How about that: 60 FPS is the winner

[Ed Oscuro]

This is basically a rehash of posts from Shmups so I can get to the point. Insomniac, developer of Ratchet & Clank, is likely stepping away from 60 FPS after R&C Future. Awesome poster and mad scientist Mad Scientist posted this fascinating 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?)

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.