Topic: 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS

What about the inevitable 3DS Metroid (which will come sooner or later)? You're not going to be able to play that on PC or X-Box.

I'd rather the game have 3D. I don't use the 3D as often, but when I do use it, I remember why I bought the 3DS and it makes me enjoy the game a billion times more. If it ran at 60FPS without the 3D, I probably wouldn't notice or care... I mean, it just moves a bit smoother...that's it. As opposed to moving smooth and in 3D.

And yes, 3D assets are WAY more exciting than 2D silky smooth moving ones.

I'd rather have both. Come on developers, don't be lazy! If you have to make the textures or models slightly less good, that's fine. But I want 3D, and I want my game to be smooth.

It's not so much laziness as apposed to hard to do, it takes a lot of extra processor power to run games in 3D, probably why the Vita stayed 2D (they'd probably have had to drop the "play PS3 games on your Vita" gimmick). To be honest, 60fps is pretty much like HD TV - most people can't tell the difference & half of those people then convince themselves they can. I'd much rather drop back down to 30fps, drop 3D and have MUCH better graphics! The 3DS has the muscle of a Wii 7 a half... lets see some studios dropping 3D and showing what the 3DS can do!

Wierd. I can't really see HD, but I can easily see the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. The former feels like I'm walking through water.

I dont give a **** about FPS after playing games like Majoras Mask that have extreme (frame drops?).

What about normal/high def TV? While most modern TVs run at 100hz, programs are only transmitted in 30fps... people look real to me. LOL

as a PC junkie. 60 fps is my personal taste regardless of 3D. if the game can run in 3D while in 60, great, I'll do that. If it can't but is able to run in 60 while not in 3D, then we'll stick with that.

I absolutely LOVE 3D and I can't tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps - so my choice is obvious!

Since I use a 2DS anyway, the more the merrier, no?

You can tell when a game's at 30. Maybe at first, you won't see it. But, once you see a game that you know has 60, you'll see the difference.

If you are talking about 3DS 3D vs 2D then I probably say I can live without 3D for 3DS except for some puzzle boxes in Super Mario 3D Land. I can't really tell between 30 fps and 60 fps usually unless I compared it side by side then I will noticed the different. So I say 60 fps 2D right now since I got used to 3D on 3DS that I sometime forgot that I have an 3D on.

For TV then I will rather use 3D than 2D in a very dark room. If the room is not dark then I rather use 2D for TV.

30 vs 60 FPS is a total non-issue for me, but 3D depends on what game I'm playing and where I'm playing it.

Did you have an HDTV when you made this post? Because the difference is pretty drastic when you're talking about the difference between a 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratio. Not only is SD upscaled, but distorted too. SD games actually look better on an older CRT TV than they do on an HDTV because of aspect ratio and because CRTs blurred the image to hide blockiness. Even with an HDTV, I keep a CRT around for my PS2 and Gamecube because those games look like crap on my LED.

SD games look better on a CRT than on an HDTV, but HD games on an HDTV look better than both.

*Edited to account for the fact that I just noticed that this thread is two years old...

Okay that is scary because I did the same thing you did. People complaining that why I want two TV and one of them is an CRT and an 3D Smart HD TV (1080p). I told them that I play Gamecube on that CRT TV. (I used to play N64 until my brother took it with him.) Wii U, PS3, Xbox 360, and cable box is hooked up to my other TV. Only difference between you and me is that I don't have an PS2.

@CaviarMeths and @Super_Gravy .... actually, the difference is in the aliasing. The old CRT television has an aliased layout for each pixel, every odd row is offset from the previous, this is what causes it to look smoother, it's a trick of the eye actually. The newer ones don't, thus why they NEED high definition, or, as you pointed out, it looks blocky.

As for fps .... 30 is really good enough, due to a flaw in our visual nerves, we can't really see the difference after 30 fps, though we can think we see a difference. It's much the same as those people who think organic foods taste better, also known as the placebo effect. As for the stereoscopic effect, I must have it for any games with a first or second person perspective, or I cannot play them for more than a few minutes. Also any fast rotating cameras will cause vertigo without the stereoscopic effect. I can't even watch movies with "shaky" cameras because of it.

I can find sources that say otherwise; my own common sense for one.

Common sense also tells you there is a monster under the bed, but you outgrow that with knowledge as well. The brain takes a measurable amount of time to collect, and then process, any information, and it waits to process visual information until all other information has been collected. Then, it doesn't record everything either, redundant "slices" of time are ignored by it, if there is not enough variation in the information from other nearby "slices" of time. Thus, ultimately, it only records and responds to about 30 to 45 "frames" per second. Our machines are a hundred times faster than our brains. As I said, the placebo effect can cause you to think you see a difference, even when you see none at all.

Of course this is advanced biology and neurological sciences, not common knowledge, but you can get the scientific papers yourself and study them. It's not that you are stupid for not knowing this, merely that I have had the opportunity and an abundant supply of curiosity and time with which to study the brain. Did you know it takes about the same as 1 kilobyte of data for the brain to understand the number 1? We are inefficient machines, that's the flaw of being organic, but also the benefit, for it's our inefficiencies that makes us ... us.

Funny that a 2 year old topic has resurface.

I don't really care how many frames a game makes as long as it is a minimum of 30. Though I really like 3D so I guess I'll go with 30 w/ 3D.

Like at @kittenkoder said our eyes don't really notice the individual frames being produced at 30 plus frames. Though, if you play, for example, Mario Kart 7(which runs at 60fps) then later play Animal Crossing New Leaf(which runs at 30fps) you do see the difference. But, it doesn't matter to 99.99% of gamers anyway (the other 0.01% are insane OCD gamers).

I wouldn't call them "insane OCD," though it can be fitting of how they act about it. More "excessively competitive," to them it's more about having/being the "best" at something, to the point where they project that onto the products they purchase as well. Competitiveness isn't bad though, unlike OCD, it is what drives us, as a species, to constantly improve ourselves in some way.

Right now I am just a bit argumentative myself though, headache from the stupid sports dorks honking their horns up and down the streets because of some inconsequential "win" ... headaches suck.

According to what I've been able to assemble from assorted websites, it seems that people mostly infer human limitations as a result of misappropriating the term frame rate - as if there is a comparable image capture mechanism in the human eye.

So the more apt comparison stems from an exploration of "frames per second" and its origins in classic cinematography. For some time 24 FPS was the industry standard, as a sort of compromise between image fidelity and budgetary constraints. Eventually the standard moved to something commonly accepted as "smooth" where locked in at 30 FPS the average person would not experience any stuttering or visual distraction.

Over time, with the advent of the PC and its ability to push frames to 30 FPS, 60 FPS, and far beyond, only then did our ability to perceive become a relevant question. It seems that the same 30 FPS which could sustain an enjoyable visual experience on the big screen, would not translate to this new realm. Motion blur eases the transition between frames in cinema, whereas computers are capable of displaying a high quality image at virtually any frame rate, provided sufficient hardware.

30 FPS vs 60 FPS: a visual comparison