30 vs 60 FPS

If you look out the windows in the Ops Center, you will find a battle waging outside. Enter the Observation deck area and look up to see a Dogfight between the Covenant and UNSC. Look down to see the inside of the Firebase, plenty of vehicles being repaired and deployed to the battle outside.

I'm sure that'll be nice for frame count / loading times :}

just have em really far away

reach had a mission where you had to disable AA turrets, all the while falcons and banshees clashed above 

that worked fine

Jaing wrote:just have em really far away

reach had a mission where you had to disable AA turrets, all the while falcons and banshees clashed above 

that worked fine

If by working you mean running at 30fps on a single archaic console then ok

what i'm about to say is considered blasphemy within the pc race so try not to lynch me

i have a genuine opinion that is i don't see whats wrong with 30 fps. i mean it gets the job done, u can track targets easily and sure, 60 fps is nice and all but i've pretty much played on 30 fps all my life and it's really not that bad tbh. 

and if an archaic console managed 30 fps then today's pc's can definitely manage and produce 30+

- btw i just hit 100 nornfangs!! yay x

Jaing wrote:
i have a genuine opinion that is i don't see whats wrong with 30 fps. i mean it gets the job done, u can track targets easily and sure, 60 fps is nice and all but i've pretty much played on 30 fps all my life and it's really not that bad tbh. 

Totally agree. Of course then again as far as PC goes I'm happy if I can hit 20 fps usually.

Also LODs work wonders. at that distance they could have been using cards and you would be none the wiser.

i have a genuine opinion that is i don't see whats wrong with 30 fps. i mean it gets the job done, u can track targets easily and sure, 60 fps is nice and all but i've pretty much played on 30 fps all my life and it's really not that bad tbh.

Step 1: Boot up CS
Step 2: See that you're wrong
Return to step 1

and if an archaic console managed 30 fps then today's pc's can definitely manage and produce 30+

You're missing the point, for many people (including myself) the benchmark isn't 30+ for a fps I'm looking at 120 stable minimum; also, yes, a console... The devs are developing for PC and as such have to focus on compatibility / ensuring the game actually runs on all (if not most) PC configs rather than one console.

I really wish you would stop using such a shitty game as an argument point. Its grown tiresome.

Is the point here, is 30fps, good to play a game on a pc?
if you have a console background then I guess that will seem ok to you.

In my opinion the answer is hell no!
In faster parts of the game or with larger amounts of detail you're going to get tearing on screen thats distracting, and takes away from the experience.

Of course, that's ok if the game was designed for a narrower FOV, and lower LOD {pointing a finger here at consoles }.

I mean that is a major reason we (computer owners) go out and buy better graphics cards, ( also to multi-screen ), both of which are pretty much beyond the scope of consoles ( and even when they get better facilities they are lobotomised by their manufacturers, so that the poor slobs with last years model are not pwd because of better graphic performance! ~ finger points at PS4 pro here!).

so in conclusion here to Jaing specifically If you've had' Pepsi' all your life you aint going to notice that your missing something many, many times better, and to be limited to 30fps, etc would feel like knawing my arm off after having become accustomed to the finery of a ultra detailed game, playing on a wide screen ( ok 4K at 60 fps ) is just great.

R93_Sniper wrote:I really wish you would stop using such a shitty game as an argument point. Its grown tiresome.

Yes because your shitty subjective point > my shitty objective point
You could use literally any mainstream pc fps as an example ffs so stfu

You can play most any of them at 30FPS and have a negligible disadvantage if any. If that isn't the case, you need to git gud.

R93_Sniper wrote:You can play most any of them at 30FPS and have a negligible disadvantage if any. If that isn't the case, you need to git gud.

How about rather than giving me empty statments you provide examples of competent pc fps games that have come out in the last 5 years where this is the case...

Hell I could probably start naming any competitive FPS that came out on PC in the past 5 years, but your "competent pc fps games" statement would probably try to nullify that, knowing your tastes.

Although I do think 60fps should be standard, in cases like Halo 5 I'd rather have the game at 30fps without the workarounds (like low fps enemies at a distance and insane pop-in) than 60fps with those workarounds. Obviously that just highlights how inferior 'next-gen' consoles are, but we basically already knew that. On PC there really is no reason not to have 60fps unless you're on a really tight budget imo.

Pretty much. I mean personally I'd like all my games to run at 60FPS (or higher) whenever possible. My graphics card is starting to show its age so that's getting a bit harder, but damn if I let that get in the way.

Hell I could probably start naming any competitive FPS that came out on PC in the past 5 years, but your "competent pc fps games" statement would probably try to nullify that, knowing your tastes.

Competent == competitive...

Also kudos for making this a 30 vs 60fps discussion when I'm vouching for neither...

I say we lock the fps to 15 so that gamer with bad pc specs = show offs #fpsadvantageequalism

I've played my fair share of games at 100+, 60, 30 and sub-30 fps on PC and I feel like it's a situation of:
Aim for 60, don't rule out dropping to 30 if absolutely everything hits the fan. Above 60 is the customers problem.

Everyone knows that an unwritten rule of developing games is "cut as many corners as you can without anyone reasonably noticing" and I imagine it'll be the same here. The last part of development tends to be bug fixing and optimisation, which'll go post-launch anyway so whatever it ends up being, it should get somewhat better.

In terms of the battle in the background, R93 is on point, they were 2d billboarded. If you don't want it obvious, make it so when you zoom in at the scene, it loads in turd-quality LODs and the player would barely notice the difference. It'll save a tonne of resources in the grand scheme of things.
As for close by fights, such as the one overhead in Reach between falcons and banshees, they can adjust the auto-cull rates of garbage, bullet mark and explosion decals, dropped weapons and corpses, as well as drop shadow quality slightly as when there's a fight above, one tends to not look at the ground shadowing. Maybe have it self-activate if the fps of the game is below a certain value, or an option in a video menu.

Just so long as it's not gross like Halo 5 where vehicles insta-despawn on explosion, shadows don't render at all if the object casting isn't in the viewport and dropped weapons have like a 20 second timer because f*** everyone. That's a bit much.

Above 60 is the customers problem

I agree but adding unnecessary shit to hamper this is stupid.

Neesy wrote:

Above 60 is the customers problem

I agree but adding unnecessary shit to hamper this is stupid.

also agreed. i probably should have said that specifically, since i implied that.

In my opinion pc games shouldn't have a limited fps, or at least have an option to not limit the fps as those with higher refresh rate monitors find 60fps to look terrible and jerky, whereas the users with 60hz monitors will prefer 60fps. In my opinion 30fps is unacceptable for a PC game.

Classyham waiting for that one 30 vs 60 fps thread since 2014

@neesy 
yea which is why every game i feel should have extensive graphical options. using your cs as an example, i literally have everything to the lowest setting except for textures, resolution 800 x 600, for that 60+. anything else and i get 20-30 lol 

now that i think about it i should i guess what i should add to my original point. while 60 fps is preferrable when i have the ability to make it so, 30 fps is fine too

My stance is this:
60 FPS is great
30 FPS is not completely unplayable
Having 30 FPS should not put you at a significant disadvantage from 60 FPS (Unless the game sucks and has everything tied to the FPS)
30 FPS is fine, but 60 is preferable.

R93_Sniper wrote:My stance is this:
60 FPS is great
30 FPS is not completely unplayable
Having 30 FPS should not put you at a significant disadvantage from 60 FPS (Unless the game sucks and has everything tied to the FPS)
30 FPS is fine, but 60 is preferable.

As far as consoles go yes. But PC should be unlocked with the option of locking it to certain framerates if your pc cant handle the game well.

R93_Sniper wrote:My stance is this:
60 FPS is great
30 FPS is not completely unplayable
Having 30 FPS should not put you at a significant disadvantage from 60 FPS (Unless the game sucks and has everything tied to the FPS)
30 FPS is fine, but 60 is preferable.

The thing is yeah, I don't care for that argument / opinion since it's irrelevant to what I am (and was initially) talking about: 30fps is a downright disadvantage on a fps, 60 should be the minimal and adding pointless atmospheric shit to a level / game that inhibits the max fps the user can achieve (especially in a game like this which is essentially multiplayer only) is stupid.