The real difference between 30 and 60 FPS

#21Draconas_LyrrPosted 10/22/2013 1:33:31 PM
Iemander posted...
Draconas_Lyrr posted...
twytch007 posted...
This whole debate brings me back to when The Hobbit was being filmed in HFR (60FPS). I watched a trailer for it and I hated it. It was 'Soap Opera' mode and it looked generic. I prefer movies at the standard 30 FPS. Now this has the opposite effect for me in gaming as I want it to look as real as possible. Saying you can't see the difference is a moronic claim. TONS of people were upset with The Hobbit being presented in a different manor. And it became apparent quickly that they needed to offer it in the standard 30. If it was hard to tell the difference, the casual viewer wouldn't have had a complaint in the first place.


I've seen previews of the Hobbit (Haven't watched the movie yet) and it didn't look any different to me than any other movie. I didn't notice any "Soap Opera"-ness to it.

I can see a difference from 30-60 FPS if they're right next to each other, but once you get past 30 FPS on its own, I stop seeing any difference.


Any game has that, you play Tomb Raider on the PS1 and after awhile you'll stop noticing the horrid graphics and just play the game. Doesn't mean it's acceptable that a next generation console is allowing it's games to run on aging standards.


Yeah, I should have known my post would be wasted on you. Never mind, on to other, more interesting things.
---
PSN: Draconas_Lyrr
Difference between "a" and "an": "a" comes before consonant sounds, "an" before vowel sounds.
#22jellybeanmasterPosted 10/22/2013 1:49:53 PM
a lot of people dont realize is that games THIS GEN looked like next gen games if they only had the right TV. i just bought a new TV with 120Hz display and i played Killzone 2 to see how great the tv looked. my jaw hit me square in the balls. it moved with the fluidity of CoD but with the fidelity of Killzone 2. Then i popped in The Last of Us and my jaw fell into my basement. Both Last of Us & Killzone are locked at 30fps but looked mind blowing moving at 60fps thanks to the tv. my guess is what the new consoles do is deliver that same experience but without the need for a 120Hz display
---
PSN:ProdijusX, GT:BUMBA CLAWT,
#23Iemander(Topic Creator)Posted 10/22/2013 2:10:21 PM
jellybeanmaster posted...
a lot of people dont realize is that games THIS GEN looked like next gen games if they only had the right TV. i just bought a new TV with 120Hz display and i played Killzone 2 to see how great the tv looked. my jaw hit me square in the balls. it moved with the fluidity of CoD but with the fidelity of Killzone 2. Then i popped in The Last of Us and my jaw fell into my basement. Both Last of Us & Killzone are locked at 30fps but looked mind blowing moving at 60fps thanks to the tv. my guess is what the new consoles do is deliver that same experience but without the need for a 120Hz display


What you're talking about is motion enhancement to increase FPS. Your TV just adds additional frames independently from your console. It works very well for slow paced games and I almost always have it enabled, but it does cause some serious artifacts.

But yeah, the reaction you have is the normal reaction for pretty much anyone who moves from 30FPS to 60FPS.
---
PC: i7-3820 | GTX 680 | 16GB DDR3 ---- Laptop: Dell Precision M6700 | i7-3740QM | Quadro K3000M | 16GB DDR3
360 | PS3 | WII | DS | 3DS | Vita
#24XenosheartPosted 10/22/2013 3:14:43 PM
Only difference I see is that 60 fps games run faster.
---
Final Fantasy IX / Kingdom Hearts
|GR|
#25ImDyinSquirtlePosted 10/22/2013 3:22:02 PM
It isn't a huge deal.
---
Help me Squirtle, dont just stand there...Im freaking dying
"Snyder, Nolan and Goyer need to be lined up and executed." - animeape
#26TerantatekPosted 10/22/2013 3:31:28 PM
ImDyinSquirtle posted...
It isn't a huge deal.


Ya it is. Flipping between 30 and 60fps on PC Skyrim. It's uber noticeable. It's a big deal. Lotsa nubs are used to gaming on consoles, if they were to spend a few months exclusively playing games at 60fps, it'd be hard to go back.

Example, GTA5 plays fine, but its choppy as hell when I play bf3 on my pc at the same time, watching side by side.
---
"The best revenge is to live a happy life"
Love, Peace, 420-14/7. Living in Euphoria
#27SlimeSwayzePosted 10/22/2013 3:49:31 PM
I agree with an above post that anything beyond 24fps in film is atrocious. It makes everything look sterile and cheap. The artistry is gone. There were lots of articles when The Hobbit came out criticizing the decision, and I agree that it is a horrible choice.

As far as gaming goes, nearly every type of game that I enjoy plays perfectly fine at 30fps. So long as it is locked in, I will never have a problem with that framerate. I've been gaming on PC for some time now and I will always choose a higher resolution and better settings at 30fps then lower resolutions and lower settings at 60fps. On consoles, where I can't adjust settings, I prefer that a dev make a game look as good as they can so long as it's locked in at 30fps.
---
Currently Playing: Fatal Frame 3, P4: Golden, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
#28KabtheMentatPosted 10/22/2013 5:00:26 PM
SlimeSwayze posted...
I agree with an above post that anything beyond 24fps in film is atrocious. It makes everything look sterile and cheap. The artistry is gone. There were lots of articles when The Hobbit came out criticizing the decision, and I agree that it is a horrible choice.

As far as gaming goes, nearly every type of game that I enjoy plays perfectly fine at 30fps. So long as it is locked in, I will never have a problem with that framerate. I've been gaming on PC for some time now and I will always choose a higher resolution and better settings at 30fps then lower resolutions and lower settings at 60fps. On consoles, where I can't adjust settings, I prefer that a dev make a game look as good as they can so long as it's locked in at 30fps.


AKA I prefer pretty things over gameplay.

You're the reason why console devs get away with 30 and below FPS.
---
Big Money. Big Women. Big Fun.
Skillz Ferguson
#29Coutts2Posted 10/22/2013 5:10:16 PM
At what point did anyone expect the 6 year old PS3 to look and run as smooth as a new PC. If I had a choice I would take 60 fps, but I can live with 30 fps.
---
PSN: Geoff-C-
#30SlimeSwayzePosted 10/22/2013 5:25:35 PM
KabtheMentat posted...
SlimeSwayze posted...
I agree with an above post that anything beyond 24fps in film is atrocious. It makes everything look sterile and cheap. The artistry is gone. There were lots of articles when The Hobbit came out criticizing the decision, and I agree that it is a horrible choice.

As far as gaming goes, nearly every type of game that I enjoy plays perfectly fine at 30fps. So long as it is locked in, I will never have a problem with that framerate. I've been gaming on PC for some time now and I will always choose a higher resolution and better settings at 30fps then lower resolutions and lower settings at 60fps. On consoles, where I can't adjust settings, I prefer that a dev make a game look as good as they can so long as it's locked in at 30fps.


AKA I prefer pretty things over gameplay.

You're the reason why console devs get away with 30 and below FPS.


No offense, but it's painfully stupid to think that games can't have great gameplay and presentation at 30 fps. Not all genres require it. And I'm glad if people like me continue to support games that run below 60 fps, as it is not the end all be all of what makes a game good. If you're so concerned about every game playing at 60 fps, you're more than capable of playing exclusively on PC, which is what I recommend you do.
---
Currently Playing: Fatal Frame 3, P4: Golden, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.