStoner: Prob games was playing as well. Not like now where running folk running around 500+ Steam games with a "whatever" attitude.

Get a Genesis or MS, 4-5 games mammy and daddy would pick out. And they'd probably just go what with had the nicest box cover or cheapest. Or the pack in game.

Like this master-peez.

Guess if you're a Nintendo lad the likelihood of a better game was also more guaranteed. But UK wise Sega was king and it did have its fair share of garbo.

A lot of the games on MS/GG were ports of Genesis games. Which amounted to watching your system have a heart-attack.