• Welcome to SwitchForum.com - The #1 place to talk about Nintendo Switch. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? Registration is completely free and will enable the use of all site features including the ability to join in or create your own discussions.

The Game Frame Rate Debate

Erik

Active Member
Verified Member
Over my years of gaming I've heard lots of people discount the importance of frame rate. Usually they mention some number that they consider the minimum frame rate or quote movies as typically having a frame rate of just under 24 frames/sec.

I came across this video which should be pretty convincing to anyone who is on that side of the fence.

 

Pocketim

Member
Verified Member
I was always kind of annoyed by how few games ran at 60FPS on the PS3 in comparison to the PS2. About half of my PS2 games run at a smooth 60FPS while the only PS3 games that run that smoothly are far fewer in numbers. I thought it was especially odd that the HD PS3 port of Tales of Symphonia only ran at 30FPS while the Gamecube version ran at 60. Honestly I'd say the Gamecube version is more visually appealing for that, despite the lack of HD.

Despite that, while I always prefer and appreciate higher frame-rates, I don't think it's always necessary. In fast-paced action hack & slashes like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta and Ninja Gaiden? 60FPS is a must. In most other games? Eh, once you let your eyes adjust to it it's fine. Despite that, I agree with TotalBiscuit on several points. Console gamers certainly should be given the option to choose between 60 and 30 FPS by lowering the graphical detail, and there's really no reason why 30FPS should ever be considered superior to 60.

In short, I can live with lower frame-rates, but I'd really appreciate it if games were running smoother more often. I mean, this IS meant to be "next-gen" now!
 

Erik

Active Member
Verified Member
Well, I suppose it is all about pushing new limits. I've played my share of games on both consoles and PC and the way I see it is that each year or so there is always going be that one game which is renowned for it's graphics because it is better than anything anyone has ever seen in gaming. With PCs this isn't so much of a problem because developers can get the best of both worlds by showing off the game on ultra high settings while the majority of the customers will be running it on much more modest settings at their preferred frame rate.

With consoles, developers do not have this luxury and are stuck with the conundrum of deciding whether to sacrifice being perceived as a ground breaking game in favor of higher frame rates which is harder to notice unless you sit down and actually play the game. I would much rather have other things like higher player counts in multiplayer games, more in depth controls or weapon/item choices than simply upping the visual details. I still enjoy older games and have not been spoiled by modern gaming graphics however it appears like reviewers don't feel the same.
 

SirRidge

New Member
Verified Member
This is just like the P debate for me.

Everything looks pretty good nowadays. Does anybody really care for any reason other than fanboy debates.
 

genevb

New Member
Verified Member
I don't give fps so much importance as long as it moves smoothly. I would rather have a low fps and have it run smoothly than a high one and have it run in frames. It is not so much of a debate for me, playing a game for its graphics/fps is like buying a book because you like its cover.
 

Like Switch Forum!

Advertisements

Top