Phil said:
I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't be happy with 15fps games either - as much as you'd dislike that, there's an equal amount of people that are unhappy with 30 fps games as well.
Inanedork" said:
Phil said:
What, you want me to link to each individual out there? Get a grip - look around some boards, especially check the Forza threads to see the bickering many have with the framerate. Those that do notice do care. (and it is noticable, if you don't, then you probably haven't played enough 60 fps games to notice.)
You made a statement of fact.
# of people who dislike 15fps = # of people who dislike 30fps
Technicalities aside (obviously the number of people upset with 30fps would be upset with 15fps in addition to those who can tolerate 30fps and not 15fps), I think your point was the number of people who can tolerate 30fps and not 15fps is equal to the number of people who can tolerate 60fps and not 30fps.
I am challenging that fact. Anecdotal points from an online forum is not enough. We are all aware that there are people who are dead set on a certain framerate, resolution, etc... No one is questioning that. The question is do as many people hate 30fps as you claim.
My experience has been the complete opposite and I have NEVER seen any facts, studies, etc that show that people hate 30fps as much as 15fps. Actually, everything I have read shows that *most* people cannot distinguish the difference between a solid 30fps from 60fps. And what keys most people off is not 30fps, but when a game jumps up and down. When the framerate fluctuates between 30 and 60 fps the eye catches the difference. The eye can capture only so much, but it can percieve shifts in fluidity quite well.
You are a self admitted 60fps junkie. I can respect that--I am too
That is fine--we all have strong preferences and buy accordingly. But to insist our preference is the preference of the industry, and yet not offer any clear numbers to back it up, is too much. No one is questioning that 1.) some people are sensative to sub-60fps or 2.) a large widescreen TV will exaggerate the lack of frames.
But I do not agree, based on anything I have read, that in general that most people are unsatisfied with 30fps.
From my understanding most people cannot tell the difference between a stable 30fps and stable 60fps.
Obviously given a choice every consumer would choose the bigger number (duh), but I too would like a link showing a great number of consumers can tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps (let alone prefer one over the other on the pains of death).
I think you and I are a select breed and do NOT represent the industry. A link of a study disproving this would be nice of course... because then I can rant about 60fps all the time as well
Until then I don't buy this position. I can tell the difference and much prefer 60fps, but I can live with 30fps if it is solid. There were quite a few N64 games I never finished due to the combination of fast action + uneven framerate.
Ps- A couple people, even dozens, on an internet forum is not representative of the typical consumer, or even a lot. That is not to invalidate their opinion and preference--because it does not--but the question is one of numbers. You suggested an equal number of contrast between 15/30 and 30/60. So like Inane, I would like some proof of this.
Until then I have to chalk this up to your general fps ranting
Phil said:
And between this whole talk about "rather constant 30 fps than a fluctuating 60 fps" - that is obvious, but it's also obvious that a game is as possible to run a constant 30 fps as it is to make it run at a constant 60 fps, given it was apart of the design-choice and a high priority. When you develop a game, there are goals that are set and the aim is to achieve them. If they aim for 30, 60 or 120 fps - if it's factored into the planning process, any planned framerate is possible without any drops.
There is a balance between project competion and optimization.
e.g. PGR3 and NFS are both at the stage where they may, or may not, hit 60fps (IGN today on NFS). Both have said if given more time they COULD hit 60fps. So it is not a matter of graphics vs. framerate. It is a matter of, "My PUBLISHER wants the game out the door NOW. If we miss this holiday season we lose money and gamers miss out on the game".
If most gamers really cared they would not buy these games. Yet they do. Why? Because most people can overlook the issue.
This is an example where since the devs are under the gun (they need to get the game out and start a new one) and most consumers don't care the 30fps is an acceptible product to the marker. Stinks for us... YES!!
This is an example where the mainstream "acceptance" level means a less than perfect product.
But there are a LOT of games out there. MS has announced 160+ for the Xbox 360 and Sony 100+ for the PS3. Each game will cater to their market.
And that goes for ALL graphics. Some of us HATE anime. Others hate retro or grunge/earthy graphics. The balance of "what looks good" is different across the board.
For those who love 60fps will get games that are 60fps. For those who love games that are 30fps there will be those.
There is no "one is better" in that not all consumers have the same tastes, cares, or perception. Theoretically, if GPU rendering was the bottleneck, a 30fps game could look 2x as "good". Some gamers would PREFER that over a game that is 60fps.
I am not willing to say, as a rule, 60fps > looks.
Many gamers will prefer a 30fps game with 2x the detail.
Publishers should get to choose that. If gamers want it they will buy it. If they don't the publisher will hurt. So far gamers are not telling publishers with their $ they hate 30fps games.
Obviously I hate rushed titles, and prefer 60fps, but I am not convinced it is the end of the world. I remember someone mentioning the other day one of the MGS games ran at 30fps and it did not hurt sales. Ditto Halo (everyone I know with an Xbox lives it... much MUCH more than TS which I like a lot!). Mario 64 was not a constant 30fps, nor ZOoT at times, yet people LOVED these games. Ditto GTA3. I can think of quite a few 60fps games that underwhealmed. If a lower FPS means better gameplay/AI etc... than so be it. And given the choice of Halo 2 in fall of 2004 @ 30fps or in fall 2005 @ 60fps, well, I think the answer is simple. People will put up with less frames for an earlier release. So we are victims of the market.
Choppy framerate may be a flaw, but it is one most people do not notice. Good or bad, that just seems to be the case.
