whats the deal with 30 fps?

[Meelis13]

yesterday, while waiting for Mafia 3 to unlock i started seeing huge ammounts of negative reviews & topic with "30 fps lock- dont buy, this game is horrible because of it, worst devs ever, blah blah blah" (while they all ignored the fact that devs already mentioned there will be patch released in day or 2 unlocking it.

 

Now, leaving question that should devs even lock fps at 30 on pc aside (because really, they shouldnt unless needed & plan to fix it), i honestly DO NOT get the big hate about 30 fps.

Sure, depending on game & setup it can feel slower, but to each game its own. I mean, does it make story worse? graphics worse? does it make game unplayable? No? then why the huge hate to the point that for so many its dealbreaker. I seriously hate fellow PC gamers at times like this.

[Jeb_CC]

As a PC gamer with an old dying computer that plays everything at 30 FPS, I don't get it either. XD 30 FPS isn't bad... Maybe I'm just used to it. It could be better, sure. But it's not like... Riot worthy. If it's playable, that's all that matters.

[Heliocentrical]

It depends on how action-oriented or player-dependent a given title is. It doesn't matter if say a turn based strategy or point and click is locked at 30 FPS because those genres require almost no direct input from the player. At most you're making a couple of clicks and that's it. There isn't a whole lot of emphasis on direct action due to the way those games are designed as well.

 

However things get muddled as more action-oriented or player-dependent elements are present in the game. If your game is real time it's not unreasonable for a player to get frustrated from noticing that their input is delayed if they notice it. Mind you input delay can come from various sources but I digress. Games like Super Meat Boy(a 2D platformer) and Hotline Miami(a top down 1 hit 1 kill shooter) which require an insane amount of skill and reflex would most definitely suffer from a 30 FPS cap. This is especially true for competitive games like Starcraft II and Unreal Tournament 4 because in those games your action is down to the wire and you need every edge you can get if you're to be competitive.

 

The concept of getting every single possible edge doesn't end with FPS either. For instance I got a mouse with 5 different settings of DPI(Dots Per Inch) and a keyboard that doesn't require you to bottom out(pressing a key all the way to the bottom) in order send input. In fact I am considering purchasing a mouse with better DPI since mine only goes up to as high as 8200 DPI when mice can have DPI settings as high as 16000. It gets insane and not every gamer needs to be as insane as I am nor should they as I am an extreme case.

 

This varies from person to person but I would tend to say people who play action oriented games are gonna be a lot more sensitive to an FPS lock than say people who play turn based strategy games and point and clicks. I'll set my settings down as low as they can go if that means I'll get a consistent 60 FPS and that bare minimum for me. The higher the framerate the better IMO. I want to emphasize that this is how FPS feels to me and by no means am I saying your wrong.

 

My general rule of thumb is that if your game has an FPS lock you need to compensate the player in some regard otherwise it's unfair. Does your game take place in real time but you're going to have to lock it to 30? Then find someway to compensate for that or better yet ditch the realtime elements if your game doesn't need it.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Forgot_My_Account]

As a long time PC gamer, my perspective on it is that it's an artificial limit. You should have no problem playing games at 10,000*480p and 500 frames per second if your computer can do it, and if you'd like it.

And FPS is tied to response time, so having an action game that has that handicap hurts everybody. It is also tied to graphical fidelity and fluidity of the game, so even if a game looks good but is released on 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without the knowledge of the consumer it's essentially pulling a fast one on them. Especially since, again, it's an artificial limit that just shouldn't be there.

[Psychotic Ninja]

The thing is, as gamers, we're entitled spoiled brats. In 5-10 years the majority are going to bitch and complain when a game isn't in native 4K (60FPS). Hell there's some who do that now. As someone who had a brick of a computer for most of his life, I'm fine with 360-480p 15-30FPS. Sure it's nice to go 1080p 60FPS, but it's not needed.

 

Now I understand for Speedrunners sometimes you're going to need to make frame perfect jumps, and the better your framerate, the easier those will be. That I can understand.

[Heliocentrical]

Now I understand for Speedrunners sometimes you're going to need to make frame perfect jumps, and the better your framerate, the easier those will be. That I can understand.

Oh yeah, I complete forgot about Speedrunners.

[Aquinas]

As a long time PC gamer, my perspective on it is that it's an artificial limit. You should have no problem playing games at 10,000*480p and 500 frames per second if your computer can do it, and if you'd like it.

And FPS is tied to response time, so having an action game that has that handicap hurts everybody. It is also tied to graphical fidelity and fluidity of the game, so even if a game looks good but is released on 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without the knowledge of the consumer it's essentially pulling a fast one on them. Especially since, again, it's an artificial limit that just shouldn't be there.

 

It's an artificial limit in that they have made to conscious choice to fix it, but its hardly arbitrary. When they develop a model with animations, they need to ensure that the model looks good and smooth while its moving - making a model and rendering engine than can ensure it looks smooth at 60 FPS is twice as much effort as doing the same at 30 FPS. So I'm guessing what they do is optimise: a game is on console and PC, and not all PC gamers will have machines capable of 60 FPS. So if they target 30 FPS and lock it at that, they can reduce their development costs while ensuring quality for say 90% of their target market. The minority might not get the best that their machines are capable of, but thats a cost-benefit trade off.

 

I have a PC easily capable of 60 and above, but except for rare action games where absolute fluidity matters (say a competitive FPS) I don't really care if its 30. And a lot of what I play are 2D games anyway where, even if 60 FPS would be nice, I can understand that with 2D thats a huge amount of extra work.

[Forgot_My_Account]

It's an artificial limit in that they have made to conscious choice to fix it, but its hardly arbitrary. When they develop a model with animations, they need to ensure that the model looks good and smooth while its moving - making a model and rendering engine than can ensure it looks smooth at 60 FPS is twice as much effort as doing the same at 30 FPS. So I'm guessing what they do is optimise: a game is on console and PC, and not all PC gamers will have machines capable of 60 FPS. So if they target 30 FPS and lock it at that, they can reduce their development costs while ensuring quality for say 90% of their target market. The minority might not get the best that their machines are capable of, but thats a cost-benefit trade off.

 

I have a PC easily capable of 60 and above, but except for rare action games where absolute fluidity matters (say a competitive FPS) I don't really care if its 30. And a lot of what I play are 2D games anyway where, even if 60 FPS would be nice, I can understand that with 2D thats a huge amount of extra work.

You are correct, outputting variable FPS animations might take more time then 30 FPS animations, but it's the same amount of work at its base. They're getting flak because they aren't doing things quick and dirty rather than the proper way.

The most notable case I can think of is Dark Souls II, as it was released originally. It was locked at 30 FPS, and even when they unlocked it, the weapon durability was tied to the FPS (as they assumed it was locked) - so when the PC version had an FPS unlocking mod, it essentially broke the entire game balance. Other than that, there were no issues - so it's just a case of shoddy programming that should and did get criticize, like tying in-game mechanics to the CPU's clockspeed.

 

So, when there shouldn't be any cases of FPS interfering with the actual gameplay (if they don't cut any corners), and generating 30/60/240 FPS animations doesn't require any work, just more time - I don't see any excuse to limit the players. And it is an arbitrary limit, as you can see in VR titles nowadays that anything lower than 90 FPS can cause nausea and still games are being released with a lock framerate, meaning there simply is no justification for limiting FPS artificially to both 30 FPS and 60 FPS.

[Fric]

http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/30-fps-vs-60-fps-gameplay-there-is-a-difference-idnum255/

 

Bigger fps - smoother and more enjoyable gameplay. Granted if you have always played on lets say ~30fps, than you might feel its nice and there is no problem. BUT you can always hear that when someone switches from a regular 60hz monitor to 144hz one, you won't be able to convince him switch back.

 

One might say fps is a matter of preference, but its only partially right - you might own an old gaming rig and run games in low settings, but surely you would like to buy a new rig and be able to run with ultra graphics and run it with good fps and no hickups. So limiting games to 30 fps is bullshit.

 

 

P.s. A great analogy would be Ross' 3D rant - he has seen good 3D (60 fps and more), but today's movies are with "meh" 3D (30 fps).

[Templar Knight]

Personally, as someone who has played and seen the difference btwn 30 frames and higher framerates and their results, 60 is objectively better in almost every respect that I can think of. Even mobile games have better performance at 60 frames. Now, I don't go LOOKING for 60 frames, but I'm always pleased to have the option, and cannot understand why the hell anyone developing for PC today would even think to set a lock at 30. The "filmic look" reason is bullshit, since not even most film is recorded or shot at 30 frames anyway.

 

As to why so many people are so pissed off, blame the industry itself. How long has the gaming industry tried to push top-of-the-line graphics and performance in gaming technology onto gamers as a selling point? I believe its been that way for at least a decade, some could probably argue even two decades. Every E3 showing every year, you see what games CAN be and they push out the best graphics as selling points to these games, and 60 frames is a part of that. Yet constantly, the quality gets kneecapped by final release to the point where it is basically accepted now that you cannot trust ANYTHING at E3 that remotely looks amazing when it comes to graphics or visual quality.

 

So that's part of the reason, people are pissed off that developers can essentially promise the moon when it comes to how their games look, and then fail to deliver on it when those same gamers have SEEN how good these games can look. They know it is possible, yet the industry doesn't seem to have as big of balls as they claimed since they cannot back up what they offer in advertising when we know the capabilities exist.

 

That also ties into another reason when it comes to PC gaming specifically: PC gamers on average pay at least double, likely even triple or even quadruple what console gamers pay for so that they have better control to customize and optimize their gaming experience via custom-built rigs. When devs or companies do not build their games with this fact in mind (by limiting optimization options, or by simply releasing shitty ports), PC Gamers get extremely frustrated.

 

And rightly so IMO, after all they spent their money for better experiences, and companies are trying to get them to spend even more money on their particular games for a consumer base that loves to be able to customize and optimize their experience. Good PC game developers know this, and build their games accordingly and are thus respected for it, whereas bad ones that release games that run or look even worse on systems that cost 4x more and have 4x more power than consoles are reviled (think back to Arkham Knight's PC release, as that has to be one of the grossest examples of taking advantage of PC gamers I've ever seen lately).

 

It all boils down to what appears to be a total lack of respect to PC Gamers on the part of devs and companies, or simply any gamer that has high expectations of an industry that has over-inflated its consumer base's expectations to the point where they somehow cannot back up their own set standards.

 

Gamers know 60 frames is possible, and they want a convincing reason why so many modern games cannot pull it off today, and an ESPECIALLY convincing reason why you'd have to lock said framerate at 30. Most gamers aren't impressed by the answers most devs or companies give.

[Forgot_My_Account]

Good PC game developers know this, and build their games accordingly and are thus respected for it, whereas bad ones that release games that run or look even worse on systems that cost 4x more and have 4x more power than consoles are reviled (think back to Arkham Knight's PC release, as that has to be one of the grossest examples of taking advantage of PC gamers I've ever seen lately).

I'd like to mention it doesn't even have to be games developed with PC in mind, it just has to be a competent port. Case in point: Valkyria Chronicles. Beautiful port, can run at an unlimited resolution and in unlimited FPS, and even the keyboard controls aren't that bad! It's a port actual effort was put into, and it proves that even if you weren't developing exclusively for PC or with the PC in mind, it still doesn't excuse a shitty port with limited and hindered performance.

[rairii]

http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/30-fps-vs-60-fps-gameplay-there-is-a-difference-idnum255/

 

Bigger fps - smoother and more enjoyable gameplay. Granted if you have always played on lets say ~30fps, than you might feel its nice and there is no problem. BUT you can always hear that when someone switches from a regular 60hz monitor to 144hz one, you won't be able to convince him switch back.

 

One might say fps is a matter of preference, but its only partially right - you might own an old gaming rig and run games in low settings, but surely you would like to buy a new rig and be able to run with ultra graphics and run it with good fps and no hickups. So limiting games to 30 fps is bullshit.

 

 

P.s. A great analogy would be Ross' 3D rant - he has seen good 3D (60 fps and more), but today's movies are with "meh" 3D (30 fps).

it's a minor inconvenience at best

it's hardly a hindrance and it just makes the game feel less smooth, it's no reason for 50% positive reviews on steam

[Heliocentrical]

it's a minor inconvenience at best

it's hardly a hindrance and it just makes the game feel less smooth, it's no reason for 50% positive reviews on steam

Depends on the type of game. First Person Shooters like Unreal Tournament and Quake would've most definitely suffered from an 30 FPS cap. But no one cares if say a turn based strategy game is locked at 30 FPS.

 

I'd argue that a consistent framerate is more important than a high framerate. How many games have you played where for a while you were hovering at around 30-45 FPS and then all of a sudden the game takes a nosedive into 5-10 FPS. That's more annoying then being unable to run at 60 FPS.

[Templar Knight]

Good PC game developers know this, and build their games accordingly and are thus respected for it, whereas bad ones that release games that run or look even worse on systems that cost 4x more and have 4x more power than consoles are reviled (think back to Arkham Knight's PC release, as that has to be one of the grossest examples of taking advantage of PC gamers I've ever seen lately).

I'd like to mention it doesn't even have to be games developed with PC in mind, it just has to be a competent port. Case in point: Valkyria Chronicles. Beautiful port, can run at an unlimited resolution and in unlimited FPS, and even the keyboard controls aren't that bad! It's a port actual effort was put into, and it proves that even if you weren't developing exclusively for PC or with the PC in mind, it still doesn't excuse a shitty port with limited and hindered performance.

 

Well exactly, but I just mean any game that someone tries to sell on PC should be optimized for PC gamers and their usage.

[Fric]

http://www.digitalstorm.com/unlocked/30-fps-vs-60-fps-gameplay-there-is-a-difference-idnum255/

 

Bigger fps - smoother and more enjoyable gameplay. Granted if you have always played on lets say ~30fps, than you might feel its nice and there is no problem. BUT you can always hear that when someone switches from a regular 60hz monitor to 144hz one, you won't be able to convince him switch back.

 

One might say fps is a matter of preference, but its only partially right - you might own an old gaming rig and run games in low settings, but surely you would like to buy a new rig and be able to run with ultra graphics and run it with good fps and no hickups. So limiting games to 30 fps is bullshit.

 

 

P.s. A great analogy would be Ross' 3D rant - he has seen good 3D (60 fps and more), but today's movies are with "meh" 3D (30 fps).

it's a minor inconvenience at best

it's hardly a hindrance and it just makes the game feel less smooth, it's no reason for 50% positive reviews on steam

 

Might be true (depends on the game) but limiting it from the DEV side is just lame and stupid. It has poor development written all over (or bad port). You are making your product intentionally worse than it could be.

[patlefort]

Hyper Light Drifter. The devs started to modify their game to support 60 FPS, but only after a massive amount of complaints and saying that they hardly consider 60 fps to be necessary for gaming. This really boggle my mind. Do devs even play games these days? This game is an action game where you need good reaction time and good timing. They have to modify every instance in the code that assume 30 FPS. Locking it to 60 would have taken no additional effort so they simply hamstrung their game from ignorance and arrogance. Why not make it a variable that can be modified from the beginning? This is programming 101.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Whenever someone complains about 30 FPS I think people sound like spoiled whiny brats (no offense to spoiled whiny brats).

 

I grew up with games that usually would play at 10-20 FPS on a good day. Heck, Star Fox on SNES which I played to death growing up would usually run at like 5 FPS on some levels. And most of the time as long as the framerate is stable I don't care if it's 30 FPS. I would rather have a steady 30 FPS than a fluctuating 10-60.

 

Locking a game to 30 fps is a way of ensuring it runs smoothly, so I have never grasped why it's necessarily a bad thing, let alone reason to boycott a game.

 

I kinda get it, and kinda don't, as someone who doesn't give two f***s about framerate most of the time and has learned to appreciate anything that runs higher than a slideshow.

[Heliocentrical]

There was a legitimately rational discussion we could've had regarding FPS but instead this thread has devolved into a pissing competition. Complaining about the complainers gets us nowhere and quite frankly I'm disgusted with you all for how this thread has turned out while I was legitimately trying to add to the conversation.

 

We could've talked about how a game feels, how reliant games become on higher FPS as they incorporate more realtime elements into their gameplay, how an FPS lock might affect certain genres and other genres not so much.

 

But no, you guys didn't do that now did you? You all collectively decided it would be much more fun to have a screaming competition with each other about who's right and who's wrong like the rest of internet. Fucking goddammit people, what is wrong with you?

[Alyxx Thorne]

I was just speaking my opinion... and my opinion is that unless a game is stuttering/fluctuating, then it's not that big of a deal, not enough reason to warrant not buying a game.

[Heliocentrical]

@Alyxx Thorne I wasn't talking about you specifically, I was talking about this thread as whole. It had potential for a good conversation and that opportunity was ruined. It pisses me off when things like that happen. That I can see the potential and tried to nudge it in that direction with good intent. But no one else did and the result is the same conversation that's been had hundreds of thousands times over which goes nowhere. Apparently there can be no other conversations outsides of who's right, who's wrong and it's pathetic.