60fps discussion in 2018

[eastyy]

Am i correct in thinking though that controls are more precise on a 60fps frame rate though, i would assume if it is refreshing twice as fast that would be the same with the controls to.


Though i have noticed in PC gaming can have 100fps + but i do notice frame drops and stutters quite a bit (even with g sync even with lower frame rate games......g-sync i really regret getting )

[Asura]

Am i correct in thinking though that controls are more precise on a 60fps frame rate though, i would assume if it is refreshing twice as fast that would be the same with the controls to.

This is a matter of debate.

So, to give some idea of how this works "behind the scenes", in years past framerate was very closely tied to responsiveness. This is one of the reasons that old-school 2D games tend to run at 60fps (just it didn't always look that way as obviously sprite animation doesn't work the same way as 3D animation). This is why slowdown on 2D games could be so catastrophic as it had complex effects. This also why if you forcibly run an older game at a higher fps, it'll usually play faster, and that ties into the whole PAL/NTSC problem which is well-known to Bordersdown.

Now, today, in theory, framerate and all the vital functions of a game are uncoupled. Physics, in particular in games has what you could think of as a "fixed timestep", i.e. a constant update rate which does not change and can run many times over a single frame. This is important because you might want physics to be able to deal with things that are very fast, such as bullets in a shooting game or fast-moving cars in a racing game.

As a sidenote, this is why bullet weapons in old FPS games worked differently - the ones where when you fired the bullet, it immediately impacted where you were aiming, even if that point was a mile away. These weapons were called "hit-scan" and it was because simulating objects at those speeds was too unreliable.

This also applies to things like controls and AI logic. So in old-school games, the game would process, draw a frame, process, draw a frame... Whereas today, the game is processing everything and drawing the visuals as separate things, often on different "threads" in the case of multicore processors. The full explanation for why this has changed is quite technical, but ultimately it comes down to "forwards compatibility", or the desire to write software that doesn't screw up as soon as you run it on a faster machine (this is one of the reasons that Win95 era PC games can be difficult to run on modern computers).

A landmark for this was Max Payne - the first one. This is because it represented how games had uncoupled their "real-time", framerate-based update and instead used a "simulation time" update, which could be slowed down or sped up at-will to create the Matrix-esque shootdodge effects that the game was famous for. This wasn't "new" when Max Payne did it, but it was the first game to really go to town on playing with that system as a feature.

This means that for a racing game, again in theory, something like Havok physics should make it run the same way at 10fps as it does at 100fps, save of course for how the framerate looks. However, developers know that while this is logically true it actually isn't true, and that extreme differences in framerate do impact gameplay. The user's experience of a game is very grounded in what they can see and how they can react to it, which is understandable, but it's also the HCI-related issue that we, as humans, need to see something, process it mentally, make a gesture to react and actually perform that gesture; so on a certain level, the problem with a low FPS isn't what the framerate is like now but rather how it was around 260ms ago.

In terms of how this feels in-game, this is most noticeable when rotating the camera, as everything onscreen is in flux. This is the fastest way that I can tell the difference if I play a game; I can immediately tell if a game is running at 15, 30, 60, 90 or >120fps if I can rotate the camera, but that's because I play games at high framerates a great deal.

The reason it's a matter of debate is that some developers (usually those selling physics engines) that their engine does not suffer from this problem; all lies from my perspective, as someone who has seen many such promises and played the resultant games, so I know how it feels to the end-user. The problem is that framerate is subjective so it can be difficult to be objective about this.

[randombs]

I can't remember the game but it was 30fps and I think it was a racer. The developer was saying they poll the controller at 60 or 120Hz for more responsive controls despite the frame rate.

But even if the game is polling at a high frequency, the onscreen fps affect the 'responsiveness' the player feels because their own reactions are tied to the information they see(and how quickly that information is updated)?

[Team Andromeda]

I can't remember the game but it was 30fps and I think it was a racer. The developer was saying they poll the controller at 60 or 120Hz for more responsive controls despite the frame rate.

That was the original Forza . And speaking of racers or 60 fps it doesn't always mean its controls better, I know of no-one how had issues with the controls in Wave Race 64 despite the game being sup par 30 fps and its not like 60 fps made Sonic 06 control any better lol

[Neon Ignition]

30fps is definitely perfectly good for racers and stuff like third person action games like Uncharted or Horizon. Though I'd struggle to think of a racer that I'd later played on PC at 60fps and it wasn't a much superior experience to playing it at 30fps.

[EvilBoris]

I can't remember the game but it was 30fps and I think it was a racer. The developer was saying they poll the controller at 60 or 120Hz for more responsive controls despite the frame rate.

But even if the game is polling at a high frequency, the onscreen fps affect the 'responsiveness' the player feels because their own reactions are tied to the information they see(and how quickly that information is updated)?

Burnout Paradise

[Asura]

But even if the game is polling at a high frequency, the onscreen fps affect the 'responsiveness' the player feels because their own reactions are tied to the information they see(and how quickly that information is updated)?

Yeah, this is the debate. Some people argue it makes no difference; I personally don't agree with that one iota. I believe the difference, especially in racing games, is enormous.

I can't remember the game but it was 30fps and I think it was a racer. The developer was saying they poll the controller at 60 or 120Hz for more responsive controls despite the frame rate.

Burnout Paradise

I thought it was Forza Horizon, but it might've been said for both games. The point is that they were trying to reassure people 30fps would be OK after other games in the franchise had been 60.

30fps is definitely perfectly good for racers and stuff like third person action games like Uncharted or Horizon. Though I'd struggle to think of a racer that I'd later played on PC at 60fps and it wasn't a much superior experience to playing it at 30fps.

No offence @Superman Falls as like I said these things are subjective, but saying "30fps is perfectly good" is a bit of blanket statement.

I'll be frank; I find 30fps a difficult pill to swallow for racing games. They were 60 back on the Model-2 arcade machines; we put up with 30 on home consoles because that was the best we could reasonably expect, but to me it was always a compromise and I thought we would move towards 60 over time.

Then again, I have often not bought games because I know they're not 60 and I don't want to finance that; for instance I won't buy the recent Ratchet & Clank despite liking the franchise because they've dropped it from 60 to 30. I'm not saying games have to be 60; developers can choose whatever works for them and in this case, financially, they're right, because 60 is a big commitment for console games and even on Bordersdown there isn't universal agreement that 60 is preferable. However, I buy the products that suit me, and don't buy those that don't, so I won't buy it.

Nintendo's focus on 60 is one of the reasons I bought the WiiU and also the Switch. You mention third-person action games but I find Splatoon 1&2 really benefit from the 60fps framerate (you can see this in both games; it's 30fps in the Inkopolis front-end and 60fps in the actual matches). Splatoon is a good example here because naturally no-one wants a crap 60fps game over a good 30fps one; but that game's fluidity of movement is a big part of its identity.

Admittedly this is also one of my slight issues with "open world" games which dominate the triple-A marketplace these days. I'm a bit more forgiving of those as I'm aware of how difficult it is for them to hit a consistent framerate.

[Dogg Thang]

The PSP Wipeout games had input that was tied to the frame rate. This was a problem. Good times depended on mastering the barrel roll. But how the barrel roll input was registered was tied to where it occurred across certain frames. The problem - the frame rate wasn't consistent. So sometimes the input of the barrel roll just wouldn't register because your input didn't match the expected timing and it was sometimes unreliable.

[Neon Ignition]

With 30fps, it comes back for me to how its implemented. Playing Rise of the Tomb Raider at 60fps is a much more pleasant experience than at 30fps but if the 30fps version is the first and only option available it doesn't cross my mind during play as long as its a target that's consistently met.

Though any instance where 60fps is an option on the table I'll lean towards it which is why I held off on Destiny 2. It makes a genuinely large impact on the experience which is why PC gaming holds so much appeal where even those large open world scale games can be forced to run at 60fps too.

Forza Horizon remains a good example. I enjoyed FH, adored FH2 and the framerate cap didn't bother me. FH3 though, having been able to play that at 60fps, trying the game out on XBO at 30fps... man, it's a mess. Horrid experience though I doubt it is any different than the previous entries it's just that 60fps has transformed the experience so much it's too significant a fall in quality to enjoy it enough on console anymore.

[randombs]

I'll be frank; I find 30fps a difficult pill to swallow for racing games. They were 60 back on the Model-2 arcade machines; we put up with 30 on home consoles because that was the best we could reasonably expect, but to me it was always a compromise and I thought we would move towards 60 over time.

I have NO problems playing Saturn Sega Rally at 30fps even now but when I forced 30fps in Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast, it wasn't nice. Both were running on the same CRT TV, too. And when I say 'no problems', I don't mean that I simply tolerate it. I actually enjoy it and don't even think about it in 60fps. I have played it at 60fps on PC and on the arcade version that came out on PS2 a few years ago, but still enjoy it on the Saturn.

I wonder why...

[Asura]

I have NO problems playing Saturn Sega Rally at 30fps even now but when I forced 30fps in Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast, it wasn't nice. Both were running on the same CRT TV, too. And when I say 'no problems', I don't mean that I simply tolerate it. I actually enjoy it and don't even think about it in 60fps. I have played it at 60fps on PC and on the arcade version that came out on PS2 a few years ago, but still enjoy it on the Saturn.

I wonder why...

I think it's because you were playing a title which was built to be 30 from the ground up. The Saturn versions of Sega racing games weren't "ports" in the sense that we think of it today; in fact, software ports were very different back then. Things were still very like in [MENTION=1524]Yakumo[/MENTION]'s Battle of the Ports where different versions of the game were often completely different software in a base level.

For instance, I know that in the Saturn version of Virtual On, it's pretty much a complete remake of the original game that just used the design brief and knowledge of how the arcade version worked - but few-to-none of the actual "assets" found their way into the home game. Sega were really committed to the idea that their games should function well, like ground-up built Saturn games - though part of that is because the Saturn wasn't the most straightforward machine to develop for.

[Brad]

Paradise was 60fps graphics

[Digfox]

Am i correct in thinking though that controls are more precise on a 60fps frame rate though, i would assume if it is refreshing twice as fast that would be the same with the controls to.

Burnout Paradise

I thought it was Forza Horizon, but it might've been said for both games.

There are a number of games that use 16ms or faster updates for the control input, even where the screen is only being updated at half refresh rate (33ms for a 60hz display). Sonic Forces on the Switch is supposedly an example.

I think one of the best summaries is from the DisplayLag.com site: 'A game running at 30 FPS can sometimes process an input just as fast as a 60 FPS game, depending on how the the game engine handles inputs. In most cases though, a game running at 60 FPS will process inputs quicker than a game running at 30 FPS.'

Of course even with input being separated from the refresh rate it doesn't necessarily make the game feel more responsive or fluid. And ultimately there is an element of subjectivity as [MENTION=5941]Asura[/MENTION] states. Even with the faster input updates you are still seeing the same image for longer (and in a lot cases for different or variable times) and that means there may be that perception of 'lag'. However realistically other factors such as your displays input lag, wireless controllers and other induced delays probably have as big an impact on input lag.

As per my earlier point, what is undebatable, is that the higher the frame rate the far less noticeable drops become. I do like the fact that in console land we are starting to see more user choice around frame rate or detail (i.e. The Witcher 3 on Xbox One X, or MHW on Pro/X) which has always been the strength of PC gaming.

[nakamura]

Going back to racing games, 30fps is generally ok until you reach higher speeds or anything off road. Need for Speed Hot Pursuit really struggled here, I just couldn't focus on the horizon because it didn't update smooth enough.

Forza Horizon does a solid job of this though with decent motion blur in action.

[dataDave]

I'd like to see F-Zero GX at 144fps. It already pushes 60 to the limits.