1080p 30fps VS 720p 60 fps - The 2012 poll

[(((interference)))]

I picked I trust the devs - though I agree they tend to go for eye candy over stable performance.

I think it really depends on the title, racing games, fighters, sports games, COD etc work better with 720p60 wheras slower paced games like RPGs (Skyrim, Mass Effect etc) would benefit from the greater perceived detail at 1080p30.

Are the processing requirements pretty similar if not identical between 1080p30 and 720p60? (ie for one you have 2x the time to draw 2x the pixels wheras for the other it's the opposite).

 

[Acert93]

I'd vote 1080p 30fps for all games because it means devs would target texture resolution, etc for 1080p, then I could run the same game on my pc at 60fps anyways with 1080p assets. In other words 1080p 30fps for all console games means I could get what I really want, which is 1080p at 60fps for everything on my pc. So here's hoping for 1080p 30fps console games

Another vote for 1080p30

"PC gamers betrayed us. Wicked. Tricksy, False. We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both! And then we take the precious console games back to 1080p60."

-- Golem, the console gamer

 

[Arwin]

It's "we takes" and "gameses", but otherwise I totally agree with you.

 

[Rodéric]

Where's the 1080p@120Hz ? I want 60Hz per eye

(We'll most likely end up with whatever is easier to sell, so most likely prettier even if lower res & only 30Hz)

 

[function]

I'd vote 1080p 30fps for all games because it means devs would target texture resolution, etc for 1080p, then I could run the same game on my pc at 60fps anyways with 1080p assets. In other words 1080p 30fps for all console games means I could get what I really want, which is 1080p at 60fps for everything on my pc.

The thread tags are for people like you, sunshine!

"PC gamers betrayed us. Wicked. Tricksy, False. We ought to wring his filthy little neck. Kill him! Kill him! Kill them both! And then we take the precious console games back to 1080p60."

-- Golem, the console gamer

Yes! They're already sat in the lifeboats waiting for next gen gaming to hit the iceberg of 30 fps.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd like to see the results if the third option didn't exist, to identify which people really prefer.

 

[manux]

A shame there wasn't 3d option on the output resolutions. I would have been curious to know If there people ready to jump from 2d bandwagon. Hobbit in imax 3d hfr was quite amazing from immersion point of view.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

A shame there wasn't 3d option on the output resolutions. I would have been curious to know If there people ready to jump from 2d bandwagon. Hobbit in imax 3d hfr was quite amazing from immersion point of view.

I didn't watch it in an imax cinema but the 3D HFR really does make a large difference from standard passive 3D.
It felt like 3D done right.

I'd give up a bit on resolution to get 3D. Even more because 720p @ 30FPS for each eye should give a perception of higher sharpness.

 

[tuna]

I'd give up a bit on resolution to get 3D. Even more because 720p @ 30FPS for each eye should give a perception of higher sharpness.

I think Motorstom 3 feels much sharper in 2D than the 720p30 3d version.But that might not be full 720p?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

60 FPS all the way, and I don't even care what the resolution is.

I'd take 60 FPS at 540p over 1080p at 30 FPS even. For any game with any action relying on somewhat timely response from the gamer.

Something like an adventure game where you can just sit and stare at the same thing for minutes on end while deciding what to do...well, then it wouldn't matter.

But for anything with some action and even remotely precise controls? 60 FPS. Hell, i'd take 320p 60 FPS for a fast action game over 1080p 30 FPS.

On PC, I'm more than happy to start dialing down the eye candy in order to hit smooth framerates in action games.

In slow paced games (turn based strategy, turn based RPG, adventure games, etc.) then I don't mind cranking up the eye candy even if it means potentially dropping down to sub 20 fps at times. But for action games. Smoothness is greater than eye candy.

That's why I absolutely hate console ports on PC that don't give many graphical options.

Regards,
SB

 

[Phil]

This may be taking this topic a bit too far, seeing that it is a poll, but I think the poll doesn't ask the right question.

Yes, I think we all agree that some games don't require 60fps. Although it is arguable which games do deserve 60fps, I think we can all agree that some basic games that have little to no motion don't require 60fps.

I think the proper question is -

"Would it be beneficial to force all games to target 60fps for gaming in general? - Yes / No".

I think the question to that question is yes, regardless if you consider yourself a hardcore gamer or just your average joe that plays the occasional game and has absolutely no idea what framerate is.

I think, it would be better for the entire industry, if 60fps was the norm. Why? Because then everyone, regadless what type of game, targets this framerate and has to compete with everyone on a more or less level playing field. You won't have a publisher/developer target 30 fps anymore to try to get more sales based off better screens. Because you're taking that choice away from them.

It may be a waste of resources for those games that don't really benefit from 60fps, but then again - those games have a performance advantage anyway, if they don't rely on fast paced motion, so can use that extra power for their graphics candy anyway.

We more or less have this now anyway, just that the target framerate now is at least 30fps. IMO - the question is, if it should be an enforced 60fps or not. And I think yes, it would be beneficial. If everyone sticks to this, how can this be bad?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

We more or less have this now anyway, just that the target framerate now is at least 30fps. IMO - the question is, if it should be an enforced 60fps or not. And I think yes, it would be beneficial. If everyone sticks to this, how can this be bad?

It'd be really bad to force the developers on framerates that aren't needed for a certain genre. They'd have to cut on image quality just to contribute to the "fairness" of a competition that's not theirs.

Look at Heavy Rain, for example. What sense would it make to stop that game from having its great looks because the folks who make first-person shooters are cheating with the framerate?

 

[snarfbot]

i picked 1080p 30fps because theyre gonna have a ton of ram, so probably high res textures, and you would need 1080p to resolve the extra detail.

also at 1080 you can get away with post process aa, which they probably would have done anyway, and it suits the modern deferred renderers out there too.

and like what others have said, frame interpolation at the source would add minimal lag, motion blur could be done at the same time in post, boom 60fps. the average console gamer wouldnt notice the difference, id think.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

i picked 1080p 30fps because theyre gonna have a ton of ram, so probably high res textures, and you would need 1080p to resolve the extra detail.

Not really. Really well detailed textures at 540p would still likely take over 100 GB of data and still wouldn't be able to fit into the RAM of next gen machines. Although this obviously depends on the user. IE - some people somehow manage to make do with MLAA or FXAA, but I still find those to be horribly jagged compared to proper MSAA + transparency SSAA or even better RGSSAA.

Oh PC where you can have higher resolution texture packs, the quality is still quite horrible, IMO. Basically being not much better than what we've had for about a decade now. And even the highest texture packs on PC still look horrible at 1080p or 720p despite often times require a graphics card with 2+ GB of memory and taking up 3-4 GB of system memory.

In other words, texture quality will certainly get better for next gen consoles, hopefully. But 1080p won't be any better than 540p at resolving the detail.

Regards,
SB

 

[Platon]

I picked I trust the devs, no so much because I trust them, more because I don't really care, 720p at 30 fps with lots of eye candy and I am there.

If I really had too choose I would definitely go for 60 fps. Well, I am biased as I have just a 37" 720p TV, which even if it did support 1080p the size/distance to it would still most likely not really be much of an enhancement. The other thing is after playing a bit of Rage on the 360 I do understand what people mean by 60 fps and responsive, it was almost too fast for me:smile:.

i picked 1080p 30fps because theyre gonna have a ton of ram, so probably high res textures, and you would need 1080p to resolve the extra detail.

As SB pointed out, I think the problem are the resolution of the textures them selfs. 720p should suffice to show much higher res textures than we have now...

 

[Phil]

It'd be really bad to force the developers on framerates that aren't needed for a certain genre. They'd have to cut on image quality just to contribute to the "fairness" of a competition that's not theirs.

Look at Heavy Rain, for example. What sense would it make to stop that game from having its great looks because the folks who make first-person shooters are cheating with the framerate?

You really haven't given much of a reason why this is a bad idea. Cut on image quality just to contribute to the "fairness" of a competition that's not theirs isn't really an issue, because the rules would be the same for everyone - and because of that, the perception of the individual would be bound to what everyone expects to be possible running that framerate.

What we are forgeting is that we already have a more or less mandatory framerate limit - and that is 30fps, due to TVs and what people have come to expect is a decent norm. Most games these days are 30fps. And a lot of them would benefit from 60, even the example you named being Heavy Rain. It might be a slow paced game, but everytime you're walking around, you notice how lag infested the controls are. Would it benefit the game much having it at 60? Perhaps not as much as other games, but by the same argument, I can also say that going for 30fps and having better visuals isn't detrimental to the game that Heavy Rain is - at least, we're not talking about severly making it an ugly game, just reducing a bit of everything to make it run at double the framerate.

If there are no games that run at half the framerate to compare them to, you wouldn't know how much better things would look but would rather just appreciate what you have.

Imagine a bit - how much better looking games would be if developers targeted 15fps. Would we really want that?

By the same account - graphics are cleary better on PC, so why are we still playing on consoles? Because there's more to gaming than just looking at nice pictures. Because people prefer to actually sit in a living room or just simply have that "plug & play" experience that you can't get on the PC. Because of that, there is a compromise - we live with worse visuals (compared to PCs) because we prefer the different gaming environment. So why would it be bad, if we just limit our expectations to graphics a little more for the advantage of having a better framerate (that benefits controls, responsivnes, motion of the game)?

What I am suggesting only works if everyone does it. If you have developers that are allowed to go for "half the framerate" to sell their games on the premise of better screenshots/visuals, other developers feel required to do so too.

 

[almighty]

Oh PC where you can have higher resolution texture packs, the quality is still quite horrible, IMO. Basically being not much better than what we've had for about a decade now. And even the highest texture packs on PC still look horrible at 1080p or 720p despite often times require a graphics card with 2+ GB of memory and taking up 3-4 GB of system memory.

That I don't agree on at all, you can some textures in certain texture packs that look amazing at 1080p+

 

[Arwin]

You really haven't given much of a reason why this is a bad idea. Cut on image quality just to contribute to the "fairness" of a competition that's not theirs isn't really an issue, because the rules would be the same for everyone - and because of that, the perception of the individual would be bound to what everyone expects to be possible running that framerate.

What we are forgeting is that we already have a more or less mandatory framerate limit - and that is 30fps, due to TVs and what people have come to expect is a decent norm. Most games these days are 30fps. And a lot of them would benefit from 60, even the example you named being Heavy Rain. It might be a slow paced game, but everytime you're walking around, you notice how lag infested the controls are. Would it benefit the game much having it at 60? Perhaps not as much as other games, but by the same argument, I can also say that going for 30fps and having better visuals isn't detrimental to the game that Heavy Rain is - at least, we're not talking about severly making it an ugly game, just reducing a bit of everything to make it run at double the framerate.

If there are no games that run at half the framerate to compare them to, you wouldn't know how much better things would look but would rather just appreciate what you have.

Imagine a bit - how much better looking games would be if developers targeted 15fps. Would we really want that?

By the same account - graphics are cleary better on PC, so why are we still playing on consoles? Because there's more to gaming than just looking at nice pictures. Because people prefer to actually sit in a living room or just simply have that "plug & play" experience that you can't get on the PC. Because of that, there is a compromise - we live with worse visuals (compared to PCs) because we prefer the different gaming environment. So why would it be bad, if we just limit our expectations to graphics a little more for the advantage of having a better framerate (that benefits controls, responsivnes, motion of the game)?

What I am suggesting only works if everyone does it. If you have developers that are allowed to go for "half the framerate" to sell their games on the premise of better screenshots/visuals, other developers feel required to do so too.

Well said Phil, I think we pretty much agree here.

 

[NRP]

Well said Phil, I think we pretty much agree here.

Agreed. Very well put, Phil. Summarizes my thoughts exactly.

 

[willardjuice]

So why would it be bad, if we just limit our expectations to graphics a little more for the advantage of having a better framerate (that benefits controls, responsivnes, motion of the game)?

Because not everyone shares your priorities. And despite what you claim, not everyone needs all games to run at 60 fps (you can't argue this point as it's personal preference). And finally, it's not always simple for a developer to "turn down a few settings" in order to double the framerate. If a studio targets 30 fps, there's probably a good reason for it.