Retro Games.. are they 30 FPS? 60 FPS? Help!

[HappehLemons]

Alright, anyone who can help me clear up would be great!

From what I understand most CRT tvs only run at 30 frames (on a non-progressive signal) but most systems still push out 60 frames. But when I play games like sonic the game is without a doubt running at 60 frames, proof by the flickering on enemies. So if I'm playing a game using composite cables at 480i which im told is 30 frames I still see the flickering... but I'm running at 30 frames? I use the flickering as "proof" because when I convert gameplay footage to 30 frames the flickering is eliminated.

I'm sure there's a lot I'm not understanding here, and I'm doing a terrible job of explaining it but if anyone could clear this up for me that would be great!

[Satoshi_Matrix]

Framerate isn't something usually considered with retro gaming, as what most of what is considered retro gaming is 2D only. FPS only becomes something to consider when you're talking about FMV games on Sega CD and the like or 3D games. Some games like Star Fox on SNES run at about 19 FPS. 2D games just aren't measured, because parallax scroll is what is important, not frames.


Anyway, here's some copypasta from wikipedia on how FPS relates to gaming. Important info is in bold.

Frame rates in video games refer to the speed at which the image is refreshed (typically in frames per second, or FPS). Many underlying processes, such as collision detection and network processing, run at different or inconsistent frequencies or in different physical components of a computer. FPS affect the experience in two ways: low FPS does not give the illusion of motion effectively and affects the user's capacity to interact with the game, while FPS that vary substantially from one second to the next depending on computational load produce uneven, "choppy" movement or animation. Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion.

The first 3D first-person game for a personal computer, 3D Monster Maze, had a frame rate of approximately 6 FPS, and was still a success. In modern action-oriented games where players must visually track animated objects and react quickly, frame rates of between 30 and 60 FPS are considered acceptable by most, though this can vary significantly from game to game. Modern action games, including popular console games such as Halo 3, are locked at 30 FPS maximum, while others, such as Unreal Tournament 3, can run well in excess of 100 FPS on sufficient hardware. Additionally some games such as Quake 3 Arena perform physics, AI, networking, and other calculations in sync with the rendered frame rate - this can result in inconsistencies with movement and network prediction code if players are unable to maintain the designed maximum frame rate of 125 FPS. The frame rate within games varies considerably depending upon what is currently happening at a given moment, or with the hardware configuration (especially in PC games). When the computation of a frame consumes more time than is allowed between frames, the frame rate decreases.

A culture of competition has arisen among game enthusiasts with regard to frame rates, with players striving to obtain the highest FPS possible, due to their utility in demonstrating a system's power and efficiency. Indeed, many benchmarks (such as 3DMark) released by the marketing departments of hardware manufacturers and published in hardware reviews focus on the FPS measurement. LCD monitors of today are built with three major refresh rate in mind. The most common is 60Hz, which can be used at any resolution without requiring high quality computer systems to render, and then 120Hz and 144Hz. The 120Hz standard also supports what is known as 'lightboost' technology in some monitors, where strobing lights behind the monitor reduce ghosting at high FPS rates.

Beyond measurement and bragging rights, such exercises do have practical bearing in some cases. A certain amount of discarded “headroom” frames are beneficial for the elimination of uneven (“choppy” or “jumpy”) output, and to prevent FPS from plummeting during the intense sequences when players need smooth feedback most.

Aside from frame rate, a separate but related factor unique to interactive applications such as gaming is latency. Excessive preprocessing can result in a noticeable delay between player commands and computer feedback, even when a full frame rate is maintained, often referred to as input lag.

Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together. The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid for some people, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame. Motion blur can also induce headaches when people play a game that requires concentration.[16]

A high frame rate still does not guarantee fluid movements, especially on hardware with more than one GPU. This effect is known as micro stuttering.

[HappehLemons]

Framerate isn't something usually considered with retro gaming, as what most of what is considered retro gaming is 2D only. FPS only becomes something to consider when you're talking about FMV games on Sega CD and the like or 3D games. Some games like Star Fox on SNES run at about 19 FPS. 2D games just aren't measured, because parallax scroll is what is important, not frames.


I'm not sure I understand. Why wouldn't framerate be something to consider when using retro games. Would you mind explaining why parallax scrolling is important and how it makes a framerate irrelevant? Also I am wondering about the 3D side of things as well. When I say retro, I mean anything from PS2 to NES.

[Leo_A]

I too would love to know what the heck parallax scrolling has to do with a discussion about frame rate.

Frame rate is anything but irrelevant for 2D classic gaming.

[Tanooki]

Third on that, parallax scrolling is just a technique of having various background layers move at different paces to create depth. Frames per second is how many frames are passed by the eye within a second in basic terms. Frame rate has no realistic meaning to it on a 2D game, they just move at the pace you move or it is designed for, the FPS really becomes a point in a 3D space because it will dictate how fluid that space responds to your actions.

[StealthLurker]

Framerate for old 2d/pixel/sprite based games did matter, but wasn't something we really thought about in America. For instance look at what people in Europe with PAL SNES systems had to deal with. PAL ran at 50 fps which appeared "slower". Once they got a taste of a US/JPN NTSC SNES/SFC running at a nice 60 fps, you saw a lot of Europeans importing consoles to play the games the way they were intended.


.

[Satoshi_Matrix]

I'm not sure I understand. Why wouldn't framerate be something to consider when using retro games. Would you mind explaining why parallax scrolling is important and how it makes a framerate irrelevant? Also I am wondering about the 3D side of things as well. When I say retro, I mean anything from PS2 to NES.

Frame rate isn't a consideration in 2D, sprite based non-3D games. Those kinds of games are designed with consistent limitations on how the sprites behave including movement and movement speed. The only times you could confuse "frame rate" as an actual thing that happened with those types of games would be slowdown or sprite flickering. Both are caused by the actual system hardware being overtaxed. Too may moving sprites per scanline that exceed the limitations of the systems. See the Kunio-Kun sports games on Famicom/NES as a perfect example.

About parallax scroll, instead of a "frame rate", various layers of parallax scroll were instead used to convey a sense of speed and progression in many different games of yore.

Only 3D retro games have framerates. They typically hower between 24-30 fps depending on the game.



Frame rate has no realistic meaning to it on a 2D game, they just move at the pace you move or it is designed for, the FPS really becomes a point in a 3D space because it will dictate how fluid that space responds to your actions.

This.


Framerate for old 2d/pixel/sprite based games did matter, but wasn't something we really thought about in America. For instance look at what people in Europe with PAL SNES systems had to deal with. PAL ran at 50 fps which appeared "slower". Once they got a taste of a US/JPN NTSC SNES/SFC running at a nice 60 fps, you saw a lot of Europeans importing consoles to play the games the way they were intended.

In almost all cases, what you're talking about are Unoptimized games lazily ported to PAL with slower processors. Still not "frame rates" involved, just slow processors and unoptimized code.

[StealthLurker]

In almost all cases, what you're talking about are Unoptimized games lazily ported to PAL with slower processors. Still not "frame rates" involved, just slow processors and unoptimized code.

Yes and no. The reason why it's safe to say "lazily port to PAL" is because they didn't do "extra work" to overcome/compensate the PAL standard's inherent 50 Hz spec.


.

[goldenband]

Frame rate isn't a consideration in 2D, sprite based non-3D games. Those kinds of games are designed with consistent limitations on how the sprites behave including movement and movement speed. The only times you could confuse "frame rate" as an actual thing that happened with those types of games would be slowdown or sprite flickering. Both are caused by the actual system hardware being overtaxed.

That's not really true; I've played quite a few games that drop frames, i.e. fail to update the screen, without slowdown or flickering. Off the top of my head, Pete Sampras Tennis, the PAL-exclusive sequel Sampras Tennis '96, and David Crane's Amazing Tennis -- and those are just tennis games on the Genesis!

I've also seen poorly optimized ports that redraw the screen at 60Hz on one system and 30Hz on another, e.g. B.O.B. on the SNES vs. Genesis. Whether the CPU is missing updates or whether the screen drawing routine is just set to skip every other frame, I don't know, but it's probably the latter in the case of B.O.B.

BTW a few retrogaming systems update the screen at a rate lower than 60Hz, most notably the Intellivision which only draws the screen 20x/second if you use the default EXEC graphics routines (though they can be bypassed). Of course it's still putting out a NTSC-compliant signal, but 2 out of every 3 frames are duplicates of the first.

[Leo_A]

I don't get this frame rate doesn't matter in 2D jazz. What about games that slow down when the action gets busy? Or what about the many games that are choppy particularly when they tried something fancy for the hardware like 2D sprite scaling?

It's anything but irrelevant. We were blessed with 2D gaming that generally smoothly animated itself, but it did matter and it was anything but unheard of for it to negatively affect a 2D game.


Only 3D retro games have framerates. They typically hower between 24-30 fps depending on the game.


lol

So 2D classic games never refreshed the screen? How is anything animated if they run at zero frames per second with nothing but a static image apparently sent to the tv?

[RP2A03]

First, let me just say that nothing Satoshi_Matrix is saying is making any sense to me.

As for OP's question, the answer is yes. The NTSC standard is 480 interlaced lines of resolution drawn at 60 fields per second. In interlaced video two fields compose one frame, therefore 480i video is 30 frames per second. However, many games output a 240p signal which is, of course, not standards compliant. Lucky for you that your trusty old CRT is nothing more than a dumb analog device that will try to display any kind of signal that you feed it. All you got to do is change the vertical blanking interval so that the beam scans only the even or the odd lines and your TV is none the wiser. This means that while 240p video is still 60 fields per second, it is now also 60 frames per second.

In short, 480i is 60 fields per second and 30 frames per second; 240p is 60 fields per second and 60 frames per second. Now whether or not the hardware can run the game fast enough to consistently provide updated fields at that rate is a different matter.

[SpiceWare]

RP2A03 has it right - the older systems output a 240p signal.

I suspect one of the reasons they used 240p is the flicker tends to be annoying when using 480i. HappehLemons mentions Sonic - if you happen to have Sonic 2 for the Genesis try out its 2 player mode, it'll change the output to a 480i signal in order to show each player a full (though squished) view of where they are in the level.

[theclaw]

I don't see why 2D games couldn't be programmed to process events a different amount of times per second than 60. They'd look and feel less "fluid" in motion, like 3D games.

[Tanooki]

I don't get this frame rate doesn't matter in 2D jazz. What about games that slow down when the action gets busy? Or what about the many games that are choppy particularly when they tried something fancy for the hardware like 2D sprite scaling?


I think of it this way. Gradius III SNES. The game itself as far as the visual output, not what you see, but what is output is a constant feed to the tv itself, but there was too much going on screen in the game in various places so when you'd unload with your guns on four options while missles are going the speed of the game would appear to drop by like half. In other cases it would increase with bubbles or big green boss plants where you'd get tearing and removal of the visuals. Both these instances are one in the same, pushing more allowed sprites and tiles than was allowed per line on the screen and since the hardware couldn't keep up, it would slow or lose visuals until the processor would catch up from a decreased load. The visuals themselves would appear to slow and tear, but they really were still being sent to the screen at the same pace.

[goldenband]

I don't see why 2D games couldn't be programmed to process events a different amount of times per second than 60. They'd look and feel less "fluid" in motion, like 3D games.

Well, as I mentioned, the Intellivision EXEC only updates the screen 20 times per second. I don't know if it still polls the controllers at 60Hz, but all the games written using the default graphics routines -- including most or all of the first-party library for the system -- are at 20fps. Surprisingly, it's not really a problem, but it's certainly less fluid than a typical VCS game.

Otherwise I'm quite sure that there are tons of 2D games that are hardcoded to update onscreen events at less than 60Hz. Dr. Chaos for NES is one that sticks in my head, or just compare the DOS version of Captain Comic to the far smoother NES version.

[Leo_A]

I think of it this way. Gradius III SNES. The game itself as far as the visual output, not what you see, but what is output is a constant feed to the tv itself, but there was too much going on screen in the game in various places so when you'd unload with your guns on four options while missles are going the speed of the game would appear to drop by like half. In other cases it would increase with bubbles or big green boss plants where you'd get tearing and removal of the visuals. Both these instances are one in the same, pushing more allowed sprites and tiles than was allowed per line on the screen and since the hardware couldn't keep up, it would slow or lose visuals until the processor would catch up from a decreased load. The visuals themselves would appear to slow and tear, but they really were still being sent to the screen at the same pace.

I get that, but I don't get why anything is inherently different with 2D gaming than 3D gaming where frame rate is concerned.

Load up something like Top Gear 3000 and put it into 4 player mode. It's all 2D graphics yet it's extremely choppy. How is this any different than the frame rate suddenly changing on the Sega Dreamcast in Sega Rally 2 in a busy corner (Other than one is constantly slow, and the other noticeably slows down on the fly).

I don't get why 3D gaming supposedly has a particular frames per second but 2D gaming doesn't, and still don't buy into it.

[AbnormalMapping]

The trouble with calculating frames per second in a 2d gameplay environment is that it's perfectly normal to have sprites moving around the screen at one speed, while their animation frames move at another, featuring a tile based or possibly even non-scrolling background updating in a completely different framerate.

For example, how would you count the frames per second in Zaxxon for the Colecovision, R-type for Spectrum, or in simulated 3d space, like Super Thunder Blade for the Sega 16-bit console?

[goldenband]

The trouble with calculating frames per second in a 2d gameplay environment is that it's perfectly normal to have sprites moving around the screen at one speed, while their animation frames move at another, featuring a tile based or possibly even non-scrolling background updating in a completely different framerate.

For example, how would you count the frames per second in Zaxxon for the Colecovision, R-type for Spectrum, or in simulated 3d space, like Super Thunder Blade for the Sega 16-bit console?

Scrolling's not a big deal, you just talk about that parameter independently. For instance, Pitfall on Sega 32X has 60Hz sprite animation but 30Hz scrolling for some reason. Zaxxon scrolls at 6Hz, or 6fps.

Scaled sprite games get a little bit trickier when the player sprite is updated at 60Hz and the backgrounds aren't, but again, I think you can just talk about that parameter specifically.

[Niku-Sama]

I figure it didn't matter because they weren't worried about being able to process high resolutions, at that point the output device wasn't the limitation, the processing hardware was.
A CRT was flexable aswell where LCDs aren't as much so again less of a limitation to try and sync up to crazy resolutions and display rates

[j_factor]

Of course framerate matters in 2D games. It's just that 2D games were generally better about being 60 fps most of the time. But there are certainly exceptions. Two 2D Genesis games with subpar framerates are Todd's Adventures in Slime World and Taz-Mania (only in some stages). Awesome Possum is another IIRC. These games had a consistent low framerate, not just slowdown.

Moving forward (into the screen) in a 3D game doesn't "need" as high of a framerate as side-scrolling, whether it's 2D or 3D. For an example of this, play around with Sonic Adventure (1) on the Dreamcast. The game is consistently 30 fps (occasional framerate drops, but rarely). Running forward in stages, the framerate seems ok. Run sideways and it's a lot more noticeable.

[Dr. BaconStein]

I know this thread is a year old (literally), but I feel it's something that needs to be brought up again, since according to certain people, 30 FPS is "unplayable" and a slideshow. I'm hearing Ocarina of Time runs at 20 FPS. Is that true? Because if so, then I think a lot of this frame rate bellyaching with modern games is being grossly exaggerated.

Not to say 60 FPS isn't something to aim for on a current machine, but it seems kind of ridiculous at this point that some people will refuse to play anything under that.

[Tanooki]

When you get under around 15fps I can see a lot being unplayable, but people pissing and moaning about 30 being unplayable are snobs and attention gathering criers. I can see to a point where in a FPS game where it's so precise fast and twitchy that 60 is required playing against another human, or at least the other guy being locked at the same FPS for all fairness. But to whine if Zelda OOT 3DS is unplayable at 20fps is a joke, a sad elitist joke. I used to have it and that game flowed just fine.

[Leo_A]

I doubt it's as low as 20 FPS. Maybe once in a great while when the action is particularly busy, but I bet that it's closer to the mid 20's. 23-24 FPS seems to be what I remember frequently being quoted back in 1998.

Some people like to overstate frame rate issues, especially when they're repeating what they've read. Half-Life for the original Xbox and Star Fox for the SuperNes are two that are often exaggerated.


Scrolling's not a big deal, you just talk about that parameter independently. For instance, Pitfall on Sega 32X has 60Hz sprite animation but 30Hz scrolling for some reason. Zaxxon scrolls at 6Hz, or 6fps.

Scaled sprite games get a little bit trickier when the player sprite is updated at 60Hz and the backgrounds aren't, but again, I think you can just talk about that parameter specifically.

And 3D games are no different. Refresh rates for shadows for instance aren't likely to be 60 FPS in a game that labels itself as 60 FPS, since it simply doesn't need to be in order to still look good.