Not every game has to be at 60fps. I prefer 60, but I'm not going to get upset Nuclear Throne is at 30fps when it plays just fine.
And this whole curator list seems redundant when games' user reviews will already tell you if they're locked at a lower framerate.
Am I the only person who doesn't find games unplayable at 30 frames a fucking second?
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;48215120]And this whole curator list seems redundant when games' user reviews will already tell you if they're locked at a lower framerate.[/QUOTE]
The vast- and I mean VAST- majority of steam user reviews come nowhere close to that level of useful.
Oh look, TotalBiscuit and his cult following at it again with their 30FPS crusade.
[QUOTE=Skyward;48215159]The vast- and I mean VAST- majority of steam user reviews come nowhere close to that level of useful.[/QUOTE]
There's more than a few games I haven't bought since the user reviews mention fps locks and port issues.
From Dust, Arkham Knight, and Split/Second all come to mind. User reviews have almost always helped me.
[QUOTE=Mikk;48215157]Am I the only person who doesn't find games unplayable at 30 frames a fucking second?[/QUOTE]
You're probably used to it. Nowadays my rig can usually handle +60 on most games I own, and it just feels better and doesn't look as choppy. While I'm not allergic to 30, I can more-or-less tell the difference nowadays without having a frame counter up.
oh no Bully: Scholarship Edition, a game from 2006, is locked at 30 fps and it's going to be slightly jarring for the first few minutes and then i'll get used to it and not give a shit
i better write a letter to totalbiscuit so that we can get this removed from steam
There's nothing wrong with 30 FPS its perfectly playable but 60 FPS is objectively better in every way.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;48215120]Not every game has to be at 60fps. I prefer 60, but I'm not going to get upset Nuclear Throne is at 30fps when it plays just fine.
And this whole curator list seems redundant when games' user reviews will already tell you if they're locked at a lower framerate.[/QUOTE]
Well like he mentioned with his own South Park example, everyone can have their own opinions on which specific games are still tolerable or intolerable at 30FPS. But he wanted to keep opinions out of it and let people judge for themselves by extension of the belief that people should be able to choose their frame rate as far as hardware allows, with a 60FPS cap minimum standard for modern games.
I wouldn't call it entirely redundant since not all user reviews mention framerate locks or reliably go into details about whether bypassing the lock is possible, what side effects may occur, and how much effort you need to put in to unlock the framerate. So you might as well do Google research instead, which is just cumbersome enough to make most people just trust in the dev instead of doing research.
With his curator project you should be able to easily spot the icon as a warning label and it'll have a short text blurb about unlocking the framerate if possible. Much more reliable service, at least to the extent of his coverage.
Not sure if he'll stay committed to the project, but stuff like framerate locks and FoV locks are things I'd certainly like listed as official features/warnings, tho it generally doesn't affect my experience as much as in TB's case. Could probably gonna become more relevant information with the rise of VR as well.
I wonder if Valve could convert the concept into an actual feature based on tags or something.
Geez, everyone in here has logs up their assholes.
Some people like games that run at 60FPS, some people don't care. Get over it.
In a world of civilized adults, people running in here to take the piss out of TB, and people running in here to take the piss out of the people taking the piss out of TB, would find a better hobby. It's really not a sane argument to be having.
Good.
It's fine if you like your game at 30 fps but if you oppose this, you oppose people knowing what fps the game is locked to.
You should have a right as a customer to know how well the game runs.
60 FPS is a huge upgrade over 30 FPS, and 120/144 is likewise to 60
According to John Carmack we won't see diminishing returns for the human eye in refresh rates until somewhere around 1000hz
[QUOTE=zerosix;48215214]oh no Bully: Scholarship Edition, a game from 2006, is locked at 30 fps and it's going to be slightly jarring for the first few minutes and then i'll get used to it and not give a shit
i better write a letter to totalbiscuit so that we can get this removed from steam[/QUOTE]
Age doesn't mean shit on a video game for FPS, Doom for christs sakes wasn't locked to 30fps
[QUOTE=woolio1;48215239]Geez, everyone in here has logs up their assholes.
Some people like games that run at 60FPS, some people don't care. Get over it.
In a world of civilized adults, people running in here to take the piss out of TB, and people running in here to take the piss out of the people taking the piss out of TB, would find a better hobby. It's really not a sane argument to be having.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I mean, it's not like his curator group sets out to completely bash any game that runs at 30 FPS. It's simply a way of abusing the system so that they can be categorized as 30 FPS games. There's nothing wrong with that and it should been an official feature on Steam to be honest.
[QUOTE=zerosix;48215214]oh no Bully: Scholarship Edition, a game from 2006, is locked at 30 fps and it's going to be slightly jarring for the first few minutes and then i'll get used to it and not give a shit
i better write a letter to totalbiscuit so that we can get this removed from steam[/QUOTE]
Good for you, now go and play that game instead of complaining about people having standards.
60 FPS is better, but I find 30 FPS tolerable. I don't think 60 FPS should be a requirement, but it shouldn't be something that is just shrugged off either.
I do think this whole "framerate standard" debate is rather silly though. It's only going to change with time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we have people campaigning for 144 FPS to be the absolute minimum for a game in a year or two, simply because it "feels" better.
All in all, I'd rather have a game that plays well at 30 FPS than a game that plays like shit at 60 FPS. Hence, I'm more worried about gameplay than framerate when it comes to games.
I dont know whats up with me, but I also just can't handle 30fps, I dont know how I was able to play GTA V back on 360 fine, but for some reason I just handle anything sub 60, it's fucked
anything below 60 fps makes me vomit blood out of my asshole immediately
[QUOTE=Rahu X;48215265]60 FPS is better, but I find 30 FPS tolerable. I don't think 60 FPS should be a requirement, but it shouldn't be something that is just shrugged off either.
I do think this whole "framerate standard" debate is rather silly though. It's only going to change with time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we had people campaigning for 144 FPS to be the absolute minimum for a game in a year or two, simply because it "feels" better.
All in all, I'd rather have a game that plays well at 30 FPS than a game that plays like shit at 60 FPS. Hence, I'm more worried about gameplay than framerate when it comes to games.[/QUOTE]
Why is the debate silly? It's not even a debate, it's just people are used to 60fps and therefor do not want to play 30fps games and would like to know if the games are locked at 30fps and then there are people who for some reason are mad about this. The 'debate' is a joke where publishers and developers try to argue why 30fps is better than 60fps.
Nobody is campaigning for 60 fps to be the absolute minimum because it 'feels' better, people are just saying (including TB) that they don't want to play games locked at 30fps.
[QUOTE=Higginz511;48215276]anything below 60 fps makes me vomit blood out of my asshole immediately[/QUOTE]
Is this before or after you remove the log?
[QUOTE=Rahu X;48215265]60 FPS is better, but I find 30 FPS tolerable. I don't think 60 FPS should be a requirement, but it shouldn't be something that is just shrugged off either.
I do think this whole "framerate standard" debate is rather silly though. It's only going to change with time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we have people campaigning for 144 FPS to be the absolute minimum for a game in a year or two, simply because it "feels" better.
All in all, I'd rather have a game that plays well at 30 FPS than a game that plays like shit at 60 FPS. Hence, I'm more worried about gameplay than framerate when it comes to games.[/QUOTE]the visual difference between 30 and 60 is much greater than 60 and 144.
The thing is, why [I]force[/I] a game to be locked at 30fps? If you're going to do that, just admit that it's because you can't figure out how to get it to play at 60fps or you can't be bothered to change it at all for the PC rather than making up bullshit like 'it's more cinematic' or 'we felt it fit the tone of the game'.
[QUOTE=Killer900;48215291]the visual difference between 30 and 60 is much greater than 60 and 144.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree.
Still, my statement about gameplay over framerate still stands.
I'm not too miffed that an indie platformer might be locked at 30 FPS if the game plays well regardless. I'd prefer it at 60 or more of course, but it's really a non-issue.
Games are only locked at 30 because the devs were lazy and tied programming to frame rate. Literally the only reason is out of laziness, except in the case of stick of truth
60 fps feels really nice compared to 30, and 120 is just amazing
As long as it looks fluid and responsive enough for the type of game then it doesn't matter to me.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;48215283]Nobody is campaigning for 60 fps to be the absolute minimum because it 'feels' better, people are just saying (including TB) that they don't want to play games locked at 30fps.[/QUOTE]
but the idea of someone going to the extent of setting up a steam page to "report" 30 fps games simply because you are slightly irritated by it is literally one of the stupidest and most counter productive things i've ever heard
imagine spending actual hours of your life doing that shit instead of just dealing with it and enjoying a 30 fps game despite the slight annoyance of it not looking ~enitrely~ smooth
[QUOTE=Shotz;48215256]Age doesn't mean shit on a video game for FPS, Doom for christs sakes wasn't locked to 30fps[/QUOTE]
You're right.
It was locked to 35FPS.
[B]GET WITH THE TIMES MODERN VIDEO GAMES, 35 IS THE FUTURE.
[/B][sp]Only sourceports have an uncapped framerate ("ticrate"). The original game was 35.[/sp]
As for the framerate debate, it's a lot like the awful movie debate where "anything faster than 24FPS looks like a home movie and I can't stand it uggggghhh."
It's highly preferential, but I also feel it's extremely detrimental to try to force a culture of obsession over some perfect capped number. I'd be fighting for 120/144FPS if my monitor actually supported it, and I can't believe people are ok with 24p movies because "we're use to it."
I think some of the time it's because the programmers tied certain mechanics into the framerate, when they really should have had two clocks; one for rendering the frames, the other for everything else.
Remember Dark Souls 2 with the durability bug? Well, that was apparently because the weapons/armour take durability damage for every frame they're in collision with certain things. A way to fix that would probably be decreasing the durability damage dealt per frame, maybe even having some weird compensating equation that reduces the durability damage done per frame depending on the framerate?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
