My thoughts on the framerate debate

Now I don't want this to be confused with a certain youtuber's title and message on framerate from some time ago. The debate isn't about whether or not 60fps is better, because its just a fact that it is and your not losing anything "filmic" from moving to it. So that is a framerate non-debate. What is still up for discussion, talks, and will contain differing views is whether or not the framerate is worth the visuals or if 30fps is just fine. This is more of a console debate than anything else, as you can always adjust your own on PC and if you can't you know its either a matter of upgrading or complaining about a sloppy optimization job. What brings this up now? Well... several things really, probably the biggest one in recent times being Naughty Dog's statement that the remastered Last of Us is a game changer at 60fps and they wish it to become the standard for gaming. The other is up for debates, it seems like some were just expecting better everything with the new consoles, and others appear to be driven by PC elitist's talk. Of course its not only that, but PS4 fanboys trying to use it against the xbox 1 for some multi-plats as well as the talk about resolution for cases like COD. So naturally people loved hating back on them whenever a game had less than either 1080p, or 60fps... and apart from ports and Wolfenstein, there is nothing that really has that.

Got to love the console wars.

The Order didn't help when it was making the stupid excuses it did for its choice. Now it seems like 30fps is not only less, but that supporting it almost makes people think you're an idiot trying to pass it off as filmic. So now here we are, with a renewed sense of frustration and entitlement to get a certain higher standard in. Is it justified? Well ultimately I'm going to say no, and on both sides of the argument. I think I've said this before, but its fixed hardware and we're all well aware of this way before we buy into it. When you buy one you're well aware you have minimal if any control over your visual options and performance within the games, and you know where you can turn to if you wanted to go with that route. This is just miserable for exclusives since you don't have another option to turn to, but oh well. Now likewise you don't owe the games money and you can choose to turn down a game that doesn't hit your expectations (or even intentionally buy it used, but your a bit of a jerk using that as a boycott), but c'mon you've got to admit that's a bit dramatic if the game truly interests you for the reasons its supposed to: gameplay.

Now the thing to keep in mind is that compromises are made all the time. The engine, physics, graphics, resolution, and performance must all  blend together and function across consoles. Each and every thing around the game's limit will stress the able performance, and that does mean the framerate can take hits with more effects. Any PC gamer can tell you that resolution alone will move framerate easily, so there's a good chance you wont be hitting 60fps and 1080p on an advanced game. If you can... its going to take downsized shading, lighting, AA, or something similar to make up for the big resolution and performance. If your aim is 30fps, you can probably look more like Shadow Fall and Infamous. If you drop the resolution in addition to aiming at 30fps... well I don't think we've seen a perfect example, but it'll probably beat the two previously mentioned games despite some extra AA needed (or handle their engines better). So in the end the discussion is whether or not its worth the comprimises. My own view? 1080p is worth it, 60fps is not.

I just don't see the boost that people claim is offered within 60fps. The framerate looks the same to me unless I'm staring really hard at a side by side comparison (and yes, 60fps is better in that case). People also say the response time is better, but again I don't really feel this. I've jumped between 30fps and 60fps games without feeling out of place or anything. COD isn't more responsive than say Killzone or Bad company because of its framerate, its more responsive because its incredibly fast and twitchy... much like Unreal Tournament 2004 which I've run just as fine at 30fps. I actually play at most 30fps games better, especially if its a case of bad company 2 vs COD. Now I'm not going to call the response time stuff a lie, as I know from going to high on certain PC game settings or just badly optimized games on consoles that a very low framerate can mean the difference between hitting your mark. I've watched my quality vastly improve as I tweak and go in and out of higher settings on Chivalry, and I sure need more than 20fps to be at my best (which still ain't good, but that's another subject). However the thing is 30fps is around the mark where you lose track of any real difference, and I haven't seen people change or lose balance over a 30fps mark. The games play just fine, and again I'm better at nearly every shooter over COD because most other shooters have more for me to learn and adapt to and conquer or outsmart other players with actual tactics of some kind. However one thing I do notice between Resistance 2, COD, R&C: crack in time, and rage at their 60fps, and then compared to Killzone, Bad company, R&C: nexus, and Metro at 30fps is that the 30fps games always look, and process more into a more immersive and interesting experience. Before Insomniac dropped their framerate, they always had something or multiple things within their games that had horribly jagged edges and desperately needed some sense of higher resolution or AA (and this is coming from someone that can never put any AA on their PC games, so I should be used to it). Rage was just a total mess, with some of the worst and most distracting pop-ins ever, and textures and details that were so flat and dull they shouldn't have bothered loading with that pop-in to begin with. Meanwhile I don't have to explain why COD wasn't breath taking, its still running on an ancient modified engine even to this day and it just doesn't compete well or hold any impressive effects. Its not ugly, but you certainly wont see it competing against most other shooters in visuals. Meanwhile Killzone has some of the best PS3 visuals out there and an insanely good engine with ragdolls, wind effects, and a heavy dose of lasting decals and blood. Metro is an amazing job from a 3rd party source, and Bad Company 2 has you destroying entire buildings as well as superior model textures over the average military shooter. Oh and Into the nexus is one of the most beautiful 3D cartoon-ish looking games I've ever seen in my life, even if it sadly dips below 30fps occasionally... its worth it considering I'm not watching 8-bit explosions everywhere. The differences between most 30fps and 60fps games are visually jarring, meanwhile I just can't detect the framerate boost and I wouldn't unless it was a side by side comparison.

Worth 30fps! End of story!!!

Now before someone takes my view too seriously, I'll admit there is a flaw with my line of thinking. First though I feel like I have to fight for 30fps one more paragraph basically paraphrased as such: It isn't the end of the world. The thing that really, really, ticks me off about this framerate discussion is the sudden appearance of those who say they can't stand 30fps. Its "garbage" and "unplayable" or in Naughty Dog's case when discussing their 6 million+ selling highly successful game, it feels "broken". This is like a Hershey fan going to World Market, buying a $6 candy bar made from various "real and handcrafted" ingredients, and then claiming that Hershey candy isn't fit for human consumption and refusing to ever settle for it again (and then they go bankrupt buying overpriced chocolate). Its a stupid spoiled statement made on a comparison basis that holds no concept of proper standards and flies directly in the face of facts like how successful last gen has been running mostly 720p and 30fps. I remember reading on the IGN article with Naughty Dog's statement that "The myth that 30fps is good enough needs to die". I told him exactly what I thought, using the very games ND made as evidence. 30fps was good enough. It was good enough to sell millions, even sell consoles, complete the game, leave an emotional and thoughtful impact on players, and was enough to get it some of the highest praises ever. If that and Uncharted 2's 28 or more perfect awards wasn't "good enough" I'm sorry but you are simply lying. I'm not saying the games deserved all their praise, that's subjective, but the fact that they alongside countless other 30fps titles have been enjoyed and praised by millions of gamers should say that 30fps isn't its problem. We've had an entire console generation thrive mostly on 30fps without hardly anyone fussing, and it was fine. The people exaggerating about how spoiled they've become almost make me want to remain at 30fps just so I don't become like them.

Now with that being said, I'm going to play into the idea that maybe this would actually be the best time for 60fps to become the standard. Despite what I said, I have to take a step back and also ask myself what is "good enough" and I think its safe to place that on the visuals now more so than the framerate. Sure 30fps is good enough, but then again so was Wolfenstein's visuals (once you admire the details and all the destruction), or Mario Kart 8, or considering we can upgrade Last of Us in addition to 1080p/60fps maybe even just leaving it at that despite it being a port is good enough. Heck I still think PS3 games as they are just look pretty great most of the time. Ground Zeroes looks incredible on just PS3, and if it can look better, hit 60fps and high resolution, and be an open world game, that is all good enough to me.

MGS's fox engine looks so real! Ok, real link

So in the end... I kind of want to conclude with that message... to both sides of the topic. Shut up with the mudslinging, and just hope they developers are competent enough to deliver something that runs well... no matter what they choose for how to optimize the game. You can achieve great things with or without 60fps, and its time to really appreciate that. Unless of course your up for the idea that developers should be able to make a 720p/60fps or 1080p/30fps thing, in that case I'm with you on that. Still in the end can we quite expecting the sun and moon to come out at once to match the idea of fine quality? There is such a thing as good enough, and honestly many games look good enough at 60fps while games also still run just fine at 30fps. Its at an age where its possible, and considering the over-bloated budget of gaming right now there's no true urgency to need more. And above all... remember your here to have fun. Wolfenstien was ridiculously ugly as a PS4 game at first and I had no problem blaming the framerate, but even before I started to see the better details within it I was still having some of the best fun I had in years on a shooter's campaign, even more so than Shadow Fall. That was worth playing, regardless of it being against my stance on this issue.

Let the fun times keep coming!