Is it absolutely mandatory for every single game that comes to PC to be capable of running in 60 frames per second? This has been an annoying itch for the longest time now.
Pic related is people complaining about that new Neptunia game out on Steam being capped in 30FPS. Even just for RPGs, even the most-niche ones like Neptunia, do they absolutely have to be in 60FPS? Are they too busy looking at the game or playing it? Why should it matter if they dropped thousands of dollars on a rig to play a niche RPG? Seriously? They should be looking elsewhere.
I don't deem it mandatory for every game to be playable in 60FPS, but what I do care about are customization controls and resolution options. The Neptunia Steam ports deliver on both of those.
>>335868579
going from 30 fps to 60 fps gives you a noticeable improvement in responsiveness and smoothness
are 30 fps games completely unplayable? no
are 60 fps games better in noticeable ways? yes, and the people who say otherwise just aren't experienced enough to tell the difference or they can only run at 30 fps and feel bad about it
nah, just cancerbiscuit's cancerous followers
>"muh 60 effpeess"
it indicates their confusion and unwillingness to acknowledge certain game genres don't need fucking minimum 60 FPS. The Supah Mario Bro's didn't run at 60 FPS. assfaggots games don't run at 60 FPS. Most older-style RPGs don't run at 60 FPS (before they began becoming more Action that RPG). Shit aren't arcade-style FIGHTAN games like street fighter locked to 30 frames, not 60?
Sure, frames are important in shooters where having those extra frames means you're that much likely to score the BOOM HEADSHOT against the guy whose game isn't displaying as quickly on his rig. But I don't know how people who play at 120 FPS don't get aneurysm-inducing headaches desu. I get sick to my stomach watching faggots rocketlaunch themselves across maps in Doom/Quake and the screen ripping and tearing itself to pieces because >fuck vsync!
>>335868871
/thread
Well, the first Rebirth games are 60 fps. So there's that.
There is no reason whatsoever not to be capable of 60FPS on a PC. Running at 30 isn't a creative decision, it's a technical decision. PCs don't have hard limits like a console does so no sacrifice to framerate needs to be made.
If your game just isn't capable of running at that framerate regardless of the hardware, you're a shit developer. Not even allowing an unlocked framerate is like not offering resolutions other than 720p or not offering widescreen. It's just arbitrarily setting a limit on the game's performance for no reason.
Do I NEED every game to be at 60? Of course not, but I'd rather be at 60 than 30 given the choice, and if my hardware is strong enough for it, what reason is there to lock me at 30?
>>335868579
>Is it absolutely mandatory for every single game that comes to PC to be capable of running in 60 frames per second?
yes
stopped reading right there
>>335869316
>The Supah Mario Bro's didn't run at 60 FPS
>Shit aren't arcade-style FIGHTAN games like street fighter locked to 30 frames, not 60?
Holy fucking shit the level of ignorance in your post.
Well, I guess we all just agree then.
Right-O.
>>335868579
When games are designed for specific frame rates, there is no such thing as laggyness unless the game is shitty, ie you need a higher frame rate to see everything but the developer doesn't provide it because they suck.
>>335870187
Utter nonsense. This is like saying every game should have graphics like Crysis 3 because the hardware can handle it.
>>335869316
if it's a 3d game with camera movement then it needs to run at 60fps
if it's a 2d action game involving the environment moving with the action then it needs 60fps
if it's a racing game or fighting game or any first person game then it needs 60fps
but yeah xcom and turned based games dont NEED it
>>335870469
>This is like saying every game should have graphics like Crysis 3 because the hardware can handle it.
That's a complete strawman and you know it. He specifically said games should allow resolutions higher than 720p and framerates higher than 30fps. This is massively different than saying every game should have Crysis 3-level detail.
>>335870469
graphics are not performance. graphics do not affect gameplay.
>>335870469
There's a big difference between having to make new models and textures and just putting in the option to run it at a higher framerate. If modders can do it within hours, why can't the developer just do it? It requires barely any work if they're legitimate professionals.
I recently had a computer that couldn't run above 40 fps. Now, I can run safely and smoothly up to 120 fps.
60 FPS is absolutely required. I love retro games, but modern games that are not strictly pixel art don't need to be below 60. The machines today can handle it, and even further beyond that. There is no need to limit ourselves to 30 fps, since it's not like we're all playing on Macs.
>>335870681
>graphics do not affect gameplay.
u sure bout that bro?
No excuses.
If a game is on PC and is locked at 30 the developer should be shamed.
>>335870681
u rrrreeeallly sure?
>>335871093
Based Japanese programmer.
How can western pig even hope to compete?
>>335871093
That's a problem with the hitboxes and physics
People who buy expensive graphics cards should be shamed so they don't ruin games for the rest of us. Your willingness to buy 500 dollar gpus ruins my experience as an Intel HD graphics user.
>>335871225
The problem is that his model and his true hitbox do not align.
>>335870656
It's not a strawman because just like better graphics, better framerates require effort. It's not like you just hit the 60fps button and suddenly the game runs better.
>>335870681
Nor do higher frame rates affect gameplay, only game design and frame drops affect gameplay.
>>335870735
Modders can't do it within hours, stop this meme. If it was actually that simple and took no effort to do, everyone would unlock their pc ports.
>>335871593
>Nor do higher frame rates affect gameplay
you know how I know you're bad at video games?
we're talking about 60fps. not 120. not 144. 60.
anything less than 60 has a negative effect on gameplay unless you have a freesync display and even then you need 45 fps for it to work smoothly
>>335871593
>Modders can't do it within hours, stop this meme.
Depending on the game they can. See: Dark Souls 1 on PC
>>335871731
How did you like OoT's gameplay? Locked at silky smooth 20 fps and it's one of the highest rated games on metacritic.
>>335871593
>better framerates require effort
>Modders can't do it within hours
you dont know what you're talking about
it actually requires MORE effort to tie gameplay to specific framerates; it is a step they manually have to choose in game development
its actually easier to develop games regardless of framerate and have the framerate unlocked
and Dark Souls was modded to 60fps in less than 5 hours of release I think
>>335871859
OOT's 20fps was shit in 1998 and it's shit now
>metacritic
>objective measurement of quality
you fucking console war retards I swear to god
>>335871869
>>335871749
That was the resolution fix. The 60 fps came like week later.
>>335871869
Paradoxically though, uncoupling the game physics and framerate is actually bad for the likelihood of getting 60 fps games with no drops. Or even 30 fps ones with no drops.
Regarding most pre-gen 7 games' physics, the play speed itself, was tied to framerate, so if you got a lower than 100% speed the game would actually slow down and feel really bad, like you've probably experienced with NES games when too many enemies got on the screen. Western devs from their PC experience got the brilliant idea that they could achieve better visuals in a trade off for framerate by no longer tying game physics to the framerate. Thus they allowed for 30 fps with drops that would be less noticeable to normies--which led to the rush for better graphics than was technically possible on each platform and they hoped people wouldn't notice the frame drops. Back when game speed was tied to framerate the player absolutely would and would know the devs were shit and couldn't keep a consistent framerate.
>>335871093
>mfw I know Bloodborne caused this.
It's like two brothers, one gets all the shit genetics and the other comes out looking like Tom Cruise. I just can't feel bad especially when PC cucks shoehorned this game lmao
>>335872190
you're absolutely right, but that was only true 20 years ago
hardware is so powerful nowadays that it doesnt really matter.
>>335871731
Nonsense, any game that works at its target frame rate plays smoothly. Unsmooth gameplay happens when frames drop or when developers require you to react to frames that aren't displayed.
>>335871869
Also nonsense, it's easier to make the game as you wish than to make it work at different levels for unique configurations.
>>335871859
I'm 31 now, but I bought OoT at release. At that time, I was playing online FPS games and had a decent (for its time) graphics card in my computer.
I was severely disappointed by the performance of OoT back then. I even mentioned that to my friends while discussing the game.
It came out around the time Half-Life did. Making the switch from HLDM to OoT was pretty fucking rough, honestly.
>>335868579
Any triple A developer has no excuse not to run a PC game at 60fps. Good can only come of it
>people that want it, get it
>people that don't mind, get to use it
>people that don't want it, reevaluate their lives
pic related, these arguments are silly. How can you be apposed to adding more passive features to games? It's like you don't want to get your dollars worth.
