Most next gen console games will run at 30 FPS according to Carmack - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38882275]Not to pull the PC master race card, but this just blows my mind. With my next round of upgrades I fully intend to have at least one 120/144 Hz capable monitor for several reasons. Native 3D support, and higher effective framerates are among them. If this 48fps movie stuff looks like it will catch on, I may want it even higher. I realize that some people cannot notice a distinct difference between 60 and anything higher, but I can in a blind side by side comparison. 30-40 FPS is jarring for me without blur effects and I detest the way those are generally done.[/QUOTE] This is all well and good. But upgrading to fairly high end hardware, a swanky new high refresh rate monitor, and any other equipment needed is very expensive. Like, more than these consoles are going to cost expensive. Even if you gradually upgrade the hardware (which I think I am long overdue for now...), the total costs are going to exceed a console. It's not accessible to everyone, and not everyone gives two shits about 30FPS being the lower bound because it doesn't really affect their experience from what they know.

I'm still blown away by the fact that I seem to be one of the few people who really doesn't notice much of a difference. I mean really it's like it ruins a game for a lot of people I don't get it.

30 fps is completely playable

Lets assume that there is some "typical next gen game", the hardware to run it at 60 fps at some high resolution is going to be expensive, pc or console, and you guys would whinge fucking hard if a console was expensive. So you get what you pay for. But at the same time, you want games to improve, and a great way to get double the time per frame is to half your expected fps. Hardware is a constantly moving target.

[QUOTE=ColossalSoft;38881884]That's stupid and all, but does John Carmack even matter anymore?[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38884601]30 fps is completely playable[/QUOTE] But for a locked propriety $300 plastic box with no Steam sales that you bought for the sole purpose of playing games from devs whose heads are too far up their ass to port to PC, that sucks [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] I mean it's [I]sole[/I] purpose is gaming, 60 fps should be a requirement or the game gets rejected. Doesn't Apple do this? And they aren't even a gaming console maker yet they have standards that console makers don't have yet...

[QUOTE=hexpunK;38884002]And 30FPS is pretty playable on a console. You don't notice input lag as much, because there genuinely seems to be less input lag (think about it, the consoles are literally running the game, leaving slightly more CPU time available for inputs).[/QUOTE] I don't even know how you can say this. The input lag on consoles is horrendous. Lets not even get into offbrand TVs having as much as 100+ ms delay (which is fine for displaying video). Then there's the ridiculous amounts of bullet magnetism and aiming assistance that consoles use. You are also forgetting one enormous key point. The point that is hard coded into almost every operating system on the planet. The mouse has priority. The pointer is one of, if not the single most highly prioritized process on a computer. Saying that there are background processes is ridiculous unless your system is on it's absolute knees and screaming in agony before a game is even added into the equation. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;38884043]This is all well and good. But upgrading to fairly high end hardware, a swanky new high refresh rate monitor, and any other equipment needed is very expensive. Like, more than these consoles are going to cost expensive. Even if you gradually upgrade the hardware (which I think I am long overdue for now...), the total costs are going to exceed a console. It's not accessible to everyone, and not everyone gives two shits about 30FPS being the lower bound because it doesn't really affect their experience from what they know.[/QUOTE] I fully realize and acknowledge that in my case things are taken to a bit of an extreme, but the price difference is nowhere near what you are making it out to be. Consoles really are not that cheap when you factor in the price of peripherals, extra costs on games, the ridiculous cost of things like wireless adapters for the xbox, and that most people still need a shitbox PC for email on top of that. Even factoring in what I want, a decent 60 hz 1080p monitor is 150-250 dollars in the 24 inch range. A 24-27 inch 3D capable (120 & 144 hz capable) monitor at the same resolution is 400-600 with two pairs of glasses included. Similar price growth occurs when looking at TVs. Ultimately, I want the monitor for watching 3D film. The enhanced gaming is just a bonus, but this is my personal opinion/desires.

-snip-

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;38886741]Explain how its impossible to play a game while its running at 30 FPS.[/QUOTE] That's not what he said.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38886766]That's not what he said.[/QUOTE] Oh, you're right. I'm terribly sorry. I'll snip my post. Thank you.

I'm completely fine with 30fps games when playing on my PS3, even though I have a 120hz monitor for my PC.

There was an article on cracked posted some time ago, more specifically this one: [URL]http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/[/URL] And quite unfortunately, the majority of the things mentioned in it are becoming progressively more acute. We are undoubtedly experiencing a videogame world regression. A disturbing portion of the current gaming world consists of progress destroying mainstream appeal, and money milking. And ever since a few years ago, new game releases literally stopped progressively looking better. 30FPS on a next gen console is the exact opposite end of the spectrum from being acceptable, 120FPS should be the bare bone minimum for absolutely everything even remotely resembling next gen.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;38889800] 30FPS on a next gen console is the exact opposite end of the spectrum from being acceptable, 120FPS should be the bare bone minimum for absolutely everything even remotely resembling next gen.[/QUOTE] 120 fps either requires really shit looking games or damn expensive hardware. Consoles do not want either of these.

While 30 fps cap shouldn't be there for the next generation. I didn't even notice the 30fps cap when playing Dark Souls on PC. It doesn't ruin the experience. Some people seem to cry about it like it is the end of the world. What is even more funny is people bitching when their games don't run at 120 fps.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38890016]120 fps either requires really shit looking games or damn expensive hardware. Consoles do not want either of these.[/QUOTE] Come to think of it, I agree, 60FPS is a much better idea as a cap. I initially suggested 120FPS because it is becoming progressively more possible to create an affordable console which supports such a standard.

I played AC2 with 30FPS. Everything was slow as fuck. Played it over at my friends house who actually has a decent PC. Everything is smoooooooth as fuck. Hotline miami, 60FPS cap. Yeah, pretty cool. Tried to record -> 30fps and everything was slow as fuck.

This generation will definitely not support 120Hz resolutions, as it is not really a standard yet. Maybe it'll be included in a software update later on, but I doubt it.

120fps is 4 times harder to achieve than 30. 60 is only twice as hard. (in theory)

I like 30 fps more than 60 for 9/10 games. I prefer 60 for arcade, sprite, or high speed games like burnout or unreal.

[QUOTE=TonyP;38890582]I like 30 fps more than 60 for 9/10 games. I prefer 60 for arcade, sprite, or high speed games like burnout or unreal.[/QUOTE] You prefer 9/10 games to not be running super smooth? Why?

[QUOTE=Warship;38890215]This generation will definitely not support 120Hz resolutions, as it is not really a standard yet. Maybe it'll be included in a software update later on, but I doubt it.[/QUOTE] 120hz resolutions?

[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38890835]You prefer 9/10 games to not be running super smooth? Why?[/QUOTE] 9/10 games i play are cinematic games. Also I find 30fps to be smooth, just because 60fps is smoother doesn't change that.

[QUOTE=TonyP;38890966]9/10 games i play are cinematic games.[/QUOTE] And you want your "cinematic games" to not run super smooth?

[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38890983]And you want your "cinematic games" to not run super smooth?[/QUOTE] Edit your post and include the second point.

[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38890983]And you want your "cinematic games" to not run super smooth?[/QUOTE] Oh piss off. Are you really going to be a dickhead because I like 30fps and you don't? How petty are you? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

While yes 30fps 'Is perfectly playable' There's no reason for them not to run at 60. Why not have it perfectly playable AND smooth as silk?

[QUOTE=MadBomber;38891074]While yes 30fps 'Is perfectly playable' There's no reason for them not to run at 60. Why not have it perfectly playable AND smooth as silk?[/QUOTE] You can have more graphical fidelity if you run at 30fps over 60.

[QUOTE=alien_guy;38891116]You can have more graphical fidelity if you run at a lower framerate.[/QUOTE] But theres every chance that the new gen of consoles can handle both, if not then fair enough.

[QUOTE=MadBomber;38891185]But theres every chance that the new gen of consoles can handle both, if not then fair enough.[/QUOTE] No that statement will always be true.

[QUOTE=alien_guy;38891116]You can have more graphical fidelity if you run at a lower framerate.[/QUOTE] I'd rather run Crysis on Ultra at 30 than Crysis on High at 60.