Why has FPS become such a hot topic just now? There were plenty of beloved older games that ran at what a modern standard would be shitty FPS. With some older games just barley being able to maintain that shitty FPS.
I'm not saying that one is better, I'm just wondering why it's become an issue now and not then.
because its not 1880 any more
Because we should be expecting frame rate and resolution to get better.
Because buying a brand new PC or console should return improvements to the player.
>>321227397
>There were plenty of beloved older games that ran at what a modern standard would be shitty FPS.
Because I want technology to go forward, not stay the same.
>>321227397
>There were plenty of beloved older games that ran at what a modern standard would be shitty FPS.
Prior to 3D this wasn't the case. 60 fps was the standard before Playstation and N64. And the reason for that then was because 3D was new and the tech couldn't really handle it. 3D is no longer new and the tech can easily reach smooth framerates if you want it to.
For console games, it's not an issue. Console developers are limited by budget-tier hardware. Get used to it or don't buy a console.
For PC games, there should be no hard-coded frame rate limit. Optional frame rate limits are great, but when such options are disabled, the frame rate of a game should be whatever the computer can handle. There's really no good reason for a frame rate cap in a PC game. Developers who deliberately downgrade their games like that are garbage.
>but sometimes the frame rate needs to be capped because high frame rate will break the game's physics engine or some other stupid thing!
That doesn't convince me that the developer isn't garbage. It only confirms it, actually.
>>321227397
And all of those games are universally more enjoyable at a higher framerate through either emulation or modern ports.
For example, there's no reason to play Rogue Squadron on N64 when it's on PC
>>321228521
>And the reason for that then was because 3D was new and the tech couldn't really handle it.
No, the reason for that is developers giving up framerate in order to push better graphics. You know, just like it happens right fucking now.
There's no technological hard cap on FPS, even the PS1 could've ran games at 100+ FPS if they had been simple enough, the issue is that people have always valued graphics over framerate.
>>321228798
Physics calculations are intense if you don't cut corners. Linking it to frametime increases performance significantly. You can't really make a physics engine that performs the same at an infinite framerate and still have all the modern interaction you expect, even the best ones start to crap out a bit at 300fps.
>>321229798
>even the PS1 could've ran games at 100+ FPS if they had been simple enough
Uh. No, it couldn't do 3D graphics at that framerate. Unless you literally only want a single tri. 3D graphics were already as simple as they could be.
>>321228798
If it's 60 that's reasonable. But capping it at like 300 or thereabouts is fine.
Even Quake engine's physics fuck up if not capped
>>321229997
If Gran Turismo could run at 60 FPS in hi-fi mode, I'm sure it would've been technically possible to get twice that framerate while still having something resembling graphics. Maybe simple flat shaded geometry with a short draw distance like Virtua Racer or something.
