How about that: 60 FPS is the winner

[Ed Oscuro]

This is basically a rehash of posts from Shmups (http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28679) so I can get to the point. Insomniac, developer of Ratchet & Clank, is likely stepping away from 60 FPS after R&C Future (http://kotaku.com/5393106/insomniac-dev-ratchet--clank-probably-our-last-60fps-game). Awesome poster and mad scientist Mad Scientist posted this fascinating article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article) as a counterpart to it.

The result? Yeah, you might have thought you pressed the button, but laggy games and display technology might have perceived it differently (I'm looking at somebody whose initials are Kupo and Mogli [Edit: Kupo reminds me that this wouldn't have had an effect in that situation, oh well!]).

The bottom line is that games with faster refresh rates give a smoother gameplay experience. This is important for people who like twitch games. That's been known for some time, but the article backs it up with some hard data.

This adds some current empirical observation to the known fact that attaining 60 FPS is not simply an irrelevant number - more so in the right kind of game, of course. It's interesting, although no big surprise, to note that attempts to cut down input lag by intra-frame polling (i.e. the mentioned polling of the controller 360 times every second, which works out to 6 times per frame) doesn't update the frame being currently worked on, nor affect any frame soon after. It also seems that with games out that have a queue of prerendered frames ready for performance hikes (Oblivion was like this) this should be the case, given that they're effectively removing frames further from current input by divorcing rendering from current input (if the prerendered frames / "max frames ahead" are used).

[crazyjackcsa]

I'm not thrilled that they're walking away from 60fps, but at the same time, a rock (and I mean ROCK) solid 30fps isn't a big deal.

Remember the Saturn/PS1 days. We often had games rocking at 15-20 fps, and that was ugly. Or wide fluctuations between 60 and single digits.

I remember sitting down with the Dreamcast for the first time and thinking that it was good to be back at 60fps. Thing was, at the time I didn't know about framerates. It was only later I read an article on framerates and gameplay. The crux of the argument then was 60 fps delivered something you could feel, not so much something you could see. A smoother flow and sharper control.

Fun fact. A lot of 16 bit games run at 60 fps, so it isn't anything new.

[GarrettCRW]

I've never understood the push for 60 FPS, seeing as how the TVs we use are designed for only 30 FPS (or, for those of you in the land of PAL compression, 25 FPS). I'd rather have a guaranteed 30 instead of a goal of 60.

[crazyjackcsa]

I've never understood the push for 60 FPS, seeing as how the TVs we use are designed for only 30 FPS (or, for those of you in the land of PAL compression, 25 FPS). I'd rather have a guaranteed 30 instead of a goal of 60.

How do you figure? Older CRTs did use 30, but the newer CRTs that used digital components refresh at well over 60HZ often up to 100hz.

[Ed Oscuro]

I've never understood the push for 60 FPS, seeing as how the TVs we use are designed for only 30 FPS (or, for those of you in the land of PAL compression, 25 FPS). I'd rather have a guaranteed 30 instead of a goal of 60.
I hate to be a jerk but comments like this are annoying because they don't add anything to the discussion. Did you read the second article so you could make an informed comment? I did and it explains quite a bit.

Most of the fault is mine, of course. I should have put it simply: fans of twitch games like the most reactive system possible, and 60 FPS titles deliver that better than games running at lower frames per second.

[fahlim003]

I think given the way technology and performance has advanced, it's strange to see in this modern generation developers taking a step backwards from 60fps. 10 years ago a game not running 60fps would be slammed, now with games like PGR3 and Sega Rally Revo, 30 and even less is somehow acceptable.

Probably the worst offender is Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast. I dislike the fact it often cannot hold a constant frame rate and that the frame rate in general pales in comparison to it's Windows/PC counter-part but the game still delivers and I consider it one of the best non-online racing games on Dreamcast. Frame rate aside, it improves vastly over the sluggish Model 3 version, which is a surprise, yet it still wouldn't be perfect until it was on more flexible platform(performance wise), Windows based PC.
I still prefer Dreamcast as I don't need to install anything or require Windows2k/98. Plus having an overclocked DC helps improve the frame rate issue if ever so slightly.

The article is interesting, the demonstrations surely are the hard evidence, but it doesn't take much through simple T&E to find some games are real slowwww.

[Leo_A]

How can they be taking a step back from 10 years ago?

Virtually no 3d titles on consoles were 60fps a decade ago. And what little there was, such as F-Zero X, had to have many graphical sacrifices be made to accomplish it (Very little trackside detail in F-Zero X's case).

The situation has only improved over the past decade as far as developers making fps in their titles more consistent (To avoid what you'd experience in Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast when you'd reach a busy corner), and with the occasional title that does 60fps to improve response, smoothness, sense of speed, etc.

10 years ago, a steady 30fps was about the best we could hope for, with many titles being well below that threshold. And I assure you, PGR3 and Sega Rally Revo are not hitting below 30fps.

[Baloo]

Is FPS in console games really that big of a deal? Sure slowdown is, but that usually occurs when there's a ton of objects and shit on the screen to slow the game down.

From my personal experience, I've only needed to deal with FPS troubles in PC games, and even then only when it would dip below like 15 FPS. I've played games like After Burner 32x that run at 30 FPS and I can't tell the difference between that and the arcade game.

[Ed Oscuro]

Is FPS in console games really that big of a deal?
It depends on the game. If we all stick to the mindset that consoles are for easy or slower games where reaction isn't a big deal, then no, high FPS (and the corresponding low latency) aren't a big deal. But some games that profit from low latency have been mentioned - racers are one, 3D action shooters (I hesitate to say FPS because there's some lag built into the control schemes), and others. A game like Ninja Gaiden is markedly better with as low latency as possible.

[tomaitheous]

I've never understood the push for 60 FPS, seeing as how the TVs we use are designed for only 30 FPS (or, for those of you in the land of PAL compression, 25 FPS). I'd rather have a guaranteed 30 instead of a goal of 60.

Completely wrong. SD sets can deliver 60p at 240 vertical res. It can also deliver 60fps in 480i vertical res as well - though with "combing" which most people with 25" sets or less don't even notice. And HD set via at least component connection can deliver 480p or higher at 60fps.

[kedawa]

There is absolutely no excuse for any game released today to ever render fewer than 60fps.
Even 60 is not ideal for some types of games. I play a lot of older FPS games on pc, and I know from experience that anything above ~100Hz actual refresh rate is so eerily smooth and fluid that it's hard to go back to 60.

[Berserker]

Isn't this sort of like McDonald's announcing that they're firmly committed to giving us one slice of cheese on their double cheeseburgers from now on, instead of two?

Anyway, the mere fact that these guys are making major decisions about the core structure of their game engines based off of a "community team" (i.e. random people) studying a bunch of game reviews leaves me feeling really excited about handing them over my 60 bucks. (or maybe it should just be 30 now?)

Yes, indeed we should reward those who shoot for mediocrity, and design and create around the whim of focus groups, and so on. After all, who needs two slices of cheese on our double cheeseburgers when we can have just the one?

[crazyjackcsa]

I wonder, how much is gained by giving up the "extra" 30 frames? How much punch can you get in other areas like polys, textures and lighting? I would argue that on a slower paced game the trade could be worth it.

Then, if you follow their logic, could a developer walk away from 1080p back to 480p because the reviews didn't support the resolution bump?

How much more could be done with a game running at 480p @ 30 fps vs. 1080p @ 60?

[Ed Oscuro]

[...] leaves me feeling really excited about handing them over my 60 bucks. (or maybe it should just be 30 now?)
ROFL

Thanks, that makes my day. I understand the pressures of "oh god we have to have more impressive screens" while the hardware isn't getting any better, but it's lame, and when new hardware rolls around (in some years) they'll immediately push that to the edge and keep the process going. Once this trend starts it's hard to pull back from it.

[Vlcice]

Completely wrong. SD sets can deliver 60p at 240 vertical res. It can also deliver 60fps in 480i vertical res as well - though with "combing" which most people with 25" sets or less don't even notice. And HD set via at least component connection can deliver 480p or higher at 60fps.

You're thinking of 60 fields per second in 480i. That provides a "temporal resolution" update 60 times a second, but it's not the same thing as a full 60 frames per second since only half of the screen is updated.

[Ed Oscuro]

You're thinking of 60 fields per second in 480i. That provides a "temporal resolution" update 60 times a second, but it's not the same thing as a full 60 frames per second since only half of the screen is updated.
60 fields / second would translate into 30 full frames.

[j_factor]

How can they be taking a step back from 10 years ago?

Virtually no 3d titles on consoles were 60fps a decade ago. And what little there was, such as F-Zero X, had to have many graphical sacrifices be made to accomplish it (Very little trackside detail in F-Zero X's case).

The situation has only improved over the past decade as far as developers making fps in their titles more consistent (To avoid what you'd experience in Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast when you'd reach a busy corner), and with the occasional title that does 60fps to improve response, smoothness, sense of speed, etc.

10 years ago, a steady 30fps was about the best we could hope for, with many titles being well below that threshold. And I assure you, PGR3 and Sega Rally Revo are not hitting below 30fps.

Ten years ago Dreamcast was out, I don't know why you brought up an N64 game. Sega Rally 2's framerate problems were just poor porting, that wasn't the norm. Tokyo Xtreme Racer ran at 60 fps. It's a DC launch game and had good graphics for the time, with good textures, nice lighting, and 480p support. I don't think it had "many graphical sacrifices". It has a successor on Xbox 360 (Import Tuner Challenge), which does not run at 60 fps. That's just crap IMO.

Project Gotham Racing is another good example. The original was 60 fps. The second one brought it down to 30, in order to squeeze out better graphics in other aspects -- an acceptable trade-off, being on the same hardware. PGR3 has no business being 30 fps, being on a next-generation console. It doesn't even look that much better than PGR2.

[Leo_A]

Ten years ago Dreamcast was out, I don't know why you brought up an N64 game. Sega Rally 2's framerate problems were just poor porting, that wasn't the norm. Tokyo Xtreme Racer ran at 60 fps. It's a DC launch game and had good graphics for the time, with good textures, nice lighting, and 480p support. I don't think it had "many graphical sacrifices". It has a successor on Xbox 360 (Import Tuner Challenge), which does not run at 60 fps. That's just crap IMO.

Project Gotham Racing is another good example. The original was 60 fps. The second one brought it down to 30, in order to squeeze out better graphics in other aspects -- an acceptable trade-off, being on the same hardware. PGR3 has no business being 30 fps, being on a next-generation console. It doesn't even look that much better than PGR2.

I brought up a Nintendo 64 title because F-Zero X is representative of the sacrifices that often had to be made during the time period a decade ago to achieve 60 frames per second. I'm curious though why you brought up the Sega Dreamcast, considering it had been on the market for less than two months at this time a decade ago. Hardly something representative of console gaming as a whole during 1999 and hardly something suitable to justify your far reaching statement that "10 years ago a game not running 60fps would be slammed", or disprove somehow what I stated just because it was on the market.

Plus, your statement just isn't true as I stated in my post that puzzled you. 60fps was very uncommon in console titles back then, including on the Sega Dreamcast. And in addition, Tokyo Xtreme Racer was hardly praised as a must have title, with many complaints from physics to poor car models to repeating textures and a lack of variety in tracks. Besides excelling in regards to it's fast frame and having little pop-up. the consensus back then seemed to be to wait for games like Speed Devils and Metropolis Street Racer. The sacrifices they made to get that speedy frame rate led to very mixed reactions with this title.

Project Gotham Racing on the Xbox is hardly an ideal example as well. The screen tearing on the title was extremely bad and representative of one of those sacrifices I mentioned that had to be made back then to achieve 60fps. Also, significant frame rate drops were almost as common as on Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast. Their programming, although limited due to time constraints and a limited knowledge of the hardware in the early days, wasn't quite up the task and its quite evident when you witness it action. From things extremely poor lighting at a time when developers such as the Gran Turismo team were making great strides forward in that area and bland textures in some areas such as the grass. While it's an excellent title that played and looked well that I still go back to often, it doesn't prove your statement that 60fps was the norm back then. In my opinion, your example backs up my statement that sacrifices often had to had to be made to accomplish 60 fps during the period roughly a decade ago, with PGR1 having no vertical synchronization for an example.

I stand by my statement, there's a heck of a lot more titles out there today running at 60fps than a decade ago when it was extremely rare. 60fps wasn't the norm a decade ago. Oftentimes, we were lucky to just get a smooth 30fps with tons of examples of games running consistently below 30, something that has virtually disappeared today and would get an extreme amount of negative press if it did (Seems to me that FEAR on the PS3 is one of the rare examples of a title guilty of that in recent times, and it was murdered accordingly in the press due to it's extremely low frame rate).

[j_factor]

oops, double post.

[j_factor]

I brought up a Nintendo 64 title because F-Zero X is representative of the sacrifices that often had to be made during the time period a decade ago to achieve 60 frames per second. I'm curious though why you brought up the Sega Dreamcast, considering it had been on the market for less than two months at this time a decade ago. Hardly something representative of console gaming as a whole during 1999 and hardly something suitable to justify your far reaching statement that "10 years ago a game not running 60fps would be slammed", or disprove somehow what I stated just because it was on the market.

Plus, your statement just isn't true as I stated in the post that somehow puzzled you. 60fps was very uncommon in console titles back then, including on the Sega Dreamcast. And in addition, Tokyo Xtreme Racer was hardly praised as a must have title, with many complaints from physics to poor car models to repeating textures and a lack of variety in tracks. Besides excelling in regards to it's fast frame and having little pop-up. the consensus back then seemed to be to wait for games like Speed Devils and Metropolis Street Racer. The sacrifices they made to get that speedy frame rate led to very mixed reactions with this title.

Project Gotham Racing on the Xbox is hardly an ideal example as well. The screen tearing on the title was extremely bad and representative of one of those sacrifices I mentioned that had to be made back then to achieve 60fps. Also, significant frame rate drops were almost as common as on Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast. The hardware wasn't really up for the task and its quite evident when you witness it action, not to mention such things as extremely poor lighting at a time when developers such as the Gran Turismo team were making great strides forward in that area, and bland textures in some areas such as the grass. While it's an excellent title that played and looked well that I still go back to, it doesn't prove your statement that 60fps was the norm back then. In my opinion, your example backs up my statement that sacrifices often had to had to be made to accomplish 60 fps during the period roughly a decade ago, with PGR1 having no vertical synchronization for an example.

I stand by my statement, there's a heck of a lot more titles out there today running at 60fps than a decade ago when it was extremely rare. 60fps wasn't the norm a decade ago.

When he said ten years ago, it didn't sound like he was talking about N64 or Playstation. It sounded to me like he was referring mainly to Dreamcast. If your argument's going to be "maybe 9 years ago, but not 10" then fine, 9 years then.

I remember a lot of people criticized Sonic Adventure for being 30 fps, I was one of them. I didn't know until later that it had a very short development cycle and ran on a modified NiGHTS engine. SA2 runs at 60 fps and you can definitely see the difference. I never said TXR was a must-have title, its quality is subjective, it was just an example that I used because it was a launch game (and thus, available ten years ago). But it's not the only one. NFL 2K is also a solid 60 fps, and so are Soul Calibur and Pen Pen (and others I'm sure, I haven't memorized the frame rate of every game). It was common on Dreamcast overall. I remember when Dreamcast came out, people said that with the new generation, there was no longer any reason a game shouldn't run at 60 fps.

[b0ub0u]

First let me say that I hate the fact that sub-30 framerate is still acceptable!

I will always remember my reaction when I first tried Forza. I was horrified to find out that it was 30FPS instead of 60FPS in Gran Turismo. Why do you think it is so much easier on the eye playing COD than HALO. I just don't understand why Halo is 30FPS when COD as so much details in it and still manage to have a constant 60FPS. I guess it depend on the engine.

The thing is that some people will NEVER see the difference between 30 and 60. For them one or the other is acceptable as they don't notice it at all.

30FPS rock solid is acceptable for adventure games and the likes.. games that don't require twitch reflexes.

But in any case, developers should always aim for either rock solid 30FPS or 60FPS for consoles games. Nothing else should even be considered, as a fluctuating framerate is very hard on the eyes.

The reality is that screenshots sell games, pictures on the back of the box sell games. Who cares about FPS when you are only looking at a picture! Might as well put as much details in those screenshots as possible! Who cares if the end product run at 15FPS. *** end sarcasm ***

My 2 cents..

[Vlcice]

60 fields / second would translate into 30 full frames.

Yes, definitely when those fields are being generated from full frames. What he sounded like he was talking about was when games generate a new set of fields every second, so there's 60 updates worth of motion per second even when there isn't a full 60 frames per second.

[fahlim003]

Who said anything specifically about 3D games? fps isn't limited to just the third dimension, you know. And my statement comes from the attitude shift, not so much in terms of the quality of the material being put out (although that is a direct result).

10 (approximately) years ago or more developers were really grilled for having lousy frame-rates, at least in comparison to anything else. In many cases I'm speaking of arcade ports. Around 1998 or even earlier, 3D titles were seemingly coming around from the 30fps bottleneck and this was clearly demonstrated by the outstanding reworking of Ridge Racer PS1 in the form of Ridge Racer Turbo Bonus that came with RRT4. The fact the technology didn't change and yet what was possible to achieve in terms of fps (over 4 years from RR to RRT4) did is startling and for myself it speaks to the degree that there is simply no excuse to not deliver a 60fps game. Basically around this time if a game didn't run a constant or high fps, you'd hear about it. Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast is a prime example of this. Add to the fact the fps isn't consistent and as mentioned, it got less than favourable reviews in this respect despite being an outstanding game otherwise.

The way I understood it was back in time, developers would have a clout of shame if a particular game didn't run at 60/constant fps. Now it seems developers don't really care about how high the fps is, so long as it's constant, which I find to be a crappy result.

Also N64 is a terrible example, I can think of a single game that runs at a high fps on that system, 3D or 2D. As Ed has mentioned elsewhere, that machine was a real headache inducer.


How can they be taking a step back from 10 years ago?

Virtually no 3d titles on consoles were 60fps a decade ago. And what little there was, such as F-Zero X, had to have many graphical sacrifices be made to accomplish it (Very little trackside detail in F-Zero X's case).

The situation has only improved over the past decade as far as developers making fps in their titles more consistent (To avoid what you'd experience in Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast when you'd reach a busy corner), and with the occasional title that does 60fps to improve response, smoothness, sense of speed, etc.

10 years ago, a steady 30fps was about the best we could hope for, with many titles being well below that threshold. And I assure you, PGR3 and Sega Rally Revo are not hitting below 30fps.

[Leo_A]

Who said anything specifically about 3D games? fps isn't limited to just the third dimension, you know. And my statement comes from the attitude shift, not so much in terms of the quality of the material being put out (although that is a direct result).


I did, because there was little trouble with the hardware of the late 90s with displaying 2d material at 60fps. I changed it to 3d specifically to account for that and the fact that the vast majority of the titles being released in 1999 were 3d.




3D titles were seemingly coming around from the 30fps bottleneck and this was clearly demonstrated by the outstanding reworking of Ridge Racer PS1 in the form of Ridge Racer Turbo Bonus that came with RRT4. The fact the technology didn't change and yet what was possible to achieve in terms of fps (over 4 years from RR to RRT4) did is startling and for myself it speaks to the degree that there is simply no excuse to not deliver a 60fps game.

A lousy example. For starters, it was an ancient title programmed in the earliest days of the console. The reprogrammed demo of it (Was just a small portion of the title) is representative of nothing except to show how far along Namco's developers had came and what Ridge Racer might've been like if it had been done then rather than in 1994. Games coming out in 1999 were far more advanced than Ridge Racer, that they managed to get that primitive game going at 60fps with 5 more years of experience didn't mean a thing for the games being newly programmed in 1999. Lastly, reviews from 1999 indicate that Ridge Racer Type 4 was delivering a consistent 30fps, no mentions of 60fps are to be seen from the reviews I just scanned.



The way I understood it was back in time, developers would have a clout of shame if a particular game didn't run at 60/constant fps. Now it seems developers don't really care about how high the fps is, so long as it's constant, which I find to be a crappy result.


Nonsense, 30fps or lower peformance was widely accepted. I don't know why you want to rewrite history, were you playing videogames a decade ago? Go reread something like the review database at IGN for games released back then. There was no 60fps standard back then that developers would recieve criticism from if they didn't follow it. 60fps 3d titles were very rare in 1999.



Also N64 is a terrible example, I can think of a single game that runs at a high fps on that system, 3D or 2D. As Ed has mentioned elsewhere, that machine was a real headache inducer.

It's a fabulous example, many N64 titles recieved critical acclaim before and after 1999 despite not even managing a 30fps standard. And there were 60fps N64 titles, with F-Zero X being a prominent example that was well known for it at the time.

You're either rewriting history due to not remembering that time correctly, or weren't paying any attention a decade ago.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, definitely when those fields are being generated from full frames. What he sounded like he was talking about was when games generate a new set of fields every second, so there's 60 updates worth of motion per second even when there isn't a full 60 frames per second.
Good catch. I'm not sure which way is common, though it stands to reason you could have new fields generated from the updated situation (though I wonder if this would cause tearing in-between lines - it sounds strange for a console).

[chrisbid]

there were 2600 games that ran at 60fps (astroblast is a good example), but in order to get games with higher resolution graphics, framerate was the first sacrificial goat.

[fahlim003]

I did, because there was little trouble with the hardware of the late 90s with displaying 2d material at 60fps. I changed it to 3d specifically to account for that and the fact that the vast majority of the titles being released in 1999 were 3d.

A lousy example. For starters, it was an ancient title programmed in the earliest days of the console. The reprogrammed demo of it (Was just a small portion of the title) is representative of nothing except to show how far along Namco's developers had came and what Ridge Racer might've been like if it had been done then rather than in 1994. Games coming out in 1999 were far more advanced than Ridge Racer, that they managed to get that primitive game going at 60fps with 5 more years of experience didn't mean a thing for the games being newly programmed in 1999. Lastly, reviews from 1999 indicate that Ridge Racer Type 4 was delivering a consistent 30fps, no mentions of 60fps are to be seen from the reviews I just scanned.

First of all, I don't know why you seem to be in argument mode, as I'm trying to discuss the issue. It's clear we have different viewpoints on what constitutes 10 years ago. For me, 10 years ago the N64 was history. The Dreamcast and the "128bit" generation was afoot and the clear future. It seems that 10 years ago has been extended into the 15 years ago realm, which is definitely not the same. Essentially, the past. That's not what I initially intended but going into the past helps elaborate.

I say history for the N64 since the bulk of all the quality titles had come out long before November of 1999. The most notable not yet out is Majora's Mask by that point. The end of 1999 with MM and Sin and Punishment due out for the final top 3D games on the system. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but in terms of notoriety there is pretty much nothing else.

How exactly is Ridge Racer Turbo Bonus a lousy example? It's how the game should have looked in 1995 when the original RR debuted. The PlayStation hardware didn't change, Namco surely weren't too different of a company, so what was the magic formula behind a total reworking of how RR should have been 3 years after it's debut? Also, you should check RRTB out for yourself, it's a full game and is essentially Ridge Racer Remix in the same sense as Virtua Fighter Remix. And why shouldn't it run at 60fps? Perhaps since the arcade game which came out 2 years before the PS1 debut ran at 60fps. This is generally why there is an issue with 60fps at all, and for any game. I cannot think of a single good arcade (3D) game not running at 60fps, it's simply put the standard and has been from Virtua Fighter onwards. If it was possible to get 60fps in 1993 in arcade Ridge Racer and possible to get 60fps in RRTB in 1998 on PS1 why wasn't it possible in 1995 on the exact same hardware? The frame-rate gripe when RR came out was minor, to be sure, since game otherwise was outstanding for the time, but when RRTB (again, a full game with a demo of the old 30fps RR on disc) came out it makes you wonder what the issue was. Perhaps it would simply require 3 years of programming optimization to get 60fps in Ridge Racer on PS1, I cannot say for certain. There is detailed information on the Turbo Bonus disc explaining in greater detail what was done but unfortunately I cannot cite it at the moment.


Nonsense, 30fps or lower peformance was widely accepted. I don't know why you want to rewrite history, were you playing videogames a decade ago? Go reread something like the review database at IGN for games released back then. There was no 60fps standard back then that developers would recieve criticism from if they didn't follow it. 60fps 3d titles were very rare in 1999.

I never said it wasn't accepted, but I did say there is no reason not to have 60fps, especially since examples like F-Zero and RRTB clearly demonstrate it's very possible and on a variety of platforms. The standard for 60fps comes from the arcade industry and this is where problems occur. I cannot think of a good 3D arcade game from the 1990's onward that wasn't 60fps. As such, countless arcade ports were not 60fps which for people who experienced the arcade games in the first place, leaves a sour taste.

Sega and the Saturn seemed to have the most problems given Sega is/was primarily an arcade first company. This combined with the fact the hardware in the arcade division was vastly over-powered (thanks to Marietta Martin and later Lockheed Martin) compared to to the home division. The Saturn as is known, a very hard system to program for, in addition doesn't have the hardware in place to excel in 3D. That doesn't mean games like Virtua Fighter 2 and Fighter's Megamix are flukes but I'm just stating the system was more geared towards 2D development. As such, the majority of ports to Saturn from Model 2 were lacking not only in resolution but in frame-rate too. That doesn't mean they are bad games but it was clear by the end of the systems life that it wasn't an easy task taking the arcade home with losing some *omph*.

PS1 on the other hand was good in both 3D and 2D and it's diverse and quality library exemplifies this point. The ratio of exclusive vs ports goes up in favour of exclusive titles versus the Saturn and consequently, comparison to arcade games lessens. In this way 60fps isn't really necessary so long as the game plays well, as is evidenced by Gran Turismo 2. Does that mean they couldn't have acheived 60fps? I think that's too easy an out.


It's a fabulous example, many N64 titles recieved critical acclaim before and after 1999 despite not even managing a 30fps standard. And there were 60fps N64 titles, with F-Zero X being a prominent example that was well known for it at the time.

You're either rewriting history due to not remembering that time correctly, or weren't paying any attention a decade ago.

N64 rounds out the group by being the strong 3D machine and coming from a background focused on home IPs sees even less to compare to. Ocarina of Time, GoldenEye, Star Fox 64, Shadows of the Empire, Rogue Squadron, etc.. all are highly respected games and frame-rate isn't even an issue since pretty much everything else was executed to a point where frame-rate, being constant and competent doesn't show up on the radar. The fact that games like F-Zero X, which run at 60fps, makes one wonder why more games weren't like this.

All these systems were not the now 10 years ago as far as I'm concerned.

Dreamcast and PS2 were the now and both systems showcased a high number of 60fps arcade ports. Essentially my entire sentiments towards the 60fps stems from arcade to home ports. As for games, as prominently show on 64 on PS1, 60fps is often not necessary since there is no source material to begin from. Arcade games on the other hand should try to bring (as best the hardware allows) the arcade experience home. Compare Hydro Thunder N64 to Dreamcast and the winner is clear. Moan all one wants how the Dreamcast is much more powerful than N64 and that N64 is disadvantaged given a limited cartridge based format. It may simply have been easier to bring the arcade home on Dreamcast, but that doesn't mean N64 couldn't have had as good as or better game. That being said Hydro Thunder on N64 isn't a game I think that's bad, but it could've been better.

Dreamcast is pretty interesting since it had a dual design property, by which I mean designed in conjuction with a sister arcade hardware, the NAOMI. Both platforms did excellent 3D and as such, games designed in the arcade, later in life, were easily and usually flawlessly brought home. Ikaruga, Giga Wing 2, and Under Defeat are good examples, all also running 60fps. Meanwhile, earlier in the systems life games from Model 3 (a by the numbers, more powerful system than Dreamcast) were brought over and felt just as good as they did in the arcade. In fact, 11 years ago this month Virtua Fighter 3tb made it's Japanese debut on Dreamcast making for an outstanding and highly accurate port of the Model 3 and running again without frame issue at all. Soon after titles like Virtua Striker 2, Virtual On Oratorio Tangram, Fighting Vipers 2 and more made the easy shift from the more powerful Model 3 to Dreamcast without hassle.

Then there is Sega Rally 2, a launch title, one designed around the Windows CE architecture and possibly rushed for an early 98 launch. The result? Well, choppy vfps for an otherwise great game. I cannot recall anyone that wasn't pissed off that SR2 came out the way it did. This is especially true once the Windows version came out a year later and held a very steady 60fps throughout.

My entire position is that of someone concerned with arcade ports being inaccurate without a very distinct or explained reason. Home exclusives are much less of a concern since it's entirely original and that way the game can be designed with the console in mind from the get-go. Even though I believe this allows for greater flexibility in performance, I still think that if 60fps is possible why not strive for the best. Obviously it shouldn't be blind obedience to the fps counter when developing but to try and bring the best possible experience to the gamer should be considered. Perhaps it's a mistake but I think with the technology and power available in today's generation there is no excuse to not bring 60fps to the table which is true moreso when it was possible to bring 60fps 10 years on vastly weaker hardware.

[jb143]

That artice is pretty non-descriptive so I think many people may be getting worked up over nothing. Can the human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps? (Before answering that please read the rest of my post)

Just because they're locking their video output to 30fps does not necessarily mean that everything else is running 30fps as well. It's pretty common to have input reading and processing done at a much faster rate and only display the image every 1/30'th of a second. The artice simply does not make a distinction between the 2 timing methods. Since the whole "10 years ago thing" keps comming up. Yes, 10 years ago and beyond there was a good chance that screen update fps and game calculation/second were the same. But not today. The second article is talking about latency which, while related, is not necessarily the same thing.

[b0ub0u]

The simple explanation is that developers are putting too much eye candy on games now. The latest gen of consoles just do not have enough power to handle these games at 60FPS.

Again, I can't understand why a title like COD can run at 60FPS with everything going on and pretty good texture work everywhere, and then you see Halo3 running at 30FPS. Different engine this is the only thing I can see.

I would LOVE to be able to play uglier version of Gears of War, GTA IV, Oblivion etc... if this would guarantee a steady framerate of 60. But NO. GTA can get to 15-20 FPS sometimes... I can't begin to understand how this can pass QA. Just try driving fast in that game, police car at your 6, and try to turn the camera, you'll see what I mean lol.

Anyway, the marked is driven by everyday consumers that don't see the difference between those framerates and could not care less so the dev are not in any hurry to change their tactics.

[Berserker]

Can the human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

Oh, definitely.

If you want to see the difference for yourself, here's a pretty easy way:

Go HERE (http://www.spelunkyworld.com/original.html) and download this game, called Spelunky. It's just a fun, free little platformer. Play it, run around for a little bit, run a few screens to the left or right, noticing the actual motion and how the screen scrolls and so on. That game in particular is locked at 30fps.

Ok, now fire up an NES and throw in SMB. If you use an emulator, make sure that vsync or triple buffering or whatever is enabled so that there's no screen tearing. Now do the same thing - move around, jump around, scroll to the right a few screens, watching the motion and how the screen scrolls. If you're running it on an emulator, with vsync enabled, that's a guaranteed 60fps, as long as there aren't a ton of enemies on the screen.

Compare them side-by-side, and you should see a noticeable difference in smoothness of motion.

[Leo_A]

First of all, I don't know why you seem to be in argument mode, as I'm trying to discuss the issue. It's clear we have different viewpoints on what constitutes 10 years ago. For me, 10 years ago the N64 was history. The Dreamcast and the "128bit" generation was afoot and the clear future. It seems that 10 years ago has been extended into the 15 years ago realm, which is definitely not the same.

10 years ago, the Playstation and the Nintendo 64 represented the bulk of console gaming with many major titles for both consoles still in the future, such as Perfect Dark. For the consumer, they were anything but history at that point despite the Dreamcast getting off to a promising start late in the year and many consumers eagerly anticipating the Playstation 2 the following year.



How exactly is Ridge Racer Turbo Bonus a lousy example? It's how the game should have looked in 1995 when the original RR debuted. The PlayStation hardware didn't change, Namco surely weren't too different of a company, so what was the magic formula behind a total reworking of how RR should have been 3 years after it's debut? Also, you should check RRTB out for yourself, it's a full game and is essentially Ridge Racer Remix in the same sense as Virtua Fighter Remix.

isn't the full game, just a sampling of it. If you had actually tried it, you'd of seen that only a fraction of the game is there, that there is just one computer opponent, etc. It's just a demo showing how far Namco's ability to program on the PSOne had grown since launch. The ability to get 60fps out of a launch title many years later was meaningless when you looked at far more advanced titles like Ace Combat 3 and Ridge Racer Type 4, which all ran at 30fps. Graphics, physics, etc., weren't left standing still at 1994 levels. That's why I called it a lousy example since it's accomplishments didn't mean a thing for the games being programmed from the ground up in 1999 with 5 years of evolution from the original Ridge Racer.



The fact that games like F-Zero X, which run at 60fps, makes one wonder why more games weren't like this.

One look at it should make it obvious why more games weren't programmed like that. As I've said before, nearly all trackside detail had to be sacrificed to get 60fps out of it. They felt that 60fps was critical for a game representing futuristic vehicles going hundreds of miles per hour and stripped everything else down accordingly to accomplish that goal. That's how 60fps was achieved in 1999 on the platforms that represented the bulk of what gamers were playing on, it wasn't something that could be accomplished without significantly affecting the graphical capabilities of the game.

Perhaps you should've made clearler earlier on what the heck you were talking about, instead of acting like you were referancing the entire industry a decade ago. The fact of the matter is all I disagreed with was the statement that developers would've been criticized 10 years ago for not delivering 60fps. You never mentioned that you were only talking about the Sega Dreamcast and hardware still in the future at that time, that you weren't talking about the platforms most console gamers were still playing on then and into the next couple of years, and that you were only were talking about arcade ports that represented a dying niche, with the Dreamcast being their last hurrah.

[Ed Oscuro]

10 years ago I remember people saving their pennies in anticipation of the PS2 (and GameCube, Xbox, and the already-released Dreamcast, to a lesser extent).

:argue:

[Rob2600]

In 1997, critics praised Star Fox 64 for the impressive draw distance and amount of geometry onscreen, while maintaining a usually consistent 30 frames per second.

[fahlim003]

10 years ago, the Playstation and the Nintendo 64 represented the bulk of console gaming with many major titles for both consoles still in the future, such as Perfect Dark. For the consumer, they were anything but history at that point despite the Dreamcast getting off to a promising start late in the year and many consumers eagerly anticipating the Playstation 2 the following year.

The history in terms of that generation weren't far removed from being set in stone. In 1999 approximately 130 N64 games were released(covering all regions). In 2000, that number was 84 games and in fact only 13 more came out, worldwide over the next two years. I'm talking about the future and you're talking about the past in terms of what was happening at this time 10 years ago. I'm aware there were some quality games to be sure but as I mentioned the bulk of the quality software for both N64 and PS1 had already come out and 2000 onward didn't hold too much(N64 specifically). Paper Mario, Perfect Dark, S&P, Banjo Tooie, and Majora's Mask are most noteworthy. If I'm wrong here, perhaps my standards simply too high but I believe the N64's best days were past, not ahead. I'm not going to state the market was stale anticipating for the future but I kind of doubt sales were increasing, although I've been unable to find any numbers yet. PlayStation had some gas left in the tank as it had shown throughout the generation, very well dominating from start to finish.
Dreamcast on the other hand had been out in Japan for a year, although it wasn't cleaning house like it would for a brief period after the 9/9/99 NA launch. In the end, if present day was 2010, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I fault myself for believing a 10 year approximation would lead to such a wide discrepancy, so much so that a one difference + or - in the industry. So much for that idea. At least it's been cleared up, differences aside.



isn't the full game, just a sampling of it. If you had actually tried it, you'd of seen that only a fraction of the game is there, that there is just one computer opponent, etc. It's just a demo showing how far Namco's ability to program on the PSOne had grown since launch. The ability to get 60fps out of a launch title many years later was meaningless when you looked at far more advanced titles like Ace Combat 3 and Ridge Racer Type 4, which all ran at 30fps. Graphics, physics, etc., weren't left standing still at 1994 levels. That's why I called it a lousy example since it's accomplishments didn't mean a thing for the games being programmed from the ground up in 1999 with 5 years of evolution from the original Ridge Racer.

I've spent plenty of time in RRTB, several hours, more than I've spent in the original Ridge Racer. It's not far removed from having all the bells and whistles (no transistion from night to day, no flag girls, less music, etc..) from RR and as far as I'm concerned it's essentially a full game. It has 8 different track options for racing. The number of CPU opponents is 3 (thanks to races against the #13 Racing & the Angel car) and the number of records kept far surpasses anything found in the original. Still, it's not Ridge Racer arcade but it's closer than the 1995 release. The whole point of RRTB is because Namco couldn't get 60fps for RRT4 and the original PS1 RR was used as testing ground for advanced graphics and speed. Obviously at some cost (lighting and # of cars) but sense of speed I believe is most important when it comes to racing games, no doubt.


One look at it should make it obvious why more games weren't programmed like that. As I've said before, nearly all trackside detail had to be sacrificed to get 60fps out of it. They felt that 60fps was critical for a game representing futuristic vehicles going hundreds of miles per hour and stripped everything else down accordingly to accomplish that goal. That's how 60fps was achieved in 1999 on the platforms that represented the bulk of what gamers were playing on, it wasn't something that could be accomplished without significantly affecting the graphical capabilities of the game.

Perhaps you should've made clearler earlier on what the heck you were talking about, instead of acting like you were referancing the entire industry a decade ago. The fact of the matter is all I disagreed with was the statement that developers would've been criticized 10 years ago for not delivering 60fps. You never mentioned that you were only talking about the Sega Dreamcast and hardware still in the future at that time, that you weren't talking about the platforms most console gamers were still playing on then and into the next couple of years, and that you were only were talking about arcade ports that represented a dying niche, with the Dreamcast being their last hurrah.

Considering where F-Zero came from and what was required, it looks pretty good so with nothing to compare to pardon the WipeOut series and F-Zero SNES, F-Zero X looks pretty damned good with a (then) respectable draw distance. If 60fps wasn't achieved, it would be a different story.

I wasn't only talking about Dreamcast but it certainly set the tone that had been lacking in the 60fps department from the earlier generation. As illustrated earlier, titles on both N64 and PS1 could achieve this benchmark but many others choose not to. Of course more people were playing the last generation and it certainly wasn't over, not for another year at least. Arcade ports were dying but certainly not niche. They made up a significant amount of a given consoles catalogue although the numbers, as with any dying sector, were dropping from the early 90's. These ports are where most of the concerns for 60fps come from, since if arcade games didn't exist people probably wouldn't care. Dreamcast is also most certainly not the last hurrah. PS2 & Xbox caterred dozens more arcade ports over the years, but again, the numbers sure haven't been increasing. Even games like Sega Rally Revo are akin to an arcade counter-part, Sega Rally 3 which runs at 60fps, not the Revo 30fps. This is a more modern example and they aren't entirely the same, much like Sega Rally 2 PC/DC and Sega Rally 2 arcade or Soul Calibur DC and Soul Calibur arcade but it shows there are still issues from one and two generations ago. Instead of making progress, it seems the home format still isn't powerful enough to have everything including the kitchen sink, either that or developers simply are satisfied with the kitchen sink -30fps.


10 years ago I remember people saving their pennies in anticipation of the PS2 (and GameCube, Xbox, and the already-released Dreamcast, to a lesser extent).

Yeah, same here. OPM once wrote the guy at Sony's Metreon (San Francisco) who was 2nd in line for a launch PS2 paid entirely in change. Hard-____ing-core man. Also---
Dear Ed, couldn't you have kept this topic limited to shmups, at least there I'm inclined to post less in the off-topic whereas here off-topic is on topic!:hmm:

[Leo_A]

Fair enough

I don't even think we disagree, just viewed a few things differently.

[j_factor]

Fun fact about Sega Rally Revo (since it was mentioned): The developer wanted to include a 60 fps / reduced detail option in the console versions, but Microsoft and Sony nixed it.

Fun fact about Saturn: The Saturn version of Last Bronx runs at 60 fps, at the expense of the arcade version's fully 3D (and somewhat more detailed) arenas/backgrounds. I'm sure they could have retained the exact look of the arcade version by dropping the framerate. But I think they made the right choice. I would prefer that type of sacrifice in general.

[Zing]

Their conclusions are absurd.

Higher framerates do not significantly affect review scores? Well, no shit. This is like saying "Faster loadtimes do not significantly affect review scores". Only very poor loadtimes or refreshrates would significantly affect review scores. Review scores are so arbitrary that making the claim that framerates do not affect them is impossible to prove.

What they really mean to say is:
"Our average customer doesn't even know what a framerate is, so we are going to take advantage of that to either: increase graphical detail at the expense of rendering speed or, lower our program code quality."

I think the fact that they are so focused on what the "reviewer" thinks should show that this isn't a tradeoff being done for you or I, it's for marketing.

[kedawa]

Both articles are piss poor, honestly. The idea that frame rate not being mentioned is the same as frame rate not being important is absurd. Reviews might not explicitly site 60Hz refresh rates, but that's very likely what is being praised anytime a reviewer describes the fluidity and smoothness of a games' graphics and animation.

The tech article is just a joke. The guy barely knows what he's talking about, and the latency measuring methodology discussed is half-baked at best.

[Mayhem]

That artice is pretty non-descriptive so I think many people may be getting worked up over nothing. Can the human eye even tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps?

Yes. I can't remember the driving game (it was last-gen) but the single player was 60fps and the split screen multiplayer was locked to 30fps. Plain as day the difference between the two for my eyes, sadly it made the multiplayer a bit tricky to play...

[b0ub0u]

Yes. I can't remember the driving game (it was last-gen) but the single player was 60fps and the split screen multiplayer was locked to 30fps. Plain as day the difference between the two for my eyes, sadly it made the multiplayer a bit tricky to play...

Mario-Kart Wii was like that too. 1-2 players... 60fps... 3-4 players it gets down to 30fps. Same for Super Stardust HD, down to 30fps at 2 players.

[jb143]

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the "human-eye" thing, as that wasn't my point at all. My point was that internally the games are probally running well over 100Hz but they're only choosing when to display the image. Updating the display takes CPU cylces that could be used for reading player input, AI & physics caluctaions, syncing multiplayer games, etc... so by only updating the display 30 times a second instead of 60 they get more time to do that stuff(or add more). The first article makes it sound like their slowing the whole game down twice as much, which I highly doubt is the case.