Ps and Fps - how important are they to you?

A little question before I go off to work today. A lot has been made, both in the press and (more so) by your average Joe on the net, about the holy grail of 1080p60fps. What are GNamer's thoughts on these? How important is it that a game is 1080p rather than 720? Or 60fps rather than 30? Does it depend on genre? Is the experience significantly diluted?

Your thoughts! I'll come back with mine later.

I think the main thing with frame rate is consistency. I don't tend to notice it if it's constantly 30, I don't feel like I'm getting that much more at 60, but in Rainbow 6 Siege the Terrorist Hunt mode runs at 30, while the multiplayer runs at 60 and it just feels horrible.

As for the 1080p thing, that isn't something I notice at all, I wouldn't even really know how to tell.

Depends on the game.  If it's turn based I want that resolution up there.  If it's action in any way (platformer, fighter, action based, so on) I want that fps at 60 or a rock solid 30 at worst (to put it bluntly I tolerate 30fps).  

That all said, I'm the sort of guy who would happily see games go backwards a gen in terms of graphics quality if it got it running at 1080p 60fps.  I put far more importance on both of those than pure graphical quality, because a game can look better with lower quality graphics if it runs smooth as silk.  

That and fps actually affect gameplay, not only making games look incredibly smooth but also bolstering response time for button inputs, one of the reasons why Smash 3ds works so well for example is its stable framerate.  


God help a game that's neither proper hd nor 60fps though, I don't care how good a games graphics are, if they can't get to that standard the game is going to get massive markdowns from me.  Take Assassin's Creed 4 Black Flag, constant frame rate drops that made an already naff battle system run even worse.  Honestly though I find graphics running so high the resolution and frames take hits is more a western dev thing so I don't run in to it all that often (thank god).


Side-note: I usually go easier on portable games with this sort of thing. Home consoles are the ones about being impressive, although even then I expect the game to be reasonably smooth.

The only things I notice are slowdown and pop-up; I have no idea where they fit on the bracket of 1080p and 60 frames per second (didn't we used to call that 'Hertz'? Is that something else? It just goes to show how much attention I pay to these things). As long as the game looks fine and does not slow down, that's fine in my book.

Hertz is the unit of refresh rate, which is different to the frame rate. The frame rate is the number of different frames output by the console. The refresh rate is the number of images shown by the screen per second. The refresh rate is constant and controlled by the screen, while the frame rate can drop. When the refresh rate is higher than the frame rate the screen will do number of tricks to know what to show - at its simplest it just repeats frames (so if you have a frame rate of 30 per second but a refresh rate of 60Hz, each frame would appear twice). Screens use maths&stuff™ to interpolate between frames to create new images to reduce motion blur and other things. Good article: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm

I don't notice these things anywhere near as much as some people seemingly do, but it definitely depends on the game. The difference between 720 and 1080 is no where near the difference between HD and non-HD so it doesn't really bother me in most games, although it's more obvious on a PC for regular non-game usage because of screen estate being larger at larger resolutions.

High frame rates are great for fast racing games, like F-Zero, but most the time unless there is obvious slowdown I don't really notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I didn't know terrorist hunt was half the frame rate of the regular mulitplayer in r6s siege for example, despite playing it.

Speaking of hertz I absolutely HATE it when things are sub-60 hertz in the current era. They literally don't even make tv sets that run on that defunct old PAL exclusive garbage now, stop releasing things in it!

Not gaming but it makes a massive difference in picture quality when a dvd is being upscaled, 60 hertz it looks okay, not as good as HD, but okay. 50 hertz? You will know every single moment of the duration that it's a standard definition product, and any poor encoding also sticks out like a sore thumb. Genuinely revolting to watch sometimes (I'm looking at YOU Code Geass R2 dvd set!)

Ooh, I bet that hertz your eyes.

Today I have learned! Mostly that there is no depths that Balla won't sink to in the name of punnery.

A interesting thing to talk about, I do find it interesting and do watch likes of Digital Foundry with things like FFXV Platinum Demo which doesn't run well on either a PS4 or XBONE but it did start off as a PS3 game that there maybe some issues etc

But both side by side looked fine, yeah the PS4 version looked and runs better, I hear the same with Dark Soul's 3 which was built for each system from the ground up for each system is far better on PS4 but will it effect Drunka's enjoyment on XBONE knowing his version is the worst. The answer is NO!

I said when I had both a PS4 & XBONE, be the same when the NX comes out and let's say it's just a black box of power and all 3 systems gets Call of Duty In Space and the PS4 version is 1080p 30fps SP and 900p 60fps MP, XBONE is 900p 30fps SP and 720p 60fps MP, NX is 1080P 60fps SP & MP and I'm paying £50 for the game, I'm going to get the most for my money which would be the NX version.

Well actually I would go for PS4 version as more likely I know playing it online.

I do things should target a 1080p resolution though and lock there self's to 30fps as most at 60fps take dips, but I know for MP games you want the fps up there that resolution may have to take a hit.

Also your equipment makes a difference as well, as my TV for instances has a refresh rate of 800hz which is something that is putting me off 4KTV's with the rumors of a PS4K & Xbox NeXT as most of the 4K's under a grand have worse specs then my current TV that to get a TV which would actually utilities these rumored system to there full potential is going to set me back for the TV I would like £1200 and it's just not worth it, if these rumored systems is just resolution or more stable frame rate.

Crumpy Andy wrote:

I think the main thing with frame rate is consistency. I don't tend to notice it if it's constantly 30, I don't feel like I'm getting that much more at 60, but in Rainbow 6 Siege the Terrorist Hunt mode runs at 30, while the multiplayer runs at 60 and it just feels horrible.

As for the 1080p thing, that isn't something I notice at all, I wouldn't even really know how to tell.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter exactly. 30fps does not bother me in the slightest, but as soon as the game starts chugging noticeably with frame dips, I'm not impressed. As for resolution, I do appreciate a higher resolution but again, so long as a game looks pretty enough on my TV, I'm happy.

JayMoyles wrote:

Crumpy Andy wrote:

I think the main thing with frame rate is consistency. I don't tend to notice it if it's constantly 30, I don't feel like I'm getting that much more at 60, but in Rainbow 6 Siege the Terrorist Hunt mode runs at 30, while the multiplayer runs at 60 and it just feels horrible.

As for the 1080p thing, that isn't something I notice at all, I wouldn't even really know how to tell.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter exactly. 30fps does not bother me in the slightest, but as soon as the game starts chugging noticeably with frame dips, I'm not impressed. As for resolution, I do appreciate a higher resolution but again, so long as a game looks pretty enough on my TV, I'm happy.

Agreed. Though I feel I have to mention that while TH in rainbow 6 is at 30pfs it's still playable & it only feels horrible if you are switching between that and MP over the course of your play session.

----

So for me it's also totally dependant on the genre of game you are playing & I'm only ever annoyed when the frame rate dips to something totally unplayable.

Did... did I tell a pun so terrible that it circumvented Jay's .gifs!?

I think that Andy, among others, has pretty much nailed my thoughts. I think I could probably tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps (I'm not actually sure!), and prefer 60 (natch), especially in faster-paced genres (double natch). But consistency is key. If a game judders, it'll snap me right out of it and do my eyes a nasty. If it's consistent, even at 30, it's fine.

And 1080p makes so little difference to me that it may as well not be there. Hell, a pretty game in SDef. (Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, and Okami stand out) remains nicer to look at than many HD games.

So it bewilders me that critics still bang on about this. Average gamers, fine: they need something that's objectively better than another version of the game so that they can get on with their console-war willy-waving. But some critics (and I'm thinking especially of Jim Sterling here) will still take time-out to address 1080p-ness and fps-ness like these are important factors. Frame-rate lags, fine, but I give it a big shrug when it comes to the absolute numbers.

Those games only look nicer due to art style, put SD Wind Waker next to the HD one and then you see the difference.

masofdas wrote:

Those games only look nicer due to art style, put SD Wind Waker next to the HD one and then you see the difference.

You do that & all you show is that neither of them look bad.

I'm not saying WW SD looks bad at all just using that as a example next to the HD version.

I got that but were you implying that the HD version looks better because it's HD?

Yeah of course it looks better because it's in HD.

While I think Fronkhead had some points for and against the graphics of WWHD as compared to the original, the point I was making is that even the shift from 480p to 720p isn't that big a deal compared to a nice art style. WWHD > WWSD >>>>>> many other HD games.

But as Drunka has said elsewhere #artissubjective that yes WWSD may look better from an art stand point in your opinion but doesn't mean a game that running in 1080p isn't technically better looking.

...that's why it said "my thoughts" in the post.  And "to you" in the thread title.

This thread is entirely about opinions.  About the only thing you can say for definite is that a 1080p is technically better looking than exactly the same game in 720p/480p.  Another subjective opinion is how much that objectively existent difference matters to you.  Which is what the thread is about, hey!

I didn't think I'd have to clarify this.

It didn't need clarifying Balla, just you were going from resolution and frame rate to art style which is a completely different subject.

And I'm just saying in my opinion yes art style is import and why nearly all of Nintendo games from the GameCube stand up and far more playable then what's on the PS2 & Xbox which without nostalgia may be hard to play due lots of things like pure graphics, resolution.

But almost any game running in HD is more playable there are some that plain awful now looking at you Perfect Dark Zero.

So in my opinion yes art style is import but so is a game running in HD which were talking as I find it hard to play games in SD now.

masofdas wrote:

But as Drunka has said elsewhere #artissubjective that yes WWSD may look better from an art stand point in your opinion but doesn't mean a game that running in 1080p isn't technically better looking.

The texture quality has very little bearing on why WWHD looks better - it's the new lighting system that's the biggest change graphically. And surely that's down to the fact the Wii U has more oomph than the Gamecube?

masofdas wrote:

Yeah of course it looks better because it's in HD.

Interesting, I personally wouldn't say that one looks better than the other so I guess that's why I wasn't all that fussed about WWHD at the time.

It's a remake of a game designed for SD resolutions though, so of course it looks fine in SD.

When I bought my PS3 I was still playing on a SD portable CRT - I played through all of MGS4 literally unable to see how much ammo I had because the text was too small to be not readable. Many modern games are vastly inferior if you play them in SD because the menu screens, subtitles and other text are simply not designed for SD displays. Alternatively if you go back to playing older SD games on HD screens (or even HD re-releases) you can really notice how large the text appears.

Honestly even on hd sets most games nowadays have text sized far too small.  Take Xenoblade X for example, my tv is a nice 33' and I'm about two meters away from it, so it's very large for my room, yet some of the text in menus was darn near illegible.  

Ain't exclusive to xcx either, a lot of western games have text that is just flat out too small, hd or no.  It's like they think everyone who has HD has a cinema sized screen or something stupid.