60 Frames on Past Consoles.

TomRL

Newcomer
Am I the only one that felt like last generation games had a chugging feeling. Was there something about the hardware of the last generation that made it more difficult to achieve than this generation? Naughty Dog aiming for a 60fps game last generation would have been a complete shock.

Is there something a bout the ratio of cpu power to gpu power that makes a difference?

I had way more to say/ask on this issue but it's all gone.
 
Ye Olde consoles that used sprites saw no benefit on the graphics chip from dropping to 30, and so were normally 60, but on all the 3D systems as Shifty says it's just a choice.

Some 32x, early Saturn and N64 games actually ran at 20 fps!

One thing that I think may affect feel these days in the number of frames buffered in the rendering and display pipeline. For example a 30hz frame that's double buffered on the cpu side, that's then rendered double buffered at 30 hz, with perhaps a final frame of buffering for post processing back on CPU, can lead to many frames of input lag. Add one or two or three frames of input lag on the typical lcd/plasma television (new to last gen, previously we had instant response crt) and you've got a 30 fps game with the response of 150+ ms.

Try plugging a Megadrive/SNES/Neo Geo into a crt and see how good it feels. Less than 33 ms from button press to retina in many cases, I'd guess.
 
Try plugging a Megadrive/SNES/Neo Geo into a crt and see how good it feels. Less than 33 ms from button press to retina in many cases, I'd guess.

Happy days. I recently picked up a pair of Gameboy Micros on Ebay for my boys, so I've been playing through some classics on those. Some of those games are immensely fun (oh, going a bit off-topic)... and all refresh at a decent rate. ;)
 
Try plugging a Megadrive/SNES/Neo Geo into a crt and see how good it feels. Less than 33 ms from button press to retina in many cases, I'd guess.

No need to go that far : just play a Nintendo DS, it will probably be the last console built with an emphasis on a 60 hz refresh rate ;)
 
Ye Olde consoles that used sprites saw no benefit on the graphics chip from dropping to 30, and so were normally 60, but on all the 3D systems as Shifty says it's just a choice.

Some 32x, early Saturn and N64 games actually ran at 20 fps!

One thing that I think may affect feel these days in the number of frames buffered in the rendering and display pipeline. For example a 30hz frame that's double buffered on the cpu side, that's then rendered double buffered at 30 hz, with perhaps a final frame of buffering for post processing back on CPU, can lead to many frames of input lag. Add one or two or three frames of input lag on the typical lcd/plasma television (new to last gen, previously we had instant response crt) and you've got a 30 fps game with the response of 150+ ms.

Try plugging a Megadrive/SNES/Neo Geo into a crt and see how good it feels. Less than 33 ms from button press to retina in many cases, I'd guess.
Mmmm....those 2D consoles felt super responsive. I miss those games. Gaming experience was almost never hindered by choppy unstable framerates.
The upper smoothness of arcade games is one of the reasons why during the 32 bit era gamers continued to visit the arcades.
The first years of the DC and PS2 brought that experience to our homes. We had a plethora of games that run at 60fps. Even the AAA games targeted both impressive visuals and great framerates. The framerate at that time I think was probably thought as a next gen check box that had to be naturally ticked. 60fps was probably as self-explanatory as next gen visuals. It was part of the next step.

The PS2 had a plethora of 60fps games of which many were triple A games:
DMC (I believe the NTSC version was 60fps?)
The Bouncer
ZOE 1 and 2
Jack and Daxter series
Rachet and Clank series
Ace Combat
MGS2
Extreme G
Wipeout
Gran Turismo series
Dark Cloud
SSX( not very sure?)
Airblade
WRC (I think?)


I kind of miss the arcade smoothness in home consoles.
 
Perhaps the rise of PC gaming has encouraged developers to push more visuals into each frame, thus reducing framerate to accommodate? With the 60fps consoles, PCs were their own animal. They didn't play fast and smooth action games but focussed more on PC-centric games, so FPS and RTS and space shooters. The flexible PC hardware meant targeting a framerate wasn't possible, so devs just created the games and let the users run them at whatever speed they could. With PS360, games moved to PC cross-platform in a big way. The visuals had to be competitive with the PC (at least in the eyes of the devs) and so they opted for the lower framerate as a default.
 
Are you sure about that list?? I might be wrong but I can vaguely remember that if those really were 60fps games, then they were most definitely not all locked and steady at 60fps...
 
Another interpretation is that 3D games have far wider variance than 2D, so targeting 60fps was impractical unless you went with very simple visuals that wouldn't tax the system too much so there's plenty of headway in the busy sections, or you had a very controlled environment where 3D workload couldn't vary much. There were certainly a lot of <60fps games on PS1 and 2. Or games with horrific tearing like GOW.
 
Definitely a choice for the developer. Seeing as how 60fps is twice as taxing on the hardware as 30fps, its typical for the developer to use those resources for a prettier game at 30fps instead of a 60fps. Like Function mentioned above, many N64 games capped the framerate lower than 30fps, I think I remember Mario 64 being 24fps, and there were definitely some dips here and there. Whats impressive is when you have a 60fps game that looks as good as anything else on the console. The Metroid Prime games managed this on Gamecube and Wii.
 
I've never played as many 60fps games as those on Nintendo machines. Hate to bring it up again, but Mario 3D World looks incredible and at 60hz, stands up against any PS4 game I own.
 
I've never played as many 60fps games as those on Nintendo machines. Hate to bring it up again, but Mario 3D World looks incredible and at 60hz, stands up against any PS4 game I own.

Yea, Nintendo is an incredible in that regard. Regardless if their hardware is weak compared to the competition, that doesn't stop their artist from creating amazing looking games. They make a lot of smart choices. So regardless if they are avoiding using a lot of high end resource demanding techniques, they manage to have a finished product that look lovely on screen.
 
Nintendo 'cheat' somewhat and avoid realistic graphics though. If your not gunning for realism, you can take all sorts of 'short-cuts' to make your art less demanding. eg. Rim lighting faked in a shader instead of calculating it per light. It works for Nintendo because they stick to game styles that work with non-realistic renderers, but that's clearly not an option for COD, Forza/Driveclub, AC, and many other core games. If we look at games that go for a simpler like, a la Nintendo, they can hit great framerates too. eg. Ubiart engine games.
 
Nintendo 'cheat' somewhat and avoid realistic graphics though. If your not gunning for realism, you can take all sorts of 'short-cuts' to make your art less demanding. eg. Rim lighting faked in a shader instead of calculating it per light. It works for Nintendo because they stick to game styles that work with non-realistic renderers, but that's clearly not an option for COD, Forza/Driveclub, AC, and many other core games. If we look at games that go for a simpler like, a la Nintendo, they can hit great framerates too. eg. Ubiart engine games.
That may be true (except for the Ubiart bit, those really don't compare to Mario 3D World), but it goes to show that the rush to realism isn't always the best method. Especially if you're able to create games that look beautiful because they're colourful and not using the latest rendering techniques.

I think Sunset Overdrive could have employed similar rendering tricks that Nintendo do and hit that magical 60hz. It's a shame they didn't.
 
The insane thing is that we're actually referring to basic stylized shading choices as "short-cuts" and "tricks."

Everything in graphics is short-cuts and tricks. If it wasn't, then it would be running as Hours per Frame and not Frames per Second.
 
The insane thing is that we're actually referring to basic stylized shading choices as "short-cuts" and "tricks."
It's not just style, but how those styles allow one to avoid computationally heavy solution. Yes, all realtime graphics is cheats and tricks, but some are far further removed from 'reality' than others. eg. Calculating the per-pixel lighting on a surface is more realistic than calculating and LERPing a few vertex values. Calculating a normal map to give the impression of surface texture is less demanding than either a very detailed model or a POM-shaded surface. Calculating a volumetric approximation of global illumination and contact shadows is more demanding than sticking a dark, round spot under every character, especially if you design your characters as roundish to help the authenticity of the round-dot shadows.

The right choice of style affords one a freedom to use less demanding cheats.
 
It's interesting to compare gran turismo, I think 4 was as impressive as 6 or more for the time, and had more solid 60fps?
 
That may be true (except for the Ubiart bit, those really don't compare to Mario 3D World), but it goes to show that the rush to realism isn't always the best method. Especially if you're able to create games that look beautiful because they're colourful and not using the latest rendering techniques.

I think Sunset Overdrive could have employed similar rendering tricks that Nintendo do and hit that magical 60hz. It's a shame they didn't.
But it is not necessarily a "rush" to realism. Its sometimes the only option to achieve the visuals that the consumer would expect. Its not like realistic games shouldnt have been made or they should have applied a less realistic approach. What other tricks could have Naughty Dog put in use for Uncharted or LoU? Or EA for Battlefield 4 etc?

Also I am pretty sure that Insomniac employed the best shortcuts where allowed for SO.
Nintendo's visuals are kind of overrated. They look beautiful but we are also much more tolerant and receptive because we know the capabilities of the hardware and the scope of the games. How many open world Mario games have we seen the past years that try to reach the scope of Mario 64? Large immersive open world attempts by Nintendo either dont hit the 30fps mark or they lack the visual immersion of other games or they go with a very very distinctive style that wouldnt fit what other devs want to produce.
 
Back
Top