This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why does everyone need 60 fps?

#11GoshoraiPosted 6/25/2014 8:57:00 PM
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.
---
"Is...Is THAT thing going inside me?" http://i.imgur.com/0aN841r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gZdpK27.jpg
Steam ID: Goshorai. / XBL:ShoraiZenta.
#12DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/25/2014 8:58:25 PM
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.


Was Legend of Zelda OOT unplayable to most people, then?
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#13Haley Joel OsmentPosted 6/25/2014 9:02:40 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.

Was Legend of Zelda OOT unplayable to most people, then?

Standards change over time. Of course things that were acceptable back in the early days of 3D games aren't acceptable now. Would people be satisfied if Sega released a hot new driving game and it looked like Virtua Racing? No, but that doesn't mean Virtua Racing wasn't awesome back in 1992.

---
I see dead people.
#14PhilOnDezPosted 6/25/2014 9:03:28 PM
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps.


Exactly. That **** is just thoroughly good with no downsides whatsoever.

It's actually a big part of why CoD is so popular on consoles, it's one of the few games that run at 60 fps on consoles and why so many people say the game just feels better than its imitators even when they have identical controls. They go for flash at 30 fps, activision isn't afraid to smear some Vaseline on the camera to hit 60.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#15GoshoraiPosted 6/25/2014 9:07:55 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.


Was Legend of Zelda OOT unplayable to most people, then?


No. But you have to take in mind that that was another time were this "framerate elitism" didn't exist. Or at least, it wasn't as prominent in this generation where everyone is screaming about "1080p@60fps" or "Sub-hd games @30fps".

I personally didn't mind either OOT's or MM's framerates, heck not even Goldeneye, and that ran even worse (at least to my experience)
---
"Is...Is THAT thing going inside me?" http://i.imgur.com/0aN841r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gZdpK27.jpg
Steam ID: Goshorai. / XBL:ShoraiZenta.
#16DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/25/2014 9:08:50 PM
Haley Joel Osment posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.

Was Legend of Zelda OOT unplayable to most people, then?

Standards change over time. Of course things that were acceptable back in the early days of 3D games aren't acceptable now. Would people be satisfied if Sega released a hot new driving game and it looked like Virtua Racing? No, but that doesn't mean Virtua Racing wasn't awesome back in 1992.


I don't know, I didn't have much trouble going through it again on my Shield.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#17DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/25/2014 9:11:04 PM
Goshorai posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Goshorai posted...
There's no "need" for 60fps, said framerate is just way better than 30fps. 30fps is often considered the absolute minimum when it comes to playable framerates, except for certain members of the PC Gaming community.


Was Legend of Zelda OOT unplayable to most people, then?


No. But you have to take in mind that that was another time were this "framerate elitism" didn't exist. Or at least, it wasn't as prominent in this generation where everyone is screaming about "1080p@60fps" or "Sub-hd games @30fps".

I personally didn't mind either OOT's or MM's framerates, heck not even Goldeneye, and that ran even worse (at least to my experience)


I think it's less about framerate elitism and more about the kind of game in question.
Crysis plays fine at 30fps, and is still quite playable at 20 or 15. Something like Ceville would be just fine at 15fps or below.
On the other hand, playing something fast paced at 30fps, or releasing a modern 3D game that's framerate locked is just stupid. Far Cry was pretty damn hard to play on the original Xbox, for example.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#18Orestes417Posted 6/25/2014 9:15:39 PM(edited)
Again, in some games there are very real limitations to a less than optimal framerate. That's why I said to go play quake 3. If you're not hitting specific numbers on your framerate it'll screw with your jumps and make some maneuvers harder or outright impossible.

If I'm remembering correctly from my misspent youth the high end of the magic numbers were 200, 166 and 142 if you had hardware to pull them off. That said I'm old and my memory ain't what it once was so if anyone wants to correct or expound on the math in depth be my guest.
---
Some roads you shouldn't go down because maps used to say there'd be dragons there. Now they don't, but that don't mean the dragons aren't there.
#19MithrilMonarchPosted 6/25/2014 9:14:06 PM
I'm happy with anything 30+, but that's just me.

Even with that being said, frame rate is 100000% more important than higher resolutions. Resolutions don't add much of anything to the general ability to play the game well, while frame rate does.
---
http://i.imgur.com/LAbUZ0L.jpg
^ More fun than actually playing the game
#20PhilOnDezPosted 6/25/2014 9:16:10 PM
A lot of older games don't give you direct, full control of the camera so frame rate isn't that big a deal. I can't think of a single PS1 game that did and even games like that on N64 were pretty rare.

For OoT specifically I've been playing the 3DS remaster which runs at a much higher fps and it still feels clunky and doesn't give you control of the camera except in look mode and aim mode, and even then the camera is extremely slow to move. I never played the original but I assume it works the same.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez