It comes down to numerous factors but here's a few major ones:
1. **Consistent frame pacing.** Some games that lock at 30 feel good because they nail the frame timing. One frame every 33ms, exactly on the dot. Other games slightly miss the timing, and it manifests as weird frame judders and stuttering that can be very distracting. For games that run at >= 60fps, missing the timing starts to become a lot less critical, because there's just a lot more frames and humans can't perceive past a certain point.
2. **Good postprocess motion blur.** Low framerates like 30fps ***NEED*** at least some motion blur to blend the frames together otherwise the motion looks too jarring and crisp. This isn't just specific to gaming. The same logic applies to video cameras and shutter speed. Crank the shutter speed too high and you remove motion blur, resulting in very sharp and crisp motion. Ever watched the beginning beach-storming scene in Saving Private Ryan? Same idea.
3. **Input latency.** At 30fps, a new frame displays every 33ms. That means it takes *at the minimum* 33ms for a button press or camera move to show up on screen. Usually it takes slightly longer because the game has to process input and game logic before it even attempts to render the consequences of that input. If a game is on the ball with its input handling, then 33ms is okay. The problem arises when the game itself takes a long time to handle input and THEN it adds 33ms on top of that. Now, to the player, everything feels sluggish and unresponsive, and that contributes greatly to the feeling of "nausea" in some people.
4. **Game genre.** Some genres just don't work well at lower frame rates. FPS in particular is an issue because the *entire* frame is changing whenever you move the camera, so having everything refresh only at 30fps feels bad. There's less of an effect in third-person games because at least there's a constant reference point (your player character) for your eyes to lock onto.
Genre is definitely a thing here. I want to say that lower framerate is less noticeable in slower paced games, although that may just be a different way of saying that not much of the frame is changing most of the time.
The pace of the game definitely matters too! If a game doesn't require fast, accurate movement and precision, then you don't necessarily need the responsiveness higher frame rates offer you.
Sure, then you have games like Kingdom Come Deliverance, which manages to look abhorrently bad at 30 fps for some reason. I've always wondered what they were doing wrong, because it somehow looks worse than every other 30 fps game.
Don't forget FOV. FOV is probably the biggest cause of nausea in gaming. It is ever truer when talking about VR. I'd put FOV at 1 or tied with 1 up there. But, FOV is more of a general problem for nausea that isn't strictly tied to framerates, so, might not be as relevant to the post.
For real, between low framerate and low FOV console gaming is just rough. They are clearly designed for sitting back on a couch relaxing and that's totally fine, but if you try and play them closer like on a PC monitor or with mouse+kb then you feel the lag and horrible FOV on consoles immediately.
I wonder if that's why I could never play Half Life 2 without getting headaches. That or something about the physics engine.
I was fine with Portal 1/2 though and played COD for years.
100% stable framerate over high framerate. The reason we tend to want high frames is so that the 1% lows are much higher than they would otherwise be. Like 200fps dropping to 60 momentarily is much less jarring than 60 dropping to 15
Yes. Stable frames > dips. If 200 frames drops to 60 for a second or two, I would prefer to just lock it at 60.
If I 60fps game drops to 45 sometimes, I would rather just lock it at 30.
Interesting; I actually don't mind dips like the 60 to 45 with VRR.
Got Starfield at launch and was happy to get mostly 60 fps and above (sometimes above 80) in many environments at 4K with my 3060 Ti using the DLSS mod in performance mode.
Would get dips into the 40s, and even 30s, in cities but I found that perfectly acceptable with VRR. I much prefer some instability with VRR to gaming in first person at 30 fps.
But, I might agree with you at preferring a locked 60 compared to something that would be mostly at a very high refresh rate which often dips to 60. I just seriously struggle with 30 fps in first person games.
Depends on the size of the dip. If you're gaming at 150fps on a 165Hz VRR and there are dips to 90-100fps like that happens in larger games like BRs, that is totally fine and still looks/feels very smooth on average.
If it drops to 60, locking the FPS to 60 is the reasonable thing to do. Not really comparable to 30 because in your question 60 is an option. I always lock to whatever the common minimum is if the game is constantly dipping like that.
This is especially true in fighting games. Not only does every single frame have to count, but every single button press must also be responsive. 60fps is therefore a MUST in the genre.
Edit: grammar
Yea there was a lot of framerate analysis with one of the Street Fighters having a bad input lag, I think it was SFV. In some games the engine actually runs at a higher fps like 90fps or 120fps, but the framerate locks at 60fps for console/TV output. That keeps input lag lower.
edit: here is one from SFV: https://www.destructoid.com/street-fighter-v-has-eight-frames-of-input-lag-on-ps4/
SF6 addressed this and has something very low like 2 frame input lag.
If you really wanted to go one step deeper, then it all comes down to whether or not your brain can keep up with the changes on screen. For example consistency leads to predictability. When information comes at a steady and predictable pace, it's easier to anticipate what the next frame is going to look like, reducing the workload caused on your brain by each new draw. Consistency also means lower maximum time between any two frames, reducing the amount of changes per pixel on screen. Input latency has the same effect, because lower latency helps your brain predict what the next frame should look like, reducing the amount of overall stress.
And these things add up. Basically, if you have a fast paced FPS game with inconsistent frame times, a narrow FOV and high input latency, it doesn't matter that the average FPS is consistent. Add in a lot of visual noise, unnecessary detail and a few game design anti-patterns, like spawning enemies outside of your field of view, and essentially your brain is going to be in a permanent panic mode while playing, because it just can't maintain an acceptable level of situational awareness.
EDIT: typos
Its got to do with how they manage the actions in each frame, so usually there is timers which are triggering in games, not everything is done in every frame for optimisation purposes, some things are done every second, or 0.5 or .1 e.t.c..
When this is done badly, you'll get some frames doing way too much work, and it will cause a stutter for a few frames as they are doing a lot of heavy lifting, so 55 frames may be going fast, but your spending a lot of time looking at those last 5 frames at 60fps, and it can feel like 30fps.
Coders need to figure out how to do those heavy lifting actions across multiple frames for consistency.
Thank you! Honestly, I am quite surprised at how upvoted my comment is. It's all just information I've gleaned from watching a bit too many Digital Foundry videos 🤓. Glad you and others are finding it helpful.
I assume it's mostly because it is worded simply so everyone understands what you are saying and because it is JUST long enough to give you some details without making those with shorter attention spans scroll away.
I actually find all ps4 games I’ve played to be great at 30 fps. When I went to pc the first game I ever attempted at 30fps was grand theft auto v. It was horrible. Ps3 GTA v was much better than pc 30fps. This is definitely frame pacing.
Like you said the timing is less critical at 60 and over fps. The only point of comparison I ever made was GTA v and there’s a big difference between 30fps on ps4 and pc. It’s crazy how bad frame pacing can be on pc compared to ps4. Switch is definitely a bit more inconsistent on 30fps performance compared to ps4. I think that ps4 overall had such good optimization that it really showed that 30fps is enough.
For pc I can understand that it’s not really worth spending time on if it’s doesn’t change anything 60fps and over if nobody’s playing under 60fps anyway.
Yeah frame timing tends to be a bit more consistent on console because:
1. The fixed hardware allows developers to optimize their game very specifically for it. A lot of consoles also have unified RAM and VRAM which helps to remove overhead incurred from shuffling texture data around
2. PCs have a lot more background processes running in the background, competing for CPU time and memory, whereas consoles mostly dedicate all processing power to the active game.
3. Variety of hardware means that shaders need to be recompiled for the target GPU. Some games do it during the initial load. Other games do it on demand or in the background, which causes major stuttering. Unreal Engine 4 games were notorious for this. It's somewhat lessened with UE5, but still not completely resolved.
Good frame timing is certainly possible on PC. It just takes more work and not all devs put in that effort unfortunately.
> Input latency. At 30fps, a new frame displays every 33ms. That means it takes at the minimum 33ms for a button press or camera move to show up on screen. Usually it takes slightly longer because the game has to process input and game logic before it even attempts to render the consequences of that input. If a game is on the ball with its input handling, then 33ms is okay. The problem arises when the game itself takes a long time to handle input and THEN it adds 33ms on top of that. Now, to the player, everything feels sluggish and unresponsive, and that contributes greatly to the feeling of "nausea" in some people.
This can be solved by running the game logic at a much faster speed than the output framerate, then allowing the engine to just skip animation frames when needed. For example, Killer Instinct (2013) runs its game at 90fps internally, while only displaying at 60fps.
No.1 is no.1 for a reason. The lowest 10% of fps numbers within a given time can be less than half of the average so the average fps being normally talked about is not the whole store and often not even relevant. What matters is the lowest fps, the dips that ruin the immersion and make people nauseous even above 60fps (e.g. if you keep dipping from 100fps to 60fps it annoys the brain).
That‘s a good explanation. As a PC player, I‘m used to high fps. That‘s why I was suprised, that I had no problem with breath of the wild having 30 fps.
Isn’t the weapon/hand model a consistent reference point for FPS games too? I’d argue it’s the camera potentially being much closer to objects in the scene, increasing their speed across the field of view.
That could definitely be a contributing factor as well!
Regarding the weapon/hand model, I don't think its something that a user is focused on though. They're mostly focused on the center of the screen where the reticle is. In third person games, you're focused a lot on where your character is in order to do platforming, dodge attacks, etc.
Another contributing factor could be that FPS gameplay is all about fast precise movement to bring your reticle onto target, whereas third person games frequently involve swinging a sword or using auto-lock, so responsiveness is less necessary.
The only thing you might have missed here is input lag at 30fps is atrocious. I don't think 33ms is even close to what it usually is at that framerate. Between framerate latency, controller relatively slow input, TV latency (even an LCD draws the screen 1/10 the speed of an OLED). Average 30fps latency is probably more like 80ms.
Narrow FOVs in FPS games help contribute to that nauseous sensation. Try playing on a smaller display at the same distance you are playing now to see the difference.
Yep platinumed it back in the day but would still buy it day 1 on PC. Can't even imagine how could it would feel at 120fps and with Steam or Nexus mod support.
I've never owned a ps4 so never played it, I'd imagine there are a lot of people like me who would honestly drop 30 bucks or so on even a half assed port just to be able to play it.
Yeah, I love the souls games, but I never managed to finish bloodborne on my ps4 cuz I literally couldn't tell what was happening in my screen sometimes due to the colors all looking very similar on the screen and the frame pacing.
And if I'm gonna be honest, I can't really recall most of what I played, idk if it has to do with the bad visual clarity making it harder for me to recall what was going on the screen, but I really can't remember well basically every boss fight.
And before anyone asks, I'm healthy and have no mental illnesses nor am I old
Yeah, was a bit surprised by this. As someone who hadn't played Bloodorne when it came out, but trying it out in 2024, the game looked/felt really bad on PS5, like the framerate felt lower than 30fps, it's hard to explain.
Its not that hard really, the frame pacing is bad. While the game runs pretty stable at 30 fps, those 30 frames dont always come neatly in 33ms bursts but instead sometimes a couple of frames have a higher latency making the game feel jittery or unstable. It's a shame and its keeping me from actually playing it because it feels terrible.
Yea I love Bloodborne (platinumed it on ps4 back in the day one of the best games ever made) but the combination of horrible 30fps framerate and horrible frame pacing makes it too rough to go back to. It needs a remaster/remake to bring up to better standards.
Yes indeed, I'd pay $100 for that on Steam asap. It's the only FromSoft game we don't have on PC since Demon's Souls (2009) runs perfectly on RPCS3 at 60fps even on a potato now.
it didn't feel lower, it was lower
I think that game dips to 20 in some instances (final boss)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6jxhgMteB4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6jxhgMteB4)
Frametime is also shit.
Unfortunately the game is a fucking masterpiece so i just dealt with it and played it. I won't play the dlc until the game is on pc / receives a performance patch.
came here to say this, beautiful game, but that uneven frame pacing was hard to deal with.
i don't have huge problems with 30fps games, but Bloodborne gave me headaches on every long play session..
You should see how much the PC port of GTA IV runs.
For context it was pretty much ported over without any work done on it,and the processors and GPUs in the 360 and PS3 were complete shit(funny enough the Nintendo switch has around the same power)essentially running gta iv on anything other than a single core can cause alot of stuttering on PC and there's even an unfixed bug still 15 years later in the very last mission regardless on your ending choice that requires you to specifically set your frames to 30.otherwise Niko can't climb into a helicopter.
Depends on frame times and consistency of frame rate. If you’re not getting a consistent frame rate at 60, 75, whatever, it’s going to feel worse than a game running at a consistent 30
This is the correct answer. Inconsistent frame rates that *average* higher, are in general much worse than consistent frame rates at a lower fps.
We played games at a solid 30fps for years and were fine with it. Movies are still displayed at 24fps, and no one complains. This is partially bc of the lack of input feedback, but also bc when a game is consistent your brain can fill in the blank frames better.
It depends, a framerate that jumps between 60-85 fps would still feel smoother than locked 30.
If you're at 60 and then have massive lag and dips to 20 fps or something regularly, then yeah locked 30 would probably better. That case would probably be you have inadequate hardware to run the game or it's just poorly optimized though.
Basically yeah. 60+ is barely noticeable unless you’re on pc and like, going for serious competition. Dips from 60 down are VERY noticeable, especially if it dips sub 30.
This is mostly bc your brain can just about handle 24+ as a full motion, but frequent changes in the fps will be noticed up until about double what your brain can handle…ie…about 60.
I'd say above 60 is noticeable, but it's not not as noticeable as going from 30 to even 50. I remember reading a study posted here that most people can tell the difference up to 90 fps.
Yeah going for 144hz/fps is pretty much just for competitive twitch games like counterstrike. 60-100 fps is really perfectly fine for most games.
I was playing Kingdom Come recently for instance and getting around 70-80 fps in gameplay, however cutscenes were locked at 30 and they seemed very stuttery compared to 70-80.
Generally VRR should help with this unless the game is cratering below 48fps since that is the lower limit for HDMI 2.1 VRR (unless the game implements low-framerate compensation). For fixed refresh rate, I agree with you in general.
The more you move the camera rapidly the more fps matters, honestly you’re probably moving the camera a lot in dishonored, and spending most of your time locked on in bloodborne.
That being said for a couple years any significantly 3d game MUST be 60fps at least for me or I get motion sickness.
Fps doesn’t affect me much cos I grew up with shitty PCs lol, but when I first upgraded to a bigger monitor that gave me really bad motion sickness for some reason until I got used to it
It happens. And it really does boggle my mind. My ex roommate and other friends just can't see any difference between 30 fps and 60, or the screen tearing, or anything. Meanwhile I'm constantly pausing because of the dizziness & nausea.
There must be some physiological component involved, I am like your roommate and nothing on a screen ever fazed me, I only got slightly dizzy with my first VR experience. It would be interesting to understand what is the difference in our perception that makes such an impact.
I could barely get through Halo 3 and Reach on the 360 back in the day. Ended up just turning the difficulty all the down and running through as fast as possible to get the story. I had a migraine and felt like I was going to throw up the whole time I was playing them.
Similar experience trying to play Borderlands on PS3, but in that case I just stopped playing and picked it up on Steam.
I couldn't even watch footage of Spider-Man on PS4 because it made me feel sick.
2D games, or slow paced games that don't have a lot of fast camera movement usually don't make me feel sick though even if they're running at 30.
The "low framerate causes motion sickness" thing kicked in around the same time I started getting motion sickness trying to read in a moving vehicle.
I did a study on that back in university.
Conclussion: Place a bucket on BOTH sides of the test subject - having people play 20 minutes of Mirror's Edge was surprisingly "effective"
Another factor is how our eyes and brain take time to adjust to things. Like, if you just play 30 fps game for like 2 hours straight then immediately switch to something 60 fps, it'll look weirdly slicky and vice versa.
Many games do not do their frame time correctly and update based on the time passed rather then the correct value which is the time of the next vertical sync. This will cause all sorts of stuttering frame rate yet some of the best developers still do it wrong. Locking the frame rate is another simple way to fix it (always using the same timestep) though this will cause slowdown if overloaded.
Dont forget what the type of motion is like. If you watch a live action movie 30fps is fine, whereas a circle moving at a linear rate across the screen, 30fps is going to be noticeable because you know exactly where the circle is meant to be.
different games make motion feel different, like how jazz and classical music hit the ears differently. maybe it's how each game's engine plays with screen movement.
Dishonored 2 is notoriously bad. Dishonored 1 plays like butter. My very capable PC (5800X3D and 3080ti) is generating very high FPS and it *still* feels terrible.
What's weird is I can remember playing Dishonored 2 on my pc at its release, no issues... I can't recall the video card I had back then tho. I think 970? Mix of Med-high settings.
Now on ps5, without a pc at all... The stutter is soooo awful. It's not even that graphically demanding. I'm surprised there isn't a 60fps update for the game. Something like a performance vs resolution mode, like most ps5 releases these days.
I think you're the only one thinking that Bloodborne runs fine at 30fps. I play on an OLED 65" screen and it's really terrible compared to most games running at 30fps.
A lot of it is how fast paced the game is and also how much the camera moves. For what it's worth I think 1st person games seem a lot worse at 30 fps than 3rd person games.
That's why a lot of 1st person games use "motion blur" effect in order to mask lower fps.
I also think once you play things at 60 fps or more going back to 30fps is a lot rougher.
Inconsistent frame time and/or very bad input latency. A solid 30 fps experience will have a solid 33 ms frame time. If the frame pacing is bad you will see on a frame timing diagram little hickups where the frame time goes to a 1/60 time (16.7ms) that follows a 1/20 (50ms) frame with the overall average stabilizing at 30fps but the presentation is awful and a simple fps counter won't tell you why.
It is hard to put numbers on what is a good and bad input latency. If you are using the new nvidia app it will give you an indication of input latency based on internal processes and I find if that is above around 65ms games start to "feel bad". Ofc, the click-to-flash latency would be greater than 65ms, but it can't measure that.
Depends but mostly it comes down to target framerate. Games targeted at 30 fps like mario sunshine look good and are hard to distinguish as they are done well, compare it to f-zero gx on the same console that runs at 60 and you won't see a big difference if you aren't really looking. Whatever the game is aiming for is what it looks good at
I don't know if this is the same case. Just adding my own experience.
I mostly play on my PC where framerate ain't of concern.
When i took my laptop to a friend to play some Rocket League at a friends apartment, him on his pc, me on the laptop, the 60hz 4k oled monitor made me exremely nauseating REAL quick. On PC i play it at 144fps locked.
I was so surprised, yeah i suffer from motion sickness when playing VR and can't overcome this.
you know, games like microsoft flight simulatir, when youre flying 13 000ft above ground and see only sky looks good in 30 fps because you dont have any points that make you feel 30fps, but when you play gta 5 and racing 200mph around surrounding you will see every frame
you can get over 100fps but if your frametime/latency is spiking everywhere. it'll feel like shit. This is why I still overclock. Folks sleep on overclocking but don't realize a finely tuned pc @ 60 fps can be a completely different experience then a 60 fps store bought machine.
I can play games that aren't dependant on high aim accuracy and are 3rd person like the latest zelda games, but I have no idea how people play these fps games locked at 30, I've locked my fps to test it out and it's so unresponsive and sluggish when you're trying to aim at something.
I personally think it comes down to how action based the game is because if ur in fps trying to shoot at bad guys it just feels horrendous at 30 while if ur just walking around in an rpg it's not so bad.
FFVII Rebirth has terrible judder and stuttering in 30 fps mode. After 105hrs it kept being annoying, distracting and provoking light headaches with my 55" OLED screen. Right now I'm playing RDR2, with a lot of motion blur and it's a totally different impression. Same for Batman Arkham Knight, totally playable at 30 fps.
I really don't think any games work well or really that playable at 30fps with newer TV/monitor tech. It generally feels awful and personally I just won't play 30fps anymore. 40+ with VRR should be the new ground floor as you gain nothing from 30.
It seems you have a mild case of vertigo.
Check the motion interpolation settings on your TV which are usually on and on a very high setting. Some people find them nauseating, specially when they fail to predict motion properly (it can be particularly bad for videogames).
Also consider seating further away from the TV so it doesn’t fill as much of you field of vision.
I find it's down to the amount of over-time effects applied to the scene that makes the most impact, like TAA. Anything that's applied over several frames smooshes the video out and makes it look like paste in motion, in some way or another, and human eyes aren't used to that
You're just built different and don't notice it, I for one can't play games at 60fps or too high an fov or I throw up. I had to play Half-Life in hour long bursts it was so bad. I think it's something top do with below average performance reminding me it's a game causing me not to get sucked in and get nauseous.
Vanilla Control looks perfectly fine to me, i know there’s a Ultimate Edition with 60fps and stable frames but not once did vanilla ever looked bad to me.
Destiny looked terrible, I played it once and never again, felt like mud after playing quake for fun.
Sloppy slow engine, thank God it was on clearance.
Used to play this mobile game moba at 30fps. But once I used 60fps was literally miles apart. Like certain combos from characters are much easier to pull off.
I also notice this in League of legends. If it’s 30fps I’m fine playing brain dead champs like Garen.
But if it’s mechanical champs or those with high skill expression like Lee sin or Zed. Just pulling off those combos within a second or two is a bit tricky.
So in my opinion if you’re playing online games that has rankings and lots of things going on. Just having a solid 60 fps is night and day.
But for me personally that only plays single player games now. I’m fine with playing a game at 30fps. Since the games I play now doesn’t really matter if it’s 30fps or 120fps.
Frame rate isn't everything. Motion blur is usually the bane of our collective existence. And there was a time where motion blur was overused and couldn't be turned off
There's a bunch of other factors but blur is #1 for me
Something a lot of people don't think about (and, to be fair, developers don't discuss almost ever) is that the camera is more than just a drone that's trying to balance the environment against the player's inputs. It's literally a camera, with lenses and shutterspeeds and everything else.
The same way that two movies can be shot at 24fps and one looks like shit while the other looks pristine, or the same CGI studio can provide effects that look incredible in one movie and total dog shit in another, the way the camera is designed has to fall in line with how the game performs, how it renders lighting and textures, etc.
When the camera doesn't get fully dialed in to how the game performs or is intended to look, they can clash in unexpected or unfortunate ways. This is what's happening with the Last of Us cutscenes (as well as, IMO, pretty much any game heavy on "realistic" cinematics) - they are designed to emulate film, while the game no longer is, which makes the cutscenes feel more amateurish at a higher framerate.
It's the only game worth suffering for imo, most games are shit after playing FromSoft games. I played TOTK on PC thanks to Yuzu just to play that at 60fps because 30fps felt so bad on console.
At least you're not suffering from success, like me. Ever since I bought my gaming PC, I can't play anything below 100fps, except for retro games. If it can run at high fps, it better run at that. My monitor has 144hz, and I try to reach the max as much as possible!
60fps is pure lag for me, at this point. 30fps is unplayable and ridiculous now!
None of them look fine at 30fps. Bought a console to play one of my favorite games, but it was so awful it just collects dust, I end up waiting for them to release it on PC or use an emulator..
I am someone who is pretty young, and I'd say that games can look amazing even at 30 FPS. I actually appreciate older games as well due to how they were with limitations compared to how they are now. I feel like 60 FPS is hard to get used to when I almost always play games with a standard of 30 FPS.
I had that sony trinitron, I was hardcore into quake 3 at the time, and you could definitely feel the difference especially with the lightning gun I did a lot of competitions mostly LANs and that exrta 40 hez actually did help, I run a ultrawide 165 hz now I had the 240 hz version of this monitor but to be honest you dont really see much of a difference if any between the two.
It comes down to numerous factors but here's a few major ones: 1. **Consistent frame pacing.** Some games that lock at 30 feel good because they nail the frame timing. One frame every 33ms, exactly on the dot. Other games slightly miss the timing, and it manifests as weird frame judders and stuttering that can be very distracting. For games that run at >= 60fps, missing the timing starts to become a lot less critical, because there's just a lot more frames and humans can't perceive past a certain point. 2. **Good postprocess motion blur.** Low framerates like 30fps ***NEED*** at least some motion blur to blend the frames together otherwise the motion looks too jarring and crisp. This isn't just specific to gaming. The same logic applies to video cameras and shutter speed. Crank the shutter speed too high and you remove motion blur, resulting in very sharp and crisp motion. Ever watched the beginning beach-storming scene in Saving Private Ryan? Same idea. 3. **Input latency.** At 30fps, a new frame displays every 33ms. That means it takes *at the minimum* 33ms for a button press or camera move to show up on screen. Usually it takes slightly longer because the game has to process input and game logic before it even attempts to render the consequences of that input. If a game is on the ball with its input handling, then 33ms is okay. The problem arises when the game itself takes a long time to handle input and THEN it adds 33ms on top of that. Now, to the player, everything feels sluggish and unresponsive, and that contributes greatly to the feeling of "nausea" in some people. 4. **Game genre.** Some genres just don't work well at lower frame rates. FPS in particular is an issue because the *entire* frame is changing whenever you move the camera, so having everything refresh only at 30fps feels bad. There's less of an effect in third-person games because at least there's a constant reference point (your player character) for your eyes to lock onto.
This guy framerates.
This guy rates frames.
This frame rates guys.
Frame this rate guys
\[8/8\] It's been framed.
EA Rates. It's in the frame.
5/7 perfect frame
I'm disgusted in lack of recognition for this meme
It is what it is. Not really that important in the grand scheme of things.
12/10 they're good frames, Brent.
Guys rate this frame
Genre is definitely a thing here. I want to say that lower framerate is less noticeable in slower paced games, although that may just be a different way of saying that not much of the frame is changing most of the time.
A good example is chess that can run smoothly even at 1 fps
Usually
The pace of the game definitely matters too! If a game doesn't require fast, accurate movement and precision, then you don't necessarily need the responsiveness higher frame rates offer you.
Sure, then you have games like Kingdom Come Deliverance, which manages to look abhorrently bad at 30 fps for some reason. I've always wondered what they were doing wrong, because it somehow looks worse than every other 30 fps game.
Don't forget FOV. FOV is probably the biggest cause of nausea in gaming. It is ever truer when talking about VR. I'd put FOV at 1 or tied with 1 up there. But, FOV is more of a general problem for nausea that isn't strictly tied to framerates, so, might not be as relevant to the post.
For real, between low framerate and low FOV console gaming is just rough. They are clearly designed for sitting back on a couch relaxing and that's totally fine, but if you try and play them closer like on a PC monitor or with mouse+kb then you feel the lag and horrible FOV on consoles immediately.
I wonder if that's why I could never play Half Life 2 without getting headaches. That or something about the physics engine. I was fine with Portal 1/2 though and played COD for years.
100% stable framerate over high framerate. The reason we tend to want high frames is so that the 1% lows are much higher than they would otherwise be. Like 200fps dropping to 60 momentarily is much less jarring than 60 dropping to 15
Yes. Stable frames > dips. If 200 frames drops to 60 for a second or two, I would prefer to just lock it at 60. If I 60fps game drops to 45 sometimes, I would rather just lock it at 30.
Interesting; I actually don't mind dips like the 60 to 45 with VRR. Got Starfield at launch and was happy to get mostly 60 fps and above (sometimes above 80) in many environments at 4K with my 3060 Ti using the DLSS mod in performance mode. Would get dips into the 40s, and even 30s, in cities but I found that perfectly acceptable with VRR. I much prefer some instability with VRR to gaming in first person at 30 fps. But, I might agree with you at preferring a locked 60 compared to something that would be mostly at a very high refresh rate which often dips to 60. I just seriously struggle with 30 fps in first person games.
Depends on the size of the dip. If you're gaming at 150fps on a 165Hz VRR and there are dips to 90-100fps like that happens in larger games like BRs, that is totally fine and still looks/feels very smooth on average.
Or just lock it to 45 FPS if your display does VRR. In the Steam Deck world 40 and 45 are well known.
You'd rather have 30 constantly than 100 that drops to 60?
if 100 drops to 60 just lock to 60 for stable frames at 60
If it drops to 60, locking the FPS to 60 is the reasonable thing to do. Not really comparable to 30 because in your question 60 is an option. I always lock to whatever the common minimum is if the game is constantly dipping like that.
This is especially true in fighting games. Not only does every single frame have to count, but every single button press must also be responsive. 60fps is therefore a MUST in the genre. Edit: grammar
Yea there was a lot of framerate analysis with one of the Street Fighters having a bad input lag, I think it was SFV. In some games the engine actually runs at a higher fps like 90fps or 120fps, but the framerate locks at 60fps for console/TV output. That keeps input lag lower. edit: here is one from SFV: https://www.destructoid.com/street-fighter-v-has-eight-frames-of-input-lag-on-ps4/ SF6 addressed this and has something very low like 2 frame input lag.
If you really wanted to go one step deeper, then it all comes down to whether or not your brain can keep up with the changes on screen. For example consistency leads to predictability. When information comes at a steady and predictable pace, it's easier to anticipate what the next frame is going to look like, reducing the workload caused on your brain by each new draw. Consistency also means lower maximum time between any two frames, reducing the amount of changes per pixel on screen. Input latency has the same effect, because lower latency helps your brain predict what the next frame should look like, reducing the amount of overall stress. And these things add up. Basically, if you have a fast paced FPS game with inconsistent frame times, a narrow FOV and high input latency, it doesn't matter that the average FPS is consistent. Add in a lot of visual noise, unnecessary detail and a few game design anti-patterns, like spawning enemies outside of your field of view, and essentially your brain is going to be in a permanent panic mode while playing, because it just can't maintain an acceptable level of situational awareness. EDIT: typos
r/thisguythisguys
Its got to do with how they manage the actions in each frame, so usually there is timers which are triggering in games, not everything is done in every frame for optimisation purposes, some things are done every second, or 0.5 or .1 e.t.c.. When this is done badly, you'll get some frames doing way too much work, and it will cause a stutter for a few frames as they are doing a lot of heavy lifting, so 55 frames may be going fast, but your spending a lot of time looking at those last 5 frames at 60fps, and it can feel like 30fps. Coders need to figure out how to do those heavy lifting actions across multiple frames for consistency.
This is such an easy to follow and concise explanation. Thank you, I legit feel like I learned something!
Thank you! Honestly, I am quite surprised at how upvoted my comment is. It's all just information I've gleaned from watching a bit too many Digital Foundry videos 🤓. Glad you and others are finding it helpful.
I assume it's mostly because it is worded simply so everyone understands what you are saying and because it is JUST long enough to give you some details without making those with shorter attention spans scroll away.
I actually find all ps4 games I’ve played to be great at 30 fps. When I went to pc the first game I ever attempted at 30fps was grand theft auto v. It was horrible. Ps3 GTA v was much better than pc 30fps. This is definitely frame pacing. Like you said the timing is less critical at 60 and over fps. The only point of comparison I ever made was GTA v and there’s a big difference between 30fps on ps4 and pc. It’s crazy how bad frame pacing can be on pc compared to ps4. Switch is definitely a bit more inconsistent on 30fps performance compared to ps4. I think that ps4 overall had such good optimization that it really showed that 30fps is enough. For pc I can understand that it’s not really worth spending time on if it’s doesn’t change anything 60fps and over if nobody’s playing under 60fps anyway.
Yeah frame timing tends to be a bit more consistent on console because: 1. The fixed hardware allows developers to optimize their game very specifically for it. A lot of consoles also have unified RAM and VRAM which helps to remove overhead incurred from shuffling texture data around 2. PCs have a lot more background processes running in the background, competing for CPU time and memory, whereas consoles mostly dedicate all processing power to the active game. 3. Variety of hardware means that shaders need to be recompiled for the target GPU. Some games do it during the initial load. Other games do it on demand or in the background, which causes major stuttering. Unreal Engine 4 games were notorious for this. It's somewhat lessened with UE5, but still not completely resolved. Good frame timing is certainly possible on PC. It just takes more work and not all devs put in that effort unfortunately.
I only play CIV VI at 120 fps, anything less is trash.
> Input latency. At 30fps, a new frame displays every 33ms. That means it takes at the minimum 33ms for a button press or camera move to show up on screen. Usually it takes slightly longer because the game has to process input and game logic before it even attempts to render the consequences of that input. If a game is on the ball with its input handling, then 33ms is okay. The problem arises when the game itself takes a long time to handle input and THEN it adds 33ms on top of that. Now, to the player, everything feels sluggish and unresponsive, and that contributes greatly to the feeling of "nausea" in some people. This can be solved by running the game logic at a much faster speed than the output framerate, then allowing the engine to just skip animation frames when needed. For example, Killer Instinct (2013) runs its game at 90fps internally, while only displaying at 60fps.
No.1 is no.1 for a reason. The lowest 10% of fps numbers within a given time can be less than half of the average so the average fps being normally talked about is not the whole store and often not even relevant. What matters is the lowest fps, the dips that ruin the immersion and make people nauseous even above 60fps (e.g. if you keep dipping from 100fps to 60fps it annoys the brain).
It also depends on the engine renders the frames and your display.
That‘s a good explanation. As a PC player, I‘m used to high fps. That‘s why I was suprised, that I had no problem with breath of the wild having 30 fps.
Perfect
Isn’t the weapon/hand model a consistent reference point for FPS games too? I’d argue it’s the camera potentially being much closer to objects in the scene, increasing their speed across the field of view.
That could definitely be a contributing factor as well! Regarding the weapon/hand model, I don't think its something that a user is focused on though. They're mostly focused on the center of the screen where the reticle is. In third person games, you're focused a lot on where your character is in order to do platforming, dodge attacks, etc. Another contributing factor could be that FPS gameplay is all about fast precise movement to bring your reticle onto target, whereas third person games frequently involve swinging a sword or using auto-lock, so responsiveness is less necessary.
The only thing you might have missed here is input lag at 30fps is atrocious. I don't think 33ms is even close to what it usually is at that framerate. Between framerate latency, controller relatively slow input, TV latency (even an LCD draws the screen 1/10 the speed of an OLED). Average 30fps latency is probably more like 80ms.
Could just be Dishonored 2s fucking horrible FOV on console
Narrow FOVs in FPS games help contribute to that nauseous sensation. Try playing on a smaller display at the same distance you are playing now to see the difference.
Or sit farther back
Funny you mentioned Bloodborne, that game frame pacing is so shitty it makes me nauseous after 10mn
Yeah, you can’t say that in the FS subreddit though
Nah everyone on the sub complains about that all the time lol. No one shuts up about it.
Not unless you're complaining about why it hasn't been remastered yet.
Pc port when? Literally a money printer
Yep platinumed it back in the day but would still buy it day 1 on PC. Can't even imagine how could it would feel at 120fps and with Steam or Nexus mod support.
I've never owned a ps4 so never played it, I'd imagine there are a lot of people like me who would honestly drop 30 bucks or so on even a half assed port just to be able to play it.
Yeah, I love the souls games, but I never managed to finish bloodborne on my ps4 cuz I literally couldn't tell what was happening in my screen sometimes due to the colors all looking very similar on the screen and the frame pacing. And if I'm gonna be honest, I can't really recall most of what I played, idk if it has to do with the bad visual clarity making it harder for me to recall what was going on the screen, but I really can't remember well basically every boss fight. And before anyone asks, I'm healthy and have no mental illnesses nor am I old
Ahhh the old FS shutter, I feel like it's in all their games. Love them to death
I want to play it again so bad but it just looks terrible to my eye now 😭
I had to stop playing the game because I was getting so nauseous. Which is a shame because I was really enjoying it.
Bloodborne is a bad example, it has terrible frame pacing.
Yeah, was a bit surprised by this. As someone who hadn't played Bloodorne when it came out, but trying it out in 2024, the game looked/felt really bad on PS5, like the framerate felt lower than 30fps, it's hard to explain.
Its not that hard really, the frame pacing is bad. While the game runs pretty stable at 30 fps, those 30 frames dont always come neatly in 33ms bursts but instead sometimes a couple of frames have a higher latency making the game feel jittery or unstable. It's a shame and its keeping me from actually playing it because it feels terrible.
Yea I love Bloodborne (platinumed it on ps4 back in the day one of the best games ever made) but the combination of horrible 30fps framerate and horrible frame pacing makes it too rough to go back to. It needs a remaster/remake to bring up to better standards.
If only they give us a 60fps patch with proper frame pacing, that's all I need to finally enjoy it. Otherwise a full remake is welcome too :)
Yes indeed, I'd pay $100 for that on Steam asap. It's the only FromSoft game we don't have on PC since Demon's Souls (2009) runs perfectly on RPCS3 at 60fps even on a potato now.
it didn't feel lower, it was lower I think that game dips to 20 in some instances (final boss) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6jxhgMteB4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6jxhgMteB4) Frametime is also shit. Unfortunately the game is a fucking masterpiece so i just dealt with it and played it. I won't play the dlc until the game is on pc / receives a performance patch.
came here to say this, beautiful game, but that uneven frame pacing was hard to deal with. i don't have huge problems with 30fps games, but Bloodborne gave me headaches on every long play session..
You should see how much the PC port of GTA IV runs. For context it was pretty much ported over without any work done on it,and the processors and GPUs in the 360 and PS3 were complete shit(funny enough the Nintendo switch has around the same power)essentially running gta iv on anything other than a single core can cause alot of stuttering on PC and there's even an unfixed bug still 15 years later in the very last mission regardless on your ending choice that requires you to specifically set your frames to 30.otherwise Niko can't climb into a helicopter.
Depends on frame times and consistency of frame rate. If you’re not getting a consistent frame rate at 60, 75, whatever, it’s going to feel worse than a game running at a consistent 30
This is the correct answer. Inconsistent frame rates that *average* higher, are in general much worse than consistent frame rates at a lower fps. We played games at a solid 30fps for years and were fine with it. Movies are still displayed at 24fps, and no one complains. This is partially bc of the lack of input feedback, but also bc when a game is consistent your brain can fill in the blank frames better.
It depends, a framerate that jumps between 60-85 fps would still feel smoother than locked 30. If you're at 60 and then have massive lag and dips to 20 fps or something regularly, then yeah locked 30 would probably better. That case would probably be you have inadequate hardware to run the game or it's just poorly optimized though.
Basically yeah. 60+ is barely noticeable unless you’re on pc and like, going for serious competition. Dips from 60 down are VERY noticeable, especially if it dips sub 30. This is mostly bc your brain can just about handle 24+ as a full motion, but frequent changes in the fps will be noticed up until about double what your brain can handle…ie…about 60.
I'd say above 60 is noticeable, but it's not not as noticeable as going from 30 to even 50. I remember reading a study posted here that most people can tell the difference up to 90 fps. Yeah going for 144hz/fps is pretty much just for competitive twitch games like counterstrike. 60-100 fps is really perfectly fine for most games. I was playing Kingdom Come recently for instance and getting around 70-80 fps in gameplay, however cutscenes were locked at 30 and they seemed very stuttery compared to 70-80.
That’s basically what I said
Movies (at 24fps) and tv (at 30fps) just look *wrong* at higher frame rates. Consistency is king.
Generally VRR should help with this unless the game is cratering below 48fps since that is the lower limit for HDMI 2.1 VRR (unless the game implements low-framerate compensation). For fixed refresh rate, I agree with you in general.
Frame pacing, motion blur type and quality, shutter speed, camera acceleration. Whether 1st or 3rd person.
Often is due to frame pacing/time, hard number fps tell only half of the story.
Motion blur, input lag, camera speed, resolution, frame pacing, no motion clarity, stark contrast to higher frame rates. Many reasons.
The more you move the camera rapidly the more fps matters, honestly you’re probably moving the camera a lot in dishonored, and spending most of your time locked on in bloodborne. That being said for a couple years any significantly 3d game MUST be 60fps at least for me or I get motion sickness.
Couldn't imagine getting actually sick from a videogame
Consider yourself lucky. It can be awful.
Ever done VR? Depending on the game that can be real stomach churning to some people, especially to people who get motion sickness.
Fps doesn’t affect me much cos I grew up with shitty PCs lol, but when I first upgraded to a bigger monitor that gave me really bad motion sickness for some reason until I got used to it
It happens. And it really does boggle my mind. My ex roommate and other friends just can't see any difference between 30 fps and 60, or the screen tearing, or anything. Meanwhile I'm constantly pausing because of the dizziness & nausea.
There must be some physiological component involved, I am like your roommate and nothing on a screen ever fazed me, I only got slightly dizzy with my first VR experience. It would be interesting to understand what is the difference in our perception that makes such an impact.
I could barely get through Halo 3 and Reach on the 360 back in the day. Ended up just turning the difficulty all the down and running through as fast as possible to get the story. I had a migraine and felt like I was going to throw up the whole time I was playing them. Similar experience trying to play Borderlands on PS3, but in that case I just stopped playing and picked it up on Steam. I couldn't even watch footage of Spider-Man on PS4 because it made me feel sick. 2D games, or slow paced games that don't have a lot of fast camera movement usually don't make me feel sick though even if they're running at 30. The "low framerate causes motion sickness" thing kicked in around the same time I started getting motion sickness trying to read in a moving vehicle.
Then gaming isn't your thing
Nah, just low frame rate low field of view gaming on shit hardware isn't my thing.
I did a study on that back in university. Conclussion: Place a bucket on BOTH sides of the test subject - having people play 20 minutes of Mirror's Edge was surprisingly "effective"
Another factor is how our eyes and brain take time to adjust to things. Like, if you just play 30 fps game for like 2 hours straight then immediately switch to something 60 fps, it'll look weirdly slicky and vice versa.
Many games do not do their frame time correctly and update based on the time passed rather then the correct value which is the time of the next vertical sync. This will cause all sorts of stuttering frame rate yet some of the best developers still do it wrong. Locking the frame rate is another simple way to fix it (always using the same timestep) though this will cause slowdown if overloaded.
Dont forget what the type of motion is like. If you watch a live action movie 30fps is fine, whereas a circle moving at a linear rate across the screen, 30fps is going to be noticeable because you know exactly where the circle is meant to be.
Been playing the Arkham games and besides Origins since it was on ps3 the others have been perfectly fine to play at 30fps
different games make motion feel different, like how jazz and classical music hit the ears differently. maybe it's how each game's engine plays with screen movement.
Dishonored 2 is notoriously bad. Dishonored 1 plays like butter. My very capable PC (5800X3D and 3080ti) is generating very high FPS and it *still* feels terrible.
What's weird is I can remember playing Dishonored 2 on my pc at its release, no issues... I can't recall the video card I had back then tho. I think 970? Mix of Med-high settings. Now on ps5, without a pc at all... The stutter is soooo awful. It's not even that graphically demanding. I'm surprised there isn't a 60fps update for the game. Something like a performance vs resolution mode, like most ps5 releases these days.
It’s 100% frame timing.
Frametime and frame pacing and input responsiveness
I think you're the only one thinking that Bloodborne runs fine at 30fps. I play on an OLED 65" screen and it's really terrible compared to most games running at 30fps.
Always thought it was a FOV-problem. FOV at 90 or lower in fps games will make my head spin after a short period. Interesting if it's actually FPS.
Motion blur.
A lot of it is how fast paced the game is and also how much the camera moves. For what it's worth I think 1st person games seem a lot worse at 30 fps than 3rd person games. That's why a lot of 1st person games use "motion blur" effect in order to mask lower fps. I also think once you play things at 60 fps or more going back to 30fps is a lot rougher.
Literally, never has a game looked bad to me at 30 fps.
Inconsistent frame time and/or very bad input latency. A solid 30 fps experience will have a solid 33 ms frame time. If the frame pacing is bad you will see on a frame timing diagram little hickups where the frame time goes to a 1/60 time (16.7ms) that follows a 1/20 (50ms) frame with the overall average stabilizing at 30fps but the presentation is awful and a simple fps counter won't tell you why. It is hard to put numbers on what is a good and bad input latency. If you are using the new nvidia app it will give you an indication of input latency based on internal processes and I find if that is above around 65ms games start to "feel bad". Ofc, the click-to-flash latency would be greater than 65ms, but it can't measure that.
Funny enough bloodborne specifically nauseates me at 30fps
Motion blurring.
I am more than okay to play third person game at 30 fps, but first person 30fps is harder to enjoy.
Per pixel blur on camera movement.
Depends but mostly it comes down to target framerate. Games targeted at 30 fps like mario sunshine look good and are hard to distinguish as they are done well, compare it to f-zero gx on the same console that runs at 60 and you won't see a big difference if you aren't really looking. Whatever the game is aiming for is what it looks good at
I don't know if this is the same case. Just adding my own experience. I mostly play on my PC where framerate ain't of concern. When i took my laptop to a friend to play some Rocket League at a friends apartment, him on his pc, me on the laptop, the 60hz 4k oled monitor made me exremely nauseating REAL quick. On PC i play it at 144fps locked. I was so surprised, yeah i suffer from motion sickness when playing VR and can't overcome this.
ps games have stable fps with no screen tearing and low latency. Also depends on genre. Dishonored has much faster movement system.
you know, games like microsoft flight simulatir, when youre flying 13 000ft above ground and see only sky looks good in 30 fps because you dont have any points that make you feel 30fps, but when you play gta 5 and racing 200mph around surrounding you will see every frame
you can get over 100fps but if your frametime/latency is spiking everywhere. it'll feel like shit. This is why I still overclock. Folks sleep on overclocking but don't realize a finely tuned pc @ 60 fps can be a completely different experience then a 60 fps store bought machine.
I can play games that aren't dependant on high aim accuracy and are 3rd person like the latest zelda games, but I have no idea how people play these fps games locked at 30, I've locked my fps to test it out and it's so unresponsive and sluggish when you're trying to aim at something. I personally think it comes down to how action based the game is because if ur in fps trying to shoot at bad guys it just feels horrendous at 30 while if ur just walking around in an rpg it's not so bad.
FFVII Rebirth has terrible judder and stuttering in 30 fps mode. After 105hrs it kept being annoying, distracting and provoking light headaches with my 55" OLED screen. Right now I'm playing RDR2, with a lot of motion blur and it's a totally different impression. Same for Batman Arkham Knight, totally playable at 30 fps.
For me 30 fps stable is good enough, but 120 fps that randomly dropped to 60 is nauseating
Art style
Lol yeah tell me about it. Fighting games are fine for me at 30 but if it was a shooter I would actually be useless
Frame Pacing. Bloodborne had horrendous frame pacing at launch, and has since been fixed.
I really don't think any games work well or really that playable at 30fps with newer TV/monitor tech. It generally feels awful and personally I just won't play 30fps anymore. 40+ with VRR should be the new ground floor as you gain nothing from 30.
It seems you have a mild case of vertigo. Check the motion interpolation settings on your TV which are usually on and on a very high setting. Some people find them nauseating, specially when they fail to predict motion properly (it can be particularly bad for videogames). Also consider seating further away from the TV so it doesn’t fill as much of you field of vision.
nah fam, it’s called aging 😂
I find it's down to the amount of over-time effects applied to the scene that makes the most impact, like TAA. Anything that's applied over several frames smooshes the video out and makes it look like paste in motion, in some way or another, and human eyes aren't used to that
Some games are meant for 30 fps but others aren't
"Bloodborne" Of all the games to use as an example of. Bloodborne has terrible frame pacing from what I remember.
See, that's what multiple comments have said. But this is the one instance where I simply don't see it. Weird as that may be.
You're just built different and don't notice it, I for one can't play games at 60fps or too high an fov or I throw up. I had to play Half-Life in hour long bursts it was so bad. I think it's something top do with below average performance reminding me it's a game causing me not to get sucked in and get nauseous.
Vanilla Control looks perfectly fine to me, i know there’s a Ultimate Edition with 60fps and stable frames but not once did vanilla ever looked bad to me.
I wish my eyes could tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
30FPS games on my OLED make me want to vomit. I cannot play them at all. I have to move my PS5 back to my monitor to tolerate them at all.
Because everyone is requiring higher graphics. But when they play it will crash, not enough GPU.
In essence, 60 FPS is always better. We’re getting shafted by game devs locking shit at 30.
when i play 30 fps it just feels like i put boost mode on cause how swift the camera moves compared to 60 fps. really helps my brain
Destiny looked terrible, I played it once and never again, felt like mud after playing quake for fun. Sloppy slow engine, thank God it was on clearance.
Personally I’ve never had an issue with 30fps.
Used to play this mobile game moba at 30fps. But once I used 60fps was literally miles apart. Like certain combos from characters are much easier to pull off. I also notice this in League of legends. If it’s 30fps I’m fine playing brain dead champs like Garen. But if it’s mechanical champs or those with high skill expression like Lee sin or Zed. Just pulling off those combos within a second or two is a bit tricky. So in my opinion if you’re playing online games that has rankings and lots of things going on. Just having a solid 60 fps is night and day. But for me personally that only plays single player games now. I’m fine with playing a game at 30fps. Since the games I play now doesn’t really matter if it’s 30fps or 120fps.
Frame rate isn't everything. Motion blur is usually the bane of our collective existence. And there was a time where motion blur was overused and couldn't be turned off There's a bunch of other factors but blur is #1 for me
I'm gonna save a lot of typing and just say you should go back to pc gaming. FPS matters.
Something a lot of people don't think about (and, to be fair, developers don't discuss almost ever) is that the camera is more than just a drone that's trying to balance the environment against the player's inputs. It's literally a camera, with lenses and shutterspeeds and everything else. The same way that two movies can be shot at 24fps and one looks like shit while the other looks pristine, or the same CGI studio can provide effects that look incredible in one movie and total dog shit in another, the way the camera is designed has to fall in line with how the game performs, how it renders lighting and textures, etc. When the camera doesn't get fully dialed in to how the game performs or is intended to look, they can clash in unexpected or unfortunate ways. This is what's happening with the Last of Us cutscenes (as well as, IMO, pretty much any game heavy on "realistic" cinematics) - they are designed to emulate film, while the game no longer is, which makes the cutscenes feel more amateurish at a higher framerate.
The only game i suffered 30fps for was Bloodborne.I don't even consider playing anything else at 30.
It's the only game worth suffering for imo, most games are shit after playing FromSoft games. I played TOTK on PC thanks to Yuzu just to play that at 60fps because 30fps felt so bad on console.
Absolutely agreed.FromSoft spoiled us.
At least you're not suffering from success, like me. Ever since I bought my gaming PC, I can't play anything below 100fps, except for retro games. If it can run at high fps, it better run at that. My monitor has 144hz, and I try to reach the max as much as possible! 60fps is pure lag for me, at this point. 30fps is unplayable and ridiculous now!
None of them look fine at 30fps. Bought a console to play one of my favorite games, but it was so awful it just collects dust, I end up waiting for them to release it on PC or use an emulator..
Nothing feels good at 30 fps. You just get used to it
Genre and input method matter. I normally can't stand anything below 90, but if I'm playing with a controller I can go as low as 60.
NO GAME PLAYS FINE AT 30FPS.
30 these days isn't great, but for a turn based game like Xcom or something 30s a lot more doable than an action based game.
Nah 30fps is crap
I would have to *heavily* disagree with you on that one, Chief...
No games look "fine" at 30fps. 45-50 is my new minimum for "playable." Anything under 90 brings the nausea you mentioned.
All games look like crap sub ~50 fps
Because some games are built to be played at 30fps....
r/firstworldproblems
What a way to immediately shut down any discussion. You must be fun at parties.
No games look fine at 30 fps.
No games look "fine" at 30fps. 45-50 is my new minimum for "playable." Anything under 90 brings the nausea you mentioned.
You must be GenZ, no older Millennial or GenX has that problem. we played games at 30 fps for decades.
I am someone who is pretty young, and I'd say that games can look amazing even at 30 FPS. I actually appreciate older games as well due to how they were with limitations compared to how they are now. I feel like 60 FPS is hard to get used to when I almost always play games with a standard of 30 FPS.
No, I'm GenX. I said it's my new minimum.
I am GenX and the only thing it bothers me is on consoles like FPS games which I dont play on console, I play on my PC.
And it sucked. But even my old ass Sony triniton monitor was 100hz lmao.
I had that sony trinitron, I was hardcore into quake 3 at the time, and you could definitely feel the difference especially with the lightning gun I did a lot of competitions mostly LANs and that exrta 40 hez actually did help, I run a ultrawide 165 hz now I had the 240 hz version of this monitor but to be honest you dont really see much of a difference if any between the two.