Current Events > I'm happy with 30fps in my games.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I game on my TV, sitting many feet away, and Im happy with 1080p (hell, Ill be okay with 720p) and 30fps. For tv shows and movies, I can barely tell the difference between 1080p vs 4k, unless I focus and actually look for differences.

Whats all the hub hub about 4k and 120fps for gaming? Is it just because Ive never experienced it?

Ive experienced it, youre good

30fps is unplayable trash

Id legit prefer putting graphics at ultra and playing on 1080p at 30fps (or 720p upscaled to 1080p) vs playing with low settings on 4k at 120fps though my TV is only good for 4k at 60hz native (can do 120hz but its fake I think).

IdiotMachine posted...

For tv shows and movies, I can barely tell the difference between 1080p vs 4k, unless I focus and actually look for differences.

Are you sure they're actually native 4K? A lot of movies are filmed or edited at 2K, so the 4K version isn't even really 4K.

I want 24fps for that true cinematic experience

I need at least 120fps or the game is unplayable for me.

https://www.testufo.com/

60fps is the baseline. If your game can't reach it, don't bother.

IdiotMachine posted...

Id legit prefer putting graphics at ultra and playing on 1080p at 30fps (or 720p upscaled to 1080p) vs playing with low settings on 4k at 120fps

In your OP you said you've never even experienced gaming at 4K-120fps, so how do you know what you legit prefer?

30fps is bad but u whats worst?
When u get those lines that cut through the screen, some games u cant move the camera cause the whole environment cuts off

YourBestFrenemy posted...

In your OP you said you've never even experienced gaming at 4K-120fps, so how do you know what you legit prefer?

Thats what I admitted. Ive definitely seen 1080p vs 4k in media consumption and its a meh.

Jx1010 posted...

30fps is bad but u whats worst?
When u get those lines that cut through the screen, some games u cant move the camera cause the whole environment cuts off

You mean v-sync?

IdiotMachine posted...

You mean v-sync?

undefined posted...

You mean v-sync?

Sounds more like screen tearing to me.

I recall an experience where the tearing was so bad, it basically looked like the resolution took a nosedive.

...on topic, im okay with 30fps if, and ONLY IF, the device in question cant hit 60... like the switch. (and even switch sometimes gets 60fps games)

What pisses me off about 30fps games on the 9th gen consoles (aside from the Series S, i can see that one joining the switch) is the fact they are both more than capable of 60fps.

Hell, my pc, which is actually weaker, can hit 60fps in newer games, at 1080p or 1440p (Atleast one example was with dlss, but i couldnt see the difference between DLSS on and DLSS off anyways).

Personally id rather have 1080/60 over 4k/30. I feel 4k is a bit overkill, but id be satisfied with just having the damn option... The performance settings you do get, seems to hyperfocus on 4k regardless of setting.

I can tell the difference between 30fps vs 60fps and 720p vs 1080p but it's not a massive deal. I think the craze and hate over 4k/8k 120+ fps is manufactured. A scam. And the fact that people think anything less than 4k 120fps means the scam works.

SuperVegitoFAN posted...

Sounds more like screen tearing to me.

I recall an experience where the tearing was so bad, it basically looked like the resolution took a nosedive.

...on topic, im okay with 30fps if, and ONLY IF, the device in question cant hit 60... like the switch. (and even switch sometimes gets 60fps games)

What pisses me off about 30fps games on the 9th gen consoles (aside from the Series S, i can see that one joining the switch) is the fact they are both more than capable of 60fps.

Hell, my pc, which is actually weaker, can hit 60fps in newer games, at 1080p or 1440p (Atleast one example was with dlss, but i couldnt see the difference between DLSS on and DLSS off anyways).

Personally id rather have 1080/60 over 4k/30. I feel 4k is a bit overkill, but id be satisfied with just having the damn option... The performance settings you do get, seems to hyperfocus on 4k regardless of setting.

Yup! So I have a 3060 Ti on my gaming PC (thats connected to my 4k living room TV), and thats more than enough to run every game at ultra at 1080p (dont care for FPS, so never checked).

I recently gotten into checking for frames on my new ASUS ROG Ally; I run things at 1080p high or ultra, with the AMD up sampling thing on (forgot the name for it), and it runs fine at 30fps locked. Im happy with this setup.

VFalcone posted...

I can tell the difference between 30fps vs 60fps and 720p vs 1080p but it's not a massive deal. I think the craze and hate over 4k/8k 120+ fps is manufactured. A scam. And the fact that people think anything less than 4k 120fps means the scam works.

I agree that I can tell the difference, but only if I focus to look for differences. During normal gameplay, I care more about the quality (so putting it on ultra is more important to me).

I love the blurry af effect 30fps gives you.

60 fps >>> 30 fps >> unstable 60 fps.

on that note, any high speed game needs to be at 60 fps. the ff16 devs siad they are working on a patch so ima wait. performance mode is pretty bad in that game

IdiotMachine posted...

I agree that I can tell the difference, but only if I focus to look for differences. During normal gameplay, I care more about the quality (so putting it on ultra is more important to me).

Its probably a matter of getting used to it.

30fps and 60fps is pretty easy for me.

60 and 120 though...? Different story.

What 120fps has taught me is that fps is a lot more noticeable if you use a mouse for camera movements vs a controller. With a mouse its not only easier to see/feel, but it also makes lower framerates more jarring.

Resolution is a lot harder... as long as the resolution is 1:1 (Native for full screen, but can be lower if youre playing in a window) with the screen im fine with it. Anything above that is definitely overkill, unless your gpu has a lot of firepower lying in waiting.

If it's a game stuck at 30fps like Zelda because of the console I don't mind. But I'm not playing a game on my PC at sub60. Reason I refuse to play the tales of Symphonia port in steam I'd rather go and play the GameCube version

30 fps the GOAT fps

30fps is trash and worse than an unstable 60fps

Jshipp24 posted...

Reason I refuse to play the tales of Symphonia port in steam I'd rather go and play the GameCube version

wow... we are still getting pic release locked at 30?

Is this another "Animation locked to framerate" bullshit?

It depends on the game, if it's turn based or an interactive movie then 30 fps is probably fine, if you have any sort of real time elements then 60fps is the bare minimum, and for a lot of genres consistency is more important than max fps, for example fighting games must lock the framerate for competitive fairness even if the device in question could run it at 120+ fps most of the time.

No you aren't.

60 is the minimum, especially for anything remotely fast paced.

The rest of the visuals are an afterthought, I don't care about them.

IMO going from 1440p to 4k is where you see diminishing returns.

Appropriate username.

some people dont see race

i dont see fps

Will_VIIII posted...

IMO going from 1440p to 4k is where you see diminishing returns.

Perfect way to describe it. 4k, 8k, 120fps, 140fps, etc... there's a point where there isn't actually a difference.

Then there's the issue that it's all dependent on the game's, TV's/monitor's, and console's/PC's limitations. You can have a PS5 that runs at 144fps and 4k playing a game that runs at 120fps and 4k but it won't actually matter because your TV maxes out 60fps. Or maybe on your suped up PC that goes to 8k 144fps, the YouTube video maxes out at 1080p 60fps.

It's all pointless unless all pieces of technology are up-to-date at the same time. And they rarely are.

I just got a PS5 this past weekend and booted up Elden Ring with enhanced frame rate and I literally touched myself at the difference

Touch posted...

I just got a PS5 this past weekend and booted up Elden Ring with enhanced frame rate and I literally touched myself at the difference

Booted up elden ring 2 to 3 weeks ago. Noticed the game was running at like 40 to 45 fps at 4k in the snowy area. Last time I played it back in 2022 I was getting consistent 60 fps. So i checked the visual settings and saw that Fromsoftware added an Rtx feature set to ON by default.Turned that off. Got 60 fps again.

So then I decided to just leave rtx feature ON and then cap fps at 30 fps. Just wanted to experience the game differently. 30 fps will do for now. Id have to spend around like $800+ otherwise to get consistent 60 fps at 4k.

60 fps is undeniably smoother if it's stable. Is it super noticeable? Not really, but it's still noticeable. Especially if it's what you're used to. A stable 30 is better than 60 that dips and fluctuates. 4k is noticeable on larger screens. Most notably to me the hair effects some newer games use can look pretty pixelated at 1080. Not really a huge deal though and I understand why some people wouldn't care.

consistent stable 30 > all others. frame drops are the worst part of any frame rate arguments and it's gonna happen to most regardless of what initial frame rate was.

Solid_Snake07 posted...

A stable 30 is better than 60 that dips and fluctuates

It's not that I can't enjoy playing games in 30fps. But seriously, anyone who claims that they can't see a difference between 30fps and 60fps must be partially blind or lying. It's just much smoother and the picture clarity is much better thanks to the enhanced motion. It's true that the human eye is capable of adjusting the image so that 30fps doesn't look choppy forever. But whenever you switch back to 60fps, the difference is very much noticeable.

If 60fps are unrealistic to achieve, than 40fps could be a doable sweet spot imo.

Whenever I can decide on my own:
performance mode > quality mode, regardless the genre of the game.