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

[QUOTE=alien_guy;38891116]You can have more graphical fidelity if you run at a lower framerate.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns]No.[/url]

I don't have any problem with this as long as this means that the [B]bare minimum[/B] is 30 FPS, meaning that'd be the absolute lowest it could get even in large action setpieces and explosions and such 30 FPS is perfectly playable and smooth and had been the standard for a while before 60 FPS became that, but it's [I]much[/I] easier to get to an unplayable framerate if your average is 30 rather than 60. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [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] Because a machine that can run a next gen game like Watch_Dogs at 60 FPS would probably cost way more than a normal console's launch price, or it would put a lot of pressure on developers to optimize everything to run at a constant 60 FPS which would turn devs away from that console

I'm pretty confused. I run certain games on highest settings and get 30fps and the game feels really smooth still.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;38890872]120hz resolutions?[/QUOTE] As in, 1920x1080@120Hz etc All I'm saying is that no console anytime soon will support those refresh rates.

[QUOTE=Warship;38893103]As in, 1920x1080@120Hz etc All I'm saying is that no console anytime soon will support those refresh rates.[/QUOTE] They could easily manage it for indy games like limbo.

I played GTA4 on an AMD dual core for hundreds of hours. I am no stranger to 30 FPS. That being said, 60 FPS is so much better when I can run a game with it.

[QUOTE=IKTM;38877469]It's not that bad. 30 fps is still quite playable.[/QUOTE] yeah, maybe for casual gaming, but for more serious or "hardcore" gaming, 60 fps is optimal

[QUOTE=FullStreak12;38895370]I played GTA4 on an AMD dual core for hundreds of hours. I am no stranger to 30 FPS. That being said, 60 FPS is so much better when I can run a game with it.[/QUOTE] Yeah I played it at 30fps for a long time. Now with a new PC I can run it on 60+ and damn it's a thousand times more enjoyable.

[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] more fps = better input = more playable. Ask allot of competitive players if they wanna play at less thant 120 fps. Chances are they will just not play the game period.

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;38895936]yeah, maybe for casual gaming, but for more serious or "hardcore" gaming, 60 fps is optimal[/QUOTE] Please, oh please entertain me this. What do you think "casual" gaming is? Because if you answer anything along the lines of CoD, BF3, etc. You are horribly incorrect. [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Baconator;38897723]more fps = better input = more playable. Ask allot of competitive players if they wanna play at less thant 120 fps. Chances are they will just not play the game period.[/QUOTE] Their loss. Then again, why would I really want the opinion of a "professional" gamer? They are all pretty stuck up, egotistical and just generally not great examples of the gaming community.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;38897732]Then again, why would I really want the opinion of a "professional" gamer? They are all pretty stuck up, egotistical and just generally not great examples of the gaming community.[/QUOTE] rofl why do I even make these posts when I know this moronic response will happen? The point of that post is that fps is about input, not visuals. You are better off with worse graphics and better fps than better graphics and worse fps. Understand my point now? Am I gonna need to make another post about this? FPS is so much more important than damn visuals ffs [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] there is a reason why CoD on consoles forces 60 fps at all times, because at 30 fps you'd have have like 30 milliseconds of input delay. Console gamers love CoD's input response compared to other games that are 30 fps. FPS is not some pro gamer bullshit, but something everyone appreciates, they just don't attribute it to FPS

[QUOTE=The Baconator;38897828]rofl why do I even make these posts when I know this moronic response will happen? The point of that post is that fps is about input, not visuals. You are better off with worse graphics and better fps than better graphics and worse fps. Understand my point now? Am I gonna need to make another post about this? FPS is so much more important than damn visuals ffs [editline]19th December 2012[/editline] there is a reason why CoD on consoles forces 60 fps at all times, because at 30 fps you'd have have like 30 milliseconds of input delay. Console gamers love CoD's input response compared to other games that are 30 fps. FPS is not some pro gamer bullshit, but something everyone appreciates, they just don't attribute it to FPS[/QUOTE] I understand perfectly well that FPS affects input (I've done game programming in the past, not much, but enough to understand the effects of it, plus basic knowledge and research). But the point me, and many others who don't find low FPS too off putting have been making is that the average player, the guy who sits his ass down and plays a game for a little while, doesn't actually give a shit. They won't notice input lag as small as a few ms most times. Especially on consoles, where input is not exactly a 1:1 thing. So, before you start being a cock, actually read the opposing sides arguments. Yes, high FPS is nice, yes it makes input that little bit nicer. But it is not something incredibly core to the game as long as you can keep it over 30 FPS, where it is still totally playable by the everyman, which is what the consoles aim to do. 30 FPS minimum is a nice thing to try, seeing as this generation is starting to dip below it more and more and people are starting to notice it.

The difference between 60 and 120 fps is pretty marginal, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge. Just a note to all the "120 hz" people, keep in mind that once you start getting over the 60-80 fps mark, there's a major law of diminishing effect that comes into play. For instance you simply would not be able to notice any significant difference between 120 fps and 10,000 fps; they'd both look completely smooth. Once you breach the 60 fps mark any difference is quite marginal.

I'd like to see higher FoVs over higher frame rates in console games, or at least the option to adjust them. I play my 360 on a monitor thats quite close to me and the FoV on lots of games can be quite jarring.

Not all games have input lag if the FPS is lower. Most modern games poll for key/mouse input in a separate thread, which has nothing to do with rendering. [editline]20th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MadBomber;38898038]I'd like to see higher FoVs over higher frame rates in console games, or at least the option to adjust them. I play my 360 on a monitor thats quite close to me and the FoV on lots of games can be quite jarring.[/QUOTE] Higher FOV = more triangles = lower FPS

since when has 30fps games become the work of the devil? That's how alot of people in this thread are treating it.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38897967]The difference between 60 and 120 fps is pretty marginal, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge. Just a note to all the "120 hz" people, keep in mind that once you start getting over the 60-80 fps mark, there's a major law of diminishing effect that comes into play. For instance you simply would not be able to notice any significant difference between 120 fps and 10,000 fps; they'd both look completely smooth. Once you breach the 60 fps mark any difference is quite marginal.[/QUOTE] for the billionth time it's not about looks, it's about input

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38897967]The difference between 60 and 120 fps is pretty marginal, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge. Just a note to all the "120 hz" people, keep in mind that once you start getting over the 60-80 fps mark, there's a major law of diminishing effect that comes into play. For instance you simply would not be able to notice any significant difference between 120 fps and 10,000 fps; they'd both look completely smooth. Once you breach the 60 fps mark any difference is quite marginal.[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference between 60 and 120 Hz though, especially in fast paced games.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38897967]The difference between 60 and 120 fps is pretty marginal, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge. Just a note to all the "120 hz" people, keep in mind that once you start getting over the 60-80 fps mark, there's a major law of diminishing effect that comes into play. For instance you simply would not be able to notice any significant difference between 120 fps and 10,000 fps; they'd both look completely smooth. Once you breach the 60 fps mark any difference is quite marginal.[/QUOTE] There are diminishing returns, but where the actual point is varies significantly from person to person and from title to title. It also varies depending on whether an individual knows what to look for. And as mentioned above, input is always better at higher frame rates.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;38899201]since when has 30fps games become the work of the devil? That's how alot of people in this thread are treating it.[/QUOTE] It's not the work of the devil, but I don't think it should be the target mark for playability. It's perfectly serviceable; I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but if we're going to really make the move to the next generation of gaming we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard and not just "How pretty can I make this look while achieving the bare minimum framerate so that it isn't jerky?" If 60fps became the new standard, even if maximum graphical fidelity suffered a bit, I think the general public would quickly accept it and would never go back to console games running below 45-60fps. EDIT: On the subject, I just ended up capturing a minute of footage from Mass Effect 3, first at 60fps, then at 30fps. Since Youtube can't do higher than 35fps I believe, these are the files at the actual proper framerate. For those of you who have a difficult time telling the difference between 30fps and 60fps, maybe this will help. [url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/cj5eo75q8dd5nwl/MassEffect3_FPSComparison.rar]Download here.[/url]

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38897967]The difference between 60 and 120 fps is pretty marginal, but the difference between 30 and 60 fps is huge. Just a note to all the "120 hz" people, keep in mind that once you start getting over the 60-80 fps mark, there's a major law of diminishing effect that comes into play. For instance you simply would not be able to notice any significant difference between 120 fps and 10,000 fps; they'd both look completely smooth. Once you breach the 60 fps mark any difference is quite marginal.[/QUOTE] if we got to the point of being able to display ~500 fps, the human eye would be almost completely incapable of discerning a series of images as different from how smoothly we perceive life. i guarantee that [I]10,000 fps[/I] and 120 would look different. also assuming that input lag diminishes as much as the fps gets higher then there would be absolute perfect connection between us and the games we play. from that perspective you have to agree that you would be able to tell the difference. obviously the eye doesn't see in fps, but there's a threshold for what period of time we can perceive changes.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38903410]if we got to the point of being able to display ~500 fps[/QUOTE] i once got a Quake 3 mod to render about 400 FPS once [sp]while noclipped and facing away from the map[/sp] does that count

Just because John Carmack tweets it, doesn't mean it's true

[QUOTE=lavacano;38903863]i once got a Quake 3 mod to render about 400 FPS once [sp]while noclipped and facing away from the map[/sp] does that count[/QUOTE] does your screen display at 400hz

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38903949]does your screen display at 400hz[/QUOTE] Interesting fact I got to witness a while ago: 120fps at 120hz actually creates "natural" motion blur since the refresh rate is high

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38903949]does your screen display at 400hz[/QUOTE] well no and in actual gameplay conditions i only saw it go as high as like 75 but if it [b]did[/b] Quake 3 void at 400FPS would look so fluid

[QUOTE=lavacano;38904248]well no and in actual gameplay conditions i only saw it go as high as like 75 but if it [b]did[/b] Quake 3 void at 400FPS would look so fluid[/QUOTE] But the ideal FPS for quake 3 is exactly 125. Though it's got more to do with the engine than anything, as that framerate gives you the ability to actually jump a bit further due to rounding errors in the engine.

45 would be decent, it's not too slow or too fast. Should have picked 45.

I hardly see the difference to be honest...

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38906120]45 would be decent, it's not too slow or too fast. Should have picked 45.[/QUOTE] Vsync issues.