[EG] The case for 30fps PC gaming

[digitaldurandal]

While visually, that may be true, it is not true when it comes to latency, and mouse responsiveness. 30 FPS, with a mouse, is not acceptable to many if not most. With a controller, you don't have the same type of connective feel that you get with a mouse, so the latency isn't really felt. But many gamers, myself included, get simulator sickness (nausea, headaches or eye strain) if in 1st person view with a mouse and 30 FPS. Others just feel like something is sluggish and wrong. I have meet many people with the same problem, most of which didn't know that they could solve that issue with 60+ FPS, so they avoid those types of games, or are keyboard turners in games like WoW, as the keyboard is much like a joystick in that it disguises the latency.

I very much agree, I can tell a small input lag at around <40fps. It drives me crazy, and in some games even with vsync at 60 fps solid I notice it (L4D even with triple buffering.)

 

[Flapdrol1337]

30 fps is just awful with a mouse, with a controller it'll look a lot more fluent, but still pretty stuttery.

I was experimenting with my CRT, and found that a 100 ingame fps limit, 100 hz screen, vsync, pre rendered frames to 1 (minimum) and scaling to display/no scaling was pretty much perfect. Sometimes the screen reverted to 60hz, felt pretty laggy.

 

[gradoman]

The problem is when dev's think it is ok to place 30 FPS caps on a game and ignore those who want/need more than 60 FPS. There are a few examples of this out there, and I'm starting to see more of it.

Of course that's nonsense and I totally agree that there should be no limitation. For example, I had to go edit some files to allow for more than 30FPS in Killer is Dead. Why put in some arbitrary limitation like that? Game works just fine at 60+ and is really, really deliciously smooth. Or, for instance, MGS Rising -- limited to 1080p... That sort of thing is just so frustrating.

 

[exar333]

because 98% of folks cannot comprehend that basic concept/flaw. the reason for demanding high fps is due to poor frame variances.

"if" the frames are "delivered evenly" (rarely ever the case). 30fps is typically acceptable (as proven by consoles) and 60fps is near fluid.

You may have low expectations, but other do not (myself included). 30fps is for watching movies, NOT playing games. 30fps wasn't 'good enough' in 3D games in the 90s, it wasn't 'good enough' 10 years ago, and it still isn't 'good enough'. Some games might be OK with 30fps, but any first-person shooter-type, using a K/M, is not very enjoyable at 30fps...

The ONLY reason we are talking about it is because consoles have weak GPUs and the devs are apologists and console companies are the hand that feeds them. Understandable, but still disappointing.

 

[NTMBK]

You may have low expectations, but other do not (myself included). 30fps is for watching movies, NOT playing games. 30fps wasn't 'good enough' in 3D games in the 90s, it wasn't 'good enough' 10 years ago, and it still isn't 'good enough'. Some games might be OK with 30fps, but any first-person shooter-type, using a K/M, is not very enjoyable at 30fps...

The ONLY reason we are talking about it is because consoles have weak GPUs and the devs are apologists and console companies are the hand that feeds them. Understandable, but still disappointing.

30fps may NOT be playing games for you, but not for everybody! Plenty of people enjoy 30fps games just fine. The fact that we can easily lock framerate to 30 does not prevent you from cranking it up to 120. Huzzah for PC flexibility. :thumbsup:

As for the whole "oh the consoles are limiting us to 30fps" argument... I don't buy it. You know what would happen if the consoles were twice as powerful? Devs would add twice as much eye candy, and bring the framerate back down to 30- because 30fps sells just fine to most console gamers. Clearly that isn't an acceptable framerate to yourself, hence your choice of gaming rig and settings, but it's been a consistent target framerate since the PS2 and XBox days. Heck, Halo 2 was only 30fps on the XBox, and it was insanely successful and launched the entire genre of online console shooters. Throwing more horsepower at consoles with each generation has not brought 60fps, it has brought higher image quality.

But this is why we play on a platform where we get to make our own choices!

 

[ShintaiDK]

It would help if input could be decoupled from FPS.

 

[Subyman]

Regression in graphics, that's great. How any company can spin 30fps as a good thing is beyond me. A few years ago 60fps was all the rage and advertised all over COD and racing games, now we are all good at 30fps.

Sorry, but Mordor looked stunning at 100+fps on my Swift. Smooth as butter too. Ubisoft just wanted to shove too many objects into the world and even with the 30fps cap they had melted faces and broken AI. Ubi is the problem, not the FPS.

 

[gradoman]

Regression in graphics, that's great. How any company can spin 30fps as a good thing is beyond me. A few years ago 60fps was all the rage and advertised all over COD and racing games, now we are all good at 30fps.

Sorry, but Mordor looked stunning at 100+fps on my Swift. Smooth as butter too. Ubisoft just wanted to shove too many objects into the world and even with the 30fps cap they had melted faces and broken AI. Ubi is the problem, not the FPS.

No one is trying to take that away, except, perhaps, Ubisoft. The article is making a case for the reason to cap it at 30FPS. Not that there will be regression. You all really should read the article before commenting. Even if you just read the first three paragraphs.

 

[bystander36]

30fps may NOT be playing games for you, but not for everybody! Plenty of people enjoy 30fps games just fine. The fact that we can easily lock framerate to 30 does not prevent you from cranking it up to 120. Huzzah for PC flexibility. :thumbsup:

As for the whole "oh the consoles are limiting us to 30fps" argument... I don't buy it. You know what would happen if the consoles were twice as powerful? Devs would add twice as much eye candy, and bring the framerate back down to 30- because 30fps sells just fine to most console gamers. Clearly that isn't an acceptable framerate to yourself, hence your choice of gaming rig and settings, but it's been a consistent target framerate since the PS2 and XBox days. Heck, Halo 2 was only 30fps on the XBox, and it was insanely successful and launched the entire genre of online console shooters. Throwing more horsepower at consoles with each generation has not brought 60fps, it has brought higher image quality.

But this is why we play on a platform where we get to make our own choices!

It may be easier to sell something that looks better but feels choppy, than something that doesn't look as good, but feels better. When you market a game, it is done on video and it disguises the low FPS.

And it has been repeated, control/joystick/keyboard movement helps disguise the problems of 30 FPS latency. Consoles do not use mice. It is much easier to get away with 30 FPS on consoles because of their input device. And no, most PC users do not want to use console controllers on their PC.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Why all the Ubisoft hate? They are far from the only company doing it.

 

[NTMBK]

Why all the Ubisoft hate? They are far from the only company doing it.

They're the one all the cool kids are hating on this week. Last week it was EA. Probably be Deep Silver or something next week.

 

[gradoman]

Why all the Ubisoft hate? They are far from the only company doing it.

They're the only ones I've heard actually making a claim that 30FPS is more cinematic.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/ga...-industry-is-dropping-60-fps-standard-1268241

Of course EA makes those weird decisions like in NFS Rivals (locked at 30FPS) or DA:I (cutscene locked at 30FPS), but at least I don't hear them saying that it's more cinematic. Other companies have done it, but Ubisoft is pretty much going full retard with every single major release. Taken a look at The Crew? Ugh.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They're the only ones I've heard actually making a claim that 30FPS is more cinematic.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/ga...-industry-is-dropping-60-fps-standard-1268241

Of course EA makes those weird decisions like in NFS Rivals (locked at 30FPS) or DA:I (cutscene locked at 30FPS), but at least I don't hear them saying that it's more cinematic. Other companies have done it, but Ubisoft is pretty much going full retard with every single major release. Taken a look at The Crew? Ugh.

What about all the other lame excuses from all the other companies? The 2.35:1 ratio and black bars is my personal favourite.

And the 30FPS is mainly for consoles. You do know a lot of games run 30FPS there right? Ubisoft isnt any different than anyone else. Its also what they have to work with due to the crappy console hardware.

The Crew isnt locked to 30FPS on the PC. Yes the beta was, the retail isnt.

 

[exar333]

30fps may NOT be playing games for you, but not for everybody! Plenty of people enjoy 30fps games just fine. The fact that we can easily lock framerate to 30 does not prevent you from cranking it up to 120. Huzzah for PC flexibility. :thumbsup:

As for the whole "oh the consoles are limiting us to 30fps" argument... I don't buy it. You know what would happen if the consoles were twice as powerful? Devs would add twice as much eye candy, and bring the framerate back down to 30- because 30fps sells just fine to most console gamers. Clearly that isn't an acceptable framerate to yourself, hence your choice of gaming rig and settings, but it's been a consistent target framerate since the PS2 and XBox days. Heck, Halo 2 was only 30fps on the XBox, and it was insanely successful and launched the entire genre of online console shooters. Throwing more horsepower at consoles with each generation has not brought 60fps, it has brought higher image quality.

But this is why we play on a platform where we get to make our own choices!

I don't buy it for a second. Take a look at this and tell me it isn't intentional:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/the-evil-within-pc-seems-to-be-locked-at-30fps.html

Excerpt:

What's the status on the game's framerate and aspect ratio?

Shinji Mikami and the team at Tango designed The Evil Within to be played at 30fps and to utilize an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 for all platforms. The team has worked the last four years perfecting the game experience with these settings in mind. For PC players, we’ll provide debug commands on how you can alter the framerate and aspect ratio, but these commands and changes are not recommended or supported and we suggest everyone play the game as it was designed and intended for the best experience.

Does the game support 4K resolution?

Yes. The engine can go even higher if you’ve got a monitor and video card that supports it.

These two statements are outright in opposition to one another. It was a calculated effort to limit to 30fps, but they couldn't just not support 4k resolution. The answer to the second questions SHOULD have been applied to the first as well. 'If you have the hw...'. Instead, artificial cap to make the consoles run on-par. Sad.

 

[gradoman]

What about all the other lame excuses from all the other companies? The 2.35:1 ratio and black bars is my personal favourite.

And the 30FPS is mainly for consoles. You do know a lot of games run 30FPS there right? Ubisoft isnt any different than anyone else. Its also what they have to work with due to the crappy console hardware.

The Crew isnt locked to 30FPS on the PC. Yes the beta was, the retail isnt.

Sure thing, you're right and I am wrong. I can't recall all the nonsensical decisions made in every game released. I was basing my opinion of The Crew on the beta I played. And I did play the Evil Within's demo, but the whole resolution and FPS thing was patched by the time that demo came out. Not that it made a huge difference cause oh my god, the game was stuttery and the FOV was very narrow with no way to change it.

You guys asked why Ubisoft is getting picked on, well, I tried best to answer. They've release quite a number of big titles that have been panned for technical issues around the world and they've got the gall to try to justify it instead of just saying, "Our bad, we'll not do that again." AND they add their DRM to every game, even those games on Steam, where you must sign up for their service. Their limited thinking goes back quite a ways and hasn't really changed -- if you take a look at some of their older releases. There are plenty of examples of stupidity, but they are really the worst at this moment.

I'm not saying any one company is better than another, lol. Except for maybe CD Red Projekt.

We're getting way off topic though, lol. I still think optional frame rate caps are fine. I still think the more options, typically, the better.

 

[Madpacket]

30 FPS cap would help APU's quite a lot which I'm fond of using in HTPC's. The 30 FPS cap is mostly okay with game engines that decouple the mouse / keyboard input from the framerates. This isn't hard to do but the engine developer needs to implement it.

Example:
http://www.ogre3d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=68891

This is why some games at 30 FPS feel terrible while others play just fine.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

because 98% of folks cannot comprehend that basic concept/flaw. the reason for demanding high fps is due to poor frame variances.

"if" the frames are "delivered evenly" (rarely ever the case). 30fps is typically acceptable (as proven by consoles) and 60fps is near fluid.

This is complete and total nonsense.

There is noticeable benefit between 30fps delivered at a perfect frame interval and 60fps delivered at a perfect interval, and many of us perceive a similar (although reduced) benefit from going from 60fps to 120fps, again even if they're perfectly spaced, and even greater benefit above 120fps (some gamers have 144hz monitors, I have an old CRT that handles ~240hz at lower resolutions)

I reject the notion that it's "acceptable" because for a lot of console gamers it's all they ever know, they're not given a choice to decide between frame time, vsync, frame rate and graphical settings they have to accept what they're given which is usually an extremely sub-par frame rate and not having anything better to compare it with gives them a false impression that this is all there is. Very few developers strive for 60fps on the consoles, the only notable AAA developer to do so from the last generation was Carmack on Rage, and he had to fight his entire development team tooth and nail to sacrifice visuals to achieve this.

Ignorance isn't an excuse, if your preference is you're happy to trade off some FPS for better visuals then that's fine, that's subjective. But to suggest that this is somehow "acceptable" is just rubbish, I couldn't disagree with this more strongly.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I was messing with my HTPC in the other room last night and was trying to play BL2 at 1080p at 60fps on the LCD TV (60Hz). That PC is an i3-2100, HD7750, 4GB RAM. Nothing fancy. With all options maxed, BL2 with max settings was not stable and the frame rate dipped below 60fps often, causing inconsistent visuals. It was very distracting. I changed the setting to lock to 30fps and the dips disappeared, mouse/controller lag increases slightly, but I get to keep the better visuals while maintaining a constant framerate that is not distracting.

The alternative is to drop the resolution and settings to low/medium and get a solid 60fps... but then why wouldn't I just buy a PS4 or Xbone?

 

[KingFatty]

You can always use motion blur to hide the low framerates:

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Also, on this HTML5 demo page, the 15 FPS thing is noticeably bad, the but the 30 FPS is not terrible:

http://boallen.com/fps-compare-html5.html

 

[bystander36]

I was messing with my HTPC in the other room last night and was trying to play BL2 at 1080p at 60fps on the LCD TV (60Hz). That PC is an i3-2100, HD7750, 4GB RAM. Nothing fancy. With all options maxed, BL2 with max settings was not stable and the frame rate dipped below 60fps often, causing inconsistent visuals. It was very distracting. I changed the setting to lock to 30fps and the dips disappeared, mouse/controller lag increases slightly, but I get to keep the better visuals while maintaining a constant framerate that is not distracting.

The alternative is to drop the resolution and settings to low/medium and get a solid 60fps... but then why wouldn't I just buy a PS4 or Xbone?

I'm curious, was it a controller or a mouse you were using? You might find a controllers lag to increase slightly, but I find it very hard to believe the mouse felt like lag was only slightly increased.

 

[bystander36]

You can always use motion blur to hide the low framerates:

Also, on this HTML5 demo page, the 15 FPS thing is noticeably bad, the but the 30 FPS is not terrible:

http://boallen.com/fps-compare-html5.html

I don't get it. If I click on the 15 FPS one, it says it is running at 30 FPS. If I click on the 30 FPS one, it says it is running at 60 FPS.

A big part of what is acceptable when gaming at any given FPS, is the amount the screen changes. That test has a box that moves fairly slowly and not very far, making lower FPS more acceptable. The other test you showed is also a little limited by it's default setting, as most games about watching a single object move across the screen like that. Watching your entire view move is what we see, and especially in 1st person view, that is why low FPS looks bad, but IMO, it is the latency that kills it the most.

 

[boozzer]

the writer of the article forgot that gamers with @#$% pcs already has the low setting(lowest if you prefer) he said it isn't an excuse, but the entire article is an excuse.

 

[UaVaj]

This is complete and total nonsense.

There is noticeable benefit between 30fps delivered at a perfect frame interval and 60fps delivered at a perfect interval, and many of us perceive a similar (although reduced) benefit from going from 60fps to 120fps, again even if they're perfectly spaced, and even greater benefit above 120fps (some gamers have 144hz monitors, I have an old CRT that handles ~240hz at lower resolutions)

I reject the notion that it's "acceptable" because for a lot of console gamers it's all they ever know, they're not given a choice to decide between frame time, vsync, frame rate and graphical settings they have to accept what they're given which is usually an extremely sub-par frame rate and not having anything better to compare it with gives them a false impression that this is all there is. Very few developers strive for 60fps on the consoles, the only notable AAA developer to do so from the last generation was Carmack on Rage, and he had to fight his entire development team tooth and nail to sacrifice visuals to achieve this.

Ignorance isn't an excuse, if your preference is you're happy to trade off some FPS for better visuals then that's fine, that's subjective. But to suggest that this is somehow "acceptable" is just rubbish, I couldn't disagree with this more strongly.

as proven by kingfatty link. 30fps "can" be acceptable.
http://boallen.com/fps-compare-html5.html

so with "even" frame delivery
30fps to 60fps can be perceptible to some.
however
beyond 60fps, you and your kind are the exception, not the norm.

to add insult to injury. many of these gamer's hardware are not up to par.
a gpu too weak
or
a resolution too big given their gpu
or
both
on top of this.
a cpu that is not capable of pushing such gpu.

add all these decencies together and you can understand why developers want to "lock" it at 30 frame even delivery. this will reduce the complaints and improve overall experience.





for the few of "us" that do sports 1) the fastest gaming cpu and 2) quad crossfire/sli. we do like the option to crank up the eye candy and frames.

 

[bystander36]

as proven by kingfatty link. 30fps "can" be acceptable.
http://boallen.com/fps-compare-html5.html

so with "even" frame delivery
30fps to 60fps can be perceptible to some.
however
beyond 60fps, you and your kind are the exception, not the norm.

to add insult to injury. many of these gamer's hardware are not up to par.
a gpu too weak
or
a resolution too big given their gpu
or
both
on top of this.
a cpu that is not capable of pushing such gpu.

add all these decencies together and you can understand why developers want to "lock" it at 30 frame even delivery. this will reduce the complaints and improve overall experience.





for the few of "us" that do sports 1) the fastest gaming cpu and 2) quad crossfire/sli. we do like the option to crank up the eye candy and frames.

It's fine that the "option" is there, but don't kid yourself, that test is not representative of most games. Having a single small object moving slowly up and down is not remotely as choppy as moving your whole screen side to side tracking a target, or just moving around in a wide open world.

Some types of games would be fine at 30 FPS, many, probably most the games we tend to talk about on here, don't work so well.

Edit: Speaking of which, the further something moves over a period of time, the more FPS you need to keep it smooth, which I just realized is actually increased the larger your monitor size is, assuming the sitting distance doesn't change.

Playing on a 17" monitor allows for lower FPS, as things are not moving as far across the screen. Getting a 30" monitor, on the other hand, may require higher FPS to feel smooth.

 

[NTMBK]

the writer of the article forgot that gamers with @#$% pcs already has the low setting(lowest if you prefer) he said it isn't an excuse, but the entire article is an excuse.

That is one option, yes. The article was just bringing attention to an alternative that some gamers may like to try. Some people value 60fps more than IQ, some prefer 30fps with more eye candy. It's not a religious war, it is possible for both to happily coexist