ARMS is Now Fully Playable at 60 FPS Locked [Nintendo Switch Emulation]
53 replies, posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGqYBOkcYgQ
Fighting games for sure are something that truly require the full 60fps
Same with shooters and racing games. Really anything that hinges on timing and reaction really needs an uncapped framerate, and a stable one at that.
Such a great game. It's too bad the characters rosters is so small, I wish it was one of these game as a service type of game with constant update, it would definitely have made it more populars. I love having an extremely diverse roster.
I really hope Nintendo doesn't abandon the franchise, it has so much potential marred by a weak launch game.
Woah I've never heard of this. This looks like a really good, simple fighting game. For simple people like me.
The problem with it is that, compared to Splatoon, they failed to create that "feeling" of being in a community and having an always evolving game (Not saying game as a service because it feels cold and lifeless compared to all the love and effort they put in Splatoon 1 and 2's updates).
Remember Splatoon 1's release? It only had like, 4 maps? Imagine if they didn't update it at all, it would've probably been dead before the end of the summer.
They've added a bunch of stuff to ARMS after the release, but really, it still wasn't enough for a game that basically only had a "Classic Mode", local multiplayer and a couple of online multiplayer modes.
You can feel the lack of a Splatoon styled hub map in that game, why isn't there any?
There should've also been cosmetic items (Fighting games are embracing this, especially Tekken and Mortal Kombat) and possibly a story mode with actual lore and cutscenes.
The game is still really fun, especially with friends, but at the moment it doesn't feel anything more of a Wii Sport minigame of some sort.
144 for fps games imo
Once you get to that, you don't want any less than 100 MINIMUM imo
the difference between 60 and 100 is much higher than 100 to 165, however I'd say it should be as far as 240hz.
Reason being, at that point it's getting as close to virtually instant in human perception as we'd ever really need to get. At that point any higher and the returns will be pointless.
Still, even if it's not a traditional fighter, ARMS is still a fighting game, and the standard for fighting games has always been 60 fps, the character moves and abilities have always been tailored for that amount of frames.
I get what you're saying, and I definitely agree that 60 FPS is the way to go, but I just wanna state for the record that ARMS doesn't really have "moves and abilities" in the traditional sense of fully-defined, pre-animated attacks that rely on that kind of frame precision to work (and learn). Everything is very "analog" and fluid in this game, with all your different "moves' just being how you curve your punches. Outside of punching and moving, it's just block, grab, jump, charging up punches, and the rush meter. It's an even more simplistic control scheme than Smash or Splatoon are, and even the different fighters' unique traits are all in their attributes and various quirks that automatically activate on those basic abilities (Master Mummy regaining HP while blocking, Ribbon Girl's multiple jumps, Dr. Coyle constantly floating, Spring Man getting perma-charged at low HP) rather than separate movesets.
On that same note: this isn't a game I would really recommend playing via emulator even if it does run flawlessly, since the Joy-Con motion controls are practically required to the point that even competitive players recommend using them over the traditional scheme. You just get more control over where your punches go with them (in that you actually can control your arms individually rather than aiming everything with a single control stick). It really is akin to something like the boxing minigame in Wii Sports where the motion controls are the entire point, only with the usual polish and depth of a full game applied to it, and you can tell it wasn't really made for the traditional scheme. If you can manage to hook some VR motion controllers or whatever into the emulator, that's a different story, although I'd recommend moving away from your desk a bit. This game does get physical.
On an unrelated note: like others, I'm sad that they discontinued post-launch support as quickly as they did, since this basically is to the Switch what Splatoon was to the Wii U - that funky, brand-new IP that tries to take advantage of all the unique capabilities of its debut system, and there's potential for a lot of fun lore here, such as that comic book they were planning to do. But it just sorta fell off people's radars after launch, so I sorta get why Nintendo ditched it; plus this was by the same team that developed the original Mario Kart 8 (MK8D's porting was handled by someone else while these guys worked on ARMS) and I imagine they probably wrapped it up so as to move onto Mario Kart Tour.
60 is fine, you get used to it fairly quickly.
120+ fps is ideal, obviously, but it's not really feasible to get that in every game.
Fighting games are usually capped to 60.
Hence why I said fps games
I still think 30 is fine, and I have a 120Hz monitor.
I think the problem is your poor adaptability
If I play a 30fps game for a bit, I get used to it again.
30 fps is fine on the couch, but on a PC framerates as high as 60 are noticeably choppy and off-putting. 144 is always the goal.
I'm lucky if I can get 60 at medium-high settings in modern games.
I guess it depends per person, but I own a 144hz monitor and I can still adapt to 30-fps locked games (console or PC) just fine. It takes about a few minutes to adjust but as long as the performance is consistent, it's fine.
you're in for an upgradin' then I guess
Maybe it's just because I've never had an over-60Hz monitor, but I feel 60 is far from choppy. 60 FPS on a console game is considered the gold standard and I'm happy when my PC hits a solid 60, too. But I guess it's one of those "once you're used to it you can't go back" deals.
As aside, doesn't human eyesight top out at around 300 FPS before the frames become indistinguishable? I guess that's the ultimate goal to aim for, huh?
I'm very likely to believe this is psychological, and not actually happening.
I have a 144hz monitor, I love it, it's great, but I switch to my ps4 or other older consoles frequently and frankly, you're probably over exaggerating the difference and believing yourself when you do.
For me yes, but also no
I absolutely need 60 fps as a minimum, though 75hz/fps for a reaction game is very important. But if its a very slow game I'll just lock it at 60 and 4k
however doom on the switch at 30 isn't so bad because of screen size, and souls 1 in general being a slow game makes it bearable.
people constantly talking about how once they try 144hz they can never go back are incredibly effective at dissuading me from ever upgrading from my 60hz monitors
tbh those people are exaggerating how much it affects stuff. Is 144 FPS nice? Hell yeah, I got 144Hz and when games hit fps values that high the game's buttery smooth, but it's still pretty easy to get used to 60 or 30 FPS again if you want to play games with FPS caps or on consoles. So long as the FPS is consistent it'll look good.
I'm really not.
It was the equivalent of hoping a full second of actions in CSGO.
Heck, if I change the screen right now to 60hz, its waaay too noticeable.
As computing power increases, so do render times because we strive for more visual quality.
There will always be 30fps games in the foreseeable future, because it allows twice the render time per frame - meaning a 30fps game will always look better than a 60fps game.
And 30fps is fine to most people anyways.
It's really, really, really, really not.
I love my 144hz screen but when I hear ridiculous stuff like this i can't help but roll my eyes and just be confused
It's personal preference. A lot of people (myself included) are really sensitive to lower fps in interactive experiences. No reason to judge people based on that.
Basically depends how fast paced the game is for me. I'm not gonna care if Civ6 runs at 60 fps
People who go ANYTHING UNDER 144FPS IS LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE are always great at sounding absolutely mental and I'm not sure if they ever realise it.
Refresh rates are the ultimate slippery slope when it comes to hardware expenses. I'll just happily stay at 60hz and avoid spending thousands on new components every time my fps drops to an ~unacceptable~ 108 fps
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.