30 Frames Per Second Is Lame
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 เม.ย. 2023
- I’m gonna complain about redfall. I’m gonna complain about 30 frames per second. I’m gonna complain about Xbox.
That’s what this video is about.
You can join my patreon for fun stuff
Patreon:
/ theknowledgehub
Here’s my soundcloud for stuff
Soundcloud:
/ user-503704039 - เกม
“Video games ran at 60 FPS even back when games were good” is such a solid burn lmao
Like Devil May Cry, and Armored Core.
@@hayaokakizaki4463 no, metal gear solid and Spyro 😎
@@kennypowers1945 terrible taste, MGS rocks but Spyro is a mid collectathon made for extended game rentals
and footage of F Zero GX to back it, what a game.
Jak and Daxter trillogy were 60fps on PS2...and 2 and 3 took place in an open world.
Another thing about early games running at 30fps: When developing SM64 and OoT Nintendo *knew* how the game was going to run already and designed the game's controls and animations around that assumption. So they feel pretty good for what they are. Odyssey at 30, on the other hand, would feel like a mess.
There's also the fact they manually alter the clock speeds of certain parts to time well with the console's physical limitations.
Ex. Mario kart 64 moo moo meadows ran normal speed on a standard n64. But the wii and subsequent ports ran the track at double the speed because those newer consoles didn't have the slow processing times that they accounted for in the n64.
To be fair Mario 64 runs pretty poorly on an actual n64, frequently reducing frame rate
Many first party N64 games also registered inputs 60 times a second so that they didn't actually feel as laggy.
@@rainydaygirlz Ooh that... makes a lot of sense, actually, there isn't crazy input lag because inputs just weren't tied to the framerate.
@@latticepoint5245 mario 64 was infamously compiled in debug mode, cutting its performance by a third. its also optimized pretty poorly, but you can't really blame them because 3d graphics were brand spanking new and they did pretty well given they had to make most things from scratch under a deadline.
luigi co-op was cut because it would run at lime 10fps, but if the game had more time in the oven for optimization they could have got it working at a nice 20-30fps and have the base game near 60. kaze emanuar has a great series of videos about optimizing and fixing mario 64, its really satisfying to see him chip away at it and get it running and looking well on real hardware.
My strategy has been to just be shit at games. 60 FPS plays like 30 if you're garbage enough.
real
I spent $2000 on a PC and $500 on a monitor to stare at death screens in 1440p 170fps :D
@@ericw.1620 Yep. Well actually I'm pretty good in most games, except the ones my friends play. I join them on Warzone and constantly just get crapped on but I load up Splitgate (RIP) and I'm consistently top of the team.
@@Gatorade69 why rip split gate? It’s still a thing no?
@@kennypowers1945 I'm not ripping it. The devs have abandoned it. I loved it, I mean It's still good but It's definitely dying/on the way out.
"I want smaller games, with worse graphics made by developers who are paid more" -Sonic The Hedgehog twitter meme
And I'm not joking
Garten of ban ban:
Valid take
@@LakeGameCreepr you consider that a game?
Play Spark The Electric Jester 2 and 3 if you want Sonic Adventure but only Sonic levels and less glitchy.
The racing game at 2:46 is called Slipstream if anyone else was curious.
legend!
Bless
doing the lord's work this man
I wasn't asking this because I mainly listen to videos, but I saw it just as I saw this comment, and now I'm interested.
It's WILD to me that thanks to COVID we're STILL at the beginning of this console generation
Console gens last 10 years or so, covid was only 2. Think before you start typing.
@@riddell26 bro what console has ever lasted a decade
@@riddell26 console generations should never naturally last 10 entire damn years, its usually closer to half that.
generations lasting an entire decade is a recent development, probably due to how stagnant everything has become
@meee_51 I mean I guess the ps4 is still going and that's already 10 years old
@@meee_5155 don't know if we're talking about the ps4 as a whole or a specific one that someone got in 2013 but if we're talking about it as a whole, then I guess he's right
Game developers be like "Our games are worth $70!" as they lock everything behind special editions, season passes, microtransactions, battle passes, insane amounts of grind, and deliver 30% less content than the prequel from 2009.
Or battlepasses within battlepasses !
This is only like triple A FPS games. 95% of modern games being released right now aren't like this lol. Well maybe the less content part is accurate. And even then people complain about that sort of stuff vehemently until they forget about it after four days.
@Devil
And worse yet, the vast majority of gamers put up with this crap from developers, too. I will NEVER in my life pay seventy f*cking dollars to download some code, that probably doesn't even work on day one, only to be told you need to also download a 20 GB day-one patch to said code. The gaming industry is such a sh*tshow right now and most gamers just take the abuse with a smile. Steam sales all the way for me. If it's over $35, I ain't payin' for it!
Publishers, not developers
To be fair games haven't increased that much in price over the course of 30 years, and you're certainly getting a lot more value (content/playtime) with most modern games compared to older games.
I remember when Sony and Microsoft where saying they wanted modular upgradable parts for their next gen consoles.
Well I still dont see those modular upgradable parts and I see consoles already having issues.
They are lies to win over the PC gaming crowd
Probably the harddrive
Cause developers suck. Theres no reason a new game should be running at 30 fps on PS5 or Series X. Both consoles are powerful & we dont even have a true next gen game yet
Especially not this game there Looks like there's absolutely nothing graphically demanding enough to demand that low of a frame rate
I think / hope that at some point they realised that whoever pulled the trigger on modular upgradeable parts - essentially removing one of the major selling points of a console vs a pc - would alienate a huge chunk of their audience.
As someone that's only gotten decent at Hollow Knight since after upgrading from a Windows XP -> 7 laptop to a proper desktop, framerate boost is actually kind of nuts. It's not a super huge difference when jumping from 30-60, but a jump from a potato 12-20ish to an INTENDED 60 is actually a tangible difference in how quickly your input happens relative to the game processing being projected.
how tf did you play hollow knight at 12 frames per second. I can't beat it at two hundred fps....
Huh, I mean, 12-20 fps is kinda unplayable
@@phoenixjones7191bro is clearly a god amongst men
@@David-ki2xt tell that too my kid self who mastered these frame rates
Nah bro even 30 to 60 is massiv. once you get up to ~100-144 you hit a plateau.
Watching this video after Redfall came out is an interesting view.
Turns out:
Redfall is just shit and runs terrible, even on PC. That's why there's no 60 FPS.
"Whoever was playing the game from ign didn't seem to know how to play video games."
Sonic fans: first time?
Cuphead fans: *creepypasta-photo-of-mr-incredible.jpg*
sonic unleashed is the worst game ever, because it has the game that literally everybody loved back then alongside sonic,4/10
Even as someone who exclusively plays games on a series S this upsets me somewhat. I didn't get the cheaper system expecting it to be as good as the more expensive one. I got it to have access. the people who bought the nicer hardware deserve to see it used you know.
I don't think it's an issue with the Series S, Cyberpunk ran at 60fps in the Xbox Series X and 30fps in the Series S until an update that introduced a performance mode for the S
Yeah, this just seems like a silly video. Microsoft mandates features, not graphics.
@@raelimperialaerosolkid true Callisto protocol have only 30 fps mode on series s to this day. I think the part that they want the game to look good is true, and the fears he have for the next 5 years are legit. I am disappointed for the lack of 60 fps mode day 1 for unreal engine 4 game when Fortnite wz2 and atomic can do 120 on series s. I will play redfall on m pc day 1 but I feel bad that I can’t play it on m tv with the play anywhere feature. Series s is underrated for the price.
5:19 Big old asterisk on that part. There were a mix of 30 FPS and 60 FPS games during the fifth, sixth, and even seventh generation of consoles. Hell, even some that ran under 30 FPS. Ocarina of Time being a great example. It's like, 17 - 21 FPS if I recall correctly.
Different kinds of game need different frame-rates. The more action-oriented games need higher frame rates because reaction time matters. Strategy games on the other hand could be slideshows.
@@PlatinumAltaria I'm aware of that fact and I completely understand his point.
I'm not arguing that.
I was just correcting the blanketed statement that was given to old games (of all genres) and their FPS.
A lot of games back then had worse performance than we remember. Games today generally run better than they ever have. Thanks to places like Mad Tech, Digital Foundry, and NX Gamer I’ve seen that performance in most games is generally better than it was in any other generation with 3D games. 5th generation was the worst for performance while the 9th generation is stacking up to be one of the best if performance trends keep going. 8th generation is about equal with the 6th generation but the 6th generation does have a higher percentage of 60fps games, although performance was less stable
@@FoxerTails he didn't say that all games used to be 60 FPS did he?
Nes games were able to run at 60 FPS.
I can understand when the game runs at 30 FPS on portables (even on SteamD you have to set the ceiling at 30 frames to keep the charge for at least an hour and a half), but damn they boasted about what a powerful console they had and messed it up so badly.
that’s the thing, the console is capable of so, so much more. but whether it be bad management of the project, bad timing, or just bad decision making at the developer or publisher (i’m saying this for both third-party and first-party games), many games nowadays just don’t take advantage of the console like they could. even in further updates, very little is truly fixed or added on in that regard to improve the experience. it is pretty disappointing, and i know that PlayStation fanboys will use this as an argument as to why “playstation exclusives are just better and it is the better console!” but honestly, the issue isn’t with the console, or potentially even the developers, it’s probably decisions made by people way up above them who are either being pushed or genuinely have no clue.
Since Microsoft bought them, they wanted to make the game a PowerPoint presentation
Smart comment detected, a miracle has been achieved
ive been saying ever since the 'realistic graphics' became the 'standard' that it would lead to a fall in games because they would only put out good looking games thinking 'non realistic' wouldnt sell. the effect cascades and bleeds into other things and you have what we have in this video in 2023. this was back in 2007 for me 🎮
Idk, Microsoft did 480p 120fps mode on Series S in Halo Infinite, they were ok with that, 120fps was not on the launch on SeS, but was on SeX
I dunno, about that, 480p 120hz seems really low. Isn’t it more likely to be a max of 900p and minimum of 720p with dynamic resolution scaling?
If I were a video game I would run at 30fps in all honesty. 😢
oof ;m;
If I was a video game, I would require micro-transaction to even start in the morning.
If u were a game no one would play you 😭
@@MathewLewit you MONSTER
@@00McMuffin00 you are welcome, that will be 0.99, thanks.
Digital Foundry suggested in their podcast that the 30fps cap could be related to CPU demand from Unreal Engine visual scripting code, which could explain why dropping the resolution on Series X isn’t an option
Digital Foundry also suggests that Hogwarts legacy is bad because J.K. and females shouldn't look feminine.
They are shills also.
@@cloudycolacorp They are not even trying to optimize games anymore, that's a fact.
Thats not how the visual scripting code works though, people have ran test making the same game with both. It didn’t effect runtime performance.
Digital Foundry fell off like 5 years ago though so im not surprised they are just saying stuff again.
@@cloudycolacorp uuh, of all games why use todd's non working ai as an example, and not games with better ai
@@RusticRonnie🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢🧢
this has aged horribly in just 2 weeks
very funny
I think it's more likely that the game is just poorly optimized so it has to run at 30fps, and not just that it has to run on series s. I remember a post on the Xbox one where a developer mentioned that 1080p 60fps was often more resource consuming than 4k 30fps (I think it was jedi fallen order but idk). But I could be wrong, or it may be a combination of the series s limitations and bad optimization
I agree 100 percent with you
Halo 3 was the last game released on the 360 that ran under full [720p?] Or [1080p] can't remember, but it does take time to optimize consoles performance.
Look at Ghost Reckon Advanced Warfighter from 2006 on the 360 and compare it to The Last of Us on the PS3 from 2013.
The difference is STAGGERING.
Even me, playing Fable 2 from 2008 and comparing it to Kingdoms of Amalur; Reckoning from 2012, they're night and day.
Optimization takes time, it *Literally* does not happen over night.
I think it was confirmed the Series X version has 60fps ready to go.
But they won't flip the switch because the Series S 60fps isn't ready and they don't want to make it look bad.
Terrible choice.
@@sawdust8691 I think most people wouldn't care that the Series S looks worse than the Series X.
That's mainly to do with how garbage the CPU's of the ps4 and xbox one (and their pro varients) were.
Most AAA games (especially open world ones) just wouldn't be able to run at 60fps regardless of resolution (resolution being GPU-related)
You should make a sequel video where the main topic is the decline of Unreal Engine’s reputation and Redfall returns as the background subject
If your theory is correct it makes me wonder what's the point of buying the series X if it's just going to be constantly held back by the Series S I think that's a terrible marketing technique and they really need to prioritize.
Better resolution, rt , stable fps, double storage , disk, more options for graphics in game. When the series s is on discount if u count the controller with it have the same price with the Apple TV. So far Xbox sell well and the series s helped a lot for that
The series s is fully capable of playing Redfall on 1080p60 with FSR and other sampling shit.
@@collisions4615 just fucking get a good pc then, more features
@@thatitalianlameguy2235 “just get a good pc”
yeah alright, lemme spend $800 - $1100 for a good pc that can get relative performance to this $300 console! what a deal!
lot of people don’t care about “more features”. lot of people have a basic work laptop or desktop for doing homework or actual work, then they hop on a console for some gaming and that’s it. no need to spend the extra hundreds of bucks on something you really don’t need for what you’re wanting to do.
@@completelyaverageviewer steam deck is a $400 pc and can run most games atleast fairly well.
Microsoft is like a rockstar that runs out on stage and then bangs his head on the microphone , trips backwards falls into the drum set then falls off stage. Microsoft is its own worst enemy .
Heh, it’s the resolution obsession the whole way through because maybe the game would run at 60 FPS on the Series S at 1080p. I think most people could accept that the budget next gen console can only do full HD and higher resolutions require Series X, but they’re already committed to having the Series S be capable of that so their exclusive game better meet the minimum spec!
plus most people still only have 1080p TVs in their living rooms anyway, especially those getting the S
i turned my series s into a ps2 through dev mode. Most fun ive had with the console since
Video posted at 3:52 PM EASTERN for future reference
I heard about Redfall bafore it came out. Idk why I felt a slight hype towards it, but after seeing a few recent ads, idk, it feels dead in the water.
I can't explain it, though.
Npc brain
Probably not dead since it’s on gamepass and normies will eat it up
modern game devs cap their games to 30fps nowadays because of the behemoth of performance issues instead of actually fixing them
It's almost like most of the time they prioritize glitz and glamour over good design.
Probably. Lots of game engines can’t handle higher fps as well as lower fps so it can cause some issues
Its the same logic behind having a cum-quality cpu in smart TVs so they can hit that funni 4 kays and still be cheap
@@OtakuUnitedStudio NO! that can't be true!
Which is so strange because graphically this game feels like it's from 10 years ago. There seems to be no logical reason as to why it's locked to such a low frame rate other than technical issues
I disagree with the series s part. MW2 runs at 1440p 60 FPS on the s, this is the developers' fault. 1080p 60 FPS shouldn't be a problem because it already runs at 1440p 30 FPS, It would be the console's problem if it runs at 1080p 30 FPS.
That's not how things work. Dropping resolutions won't always guarantee a higher frame cap.
Interesting you almost mentionned this but didn't, during the great 30 fps depresssion (basically going from ps2 which had a lot of 60fps games to the ps3), a lot of trailers on youtube would only run at 30 fps, in fact it took years for youtube to allow 60 fps videos to be uploaded, meaning you literally couldn't advertise smooth gameplay.
I didn't know that the PS2 had 60fps games. During the PS2 years, I had given-up on gaming.
Another thing is like… unlike PC resolutions, TV resolutions don’t matter as much. They can make things look sharper but not as much as a desktop monitor can because you tend to be sitting further away therefore the screen’s pixel lighting tends to be more crammed together, giving you a better image just by the virtue of being on a couch instead of directly in front of the screen.
If you got the money to blow on a high end monitor you can get a 70in 8k TV with 240hz refresh rate.
You're a fool to still choose the monitor.
@@riddell26well a tv that size wouldn't fit on my desk and I had to go with a high end QHD monitor so....
@@riddell26 Not really, given the monitor will almost always have a significantly better response time, which matters with games. Especially more competitive games. There is a good reason smaller monitors are more expensive, and that's largely because they genuinely perform better and have a clearer image. Your comment reeks of ignorance, dude.
@@Edward-1945-colorized Then don't use it on a monitor desk.
@@riddell26 What kinda "high end monitor" are we talking here?? A fucking reference monitor?? And what TV's are you looking at?
Samsung's 8k Neo QLED at 75 inches is £6,800. Sony's 8k Mini-LED is £7,500. LG's 8k OLED was over £10,000.
Samsung's most expensive gaming monitor I can find is the Odyssey Arc at £2,600.
You can get a 27inch 1440P or 4K 144Hz monitor for around £350, depending on whether or not you wanna buy new from their website (1440p for £350) or a discontinued model (4K for £350).
Saving up enough to get a monitor that can do 144hz at 1440p or 4K from a name brand like LG is hardly having enough to get one of these TV's.
As someone who owns a Series S, I have no idea why they marketed it as a 1440p machine. Most people use consoles with their TVs, and QHD TVs aren't a thing. They should have targeted 1080p from the start.
9:54 "This is not a precedent you want to set this early in the generation."
The Xbox Series X and Series S launched *2 years ago*
Time flies huh
as an animator the terms 60fps makes me shudder lmao, those AI upscale videos will forever haunt me,,,, i finally get why gaming folks are so obsessed with it tho, it seems real important from what the video says! just uh,,,, wish that standard wasn’t pushed onto animated series + films haha
Imo the only industry where 60fps should be standard is gaming, it’s simply not necessary and a waste of resources for most film/animation projects, though I don’t yet work in the industry (I’m still getting my degree lol)
Animation is not a field where framerate is a functional concern, it's an artistic one. How the framerate changes in an animated film can have dramatic effect on the stories tone and feel. However in videogames it makes a night and day difference in terms of how responsive a game feels, but it's not usually meaningful on an artistic level.
The newest Avatar movie ran at 48fps and was one of the many reasons why it looked so good.
@@corruptedpoison1 Avatar way of water ran at a standard 24fps but there are parts of the movie that were rendered at 48fps in theatres that support HFR. The parts that ran at 48 frames were, again, part of the artistic decision making process. But running a movie at a flat 48 frames doesn't make it inherently better looking (example: The Hobbit).
@@deathtenk leave it to an Avatar fan to not understand that though
I remember being so exited when i finally got my series X and now i can't wait to get rid of the thing.
I was waiting for a 30fps "new standard conspiracy"
This makes more sense tho
This is one of my fav channels these days, get excited when I see a new Whimsu video :D
They're really handing ammunition to Sony, too. I guarantee the comparisons to Spider-Man 2 will be rampant when that game inevitably has 3 modes, because Insomniac offer 3 modes on their next gen games (Rift Apart and SMR): Ray-Tracing, Performance, and Ray-Tracing Performance mode. Hell, PlayStation in general give mode options out the wazoo:
4K30 and Dynamic4k60 and 1440p60 with raytracing on next gen (for Insomniac, imagine 2 here for the others).
If you have 120hz then the 4k30 becomes 4k40.
If you have that *and* VRR enabled all the framerates are unlocked.
That's like 5 modes, 7 counting for Insomniac's ray-tracing performance mode. And Xbox are giving... one to each machine respectively at launch, here?
I own both machines and I was gonna play this at launch to get some use out of my Series X (I got Resident Evil on PlayStation, and before that was God of War), but I'm waiting for the 60fps mode now. I hardly use my Xbox because I genuinely find the titles on PS+Extra to be just as good if not better, the service just isn't spoken about as much. I played Ori on Xbox. If one of my friends gets one, I might go through MCC campaigns co-op. But really it's just... sorta there at the moment. Was hoping Avowed and Fable would be out by 2023.
My thought is, an xbox is just a worse, budget pc. I see no reason to buy an xbox since I already have a good pc. I see a lot of reasons to own a playstation on top of a pc: good exclusives, controller innovations, boundary pushing power for a console
@@milky_toast_ well, the way I see it as someone who has grown up with the Xbox and uses it as my main gaming device, though I also own both the Series X and PS5, it really just depends overall on a number of factors. Gamepass is a very good deal for what it is, and it does have some gems that PS+ doesn’t have, though PS+ has the same thing as well as having a number of its own exclusives available via the Premium, but even on the Extra. Xbox has an advantage as they offer first-party games day one on gamepass, which is something I wish PlayStation would do personally. in terms of their power, both consoles have power to them, almost in equal amounts. however unlike the PS5, the Xbox hasn’t really had any games that have pushed it to show it’s power, like how Rift Apart or Miles Morales did for the PS5. I also do appreciate the complete overhaul of the controller as well as the UI for the PS5, and even after having not used a PlayStation controller for easily over 9 years, I was able to start using the DualSense very quickly. but I will say, I completely understand just upgrading what players are already familiar with, and the current Xbox controller is definitely superior, however I do wish it truly did implement next-gen features like the haptic triggers, or just better haptic feedback overall. I’d say, as of right now, it really just depends on what you’ve been with and what you currently have. if you have a powerful PC, you really don’t have any particular reason to get an Xbox due to gamepass being available on PC and cross platform play being an option most of the time. PS5 has made itself a necessity if you want that environment and access to those games, though it does make me commend Xbox and Microsoft for not requiring people to buy their console just to play exclusives. I enjoy both consoles, and while I still find myself playing Xbox 90% of the time, the PS5 is honestly what I’d call a truly next-gen console, it checks off many more boxes than the Series X does in terms of upgrades.
side note: Series X feels like it’s being treated much like how the 360 was treated. though, even the 360 got a new updated UI and completely new controller and whatnot, but the game support and first-party development just slowed down so much and was treated almost like an afterthought. that’s how I feel like a lot of stuff on the Xbox is, just an afterthought. we didn’t get a 4K home menu for months after launch, and even now, some menus are still just being rendered in 1080p. we haven’t gotten a proper next-gen first-party game, and I won’t be considering Redfall that until it introduces its 60FPS mode, which was sort of the big deal about this generation next to 120FPS support.
I don't mind playing some single player PC games at 30 fps. I like the eye candy when newer games are in 4k and have ultra settings on.
Hi loved you video and have a question about something weird… can you please share your audio setup/process??? i love how your voice sounds warm and i’d love to hear what your magic is. Thanks!
I would love to see a Knowledge Husk video on West Wing.
funny how despite looking like crap, it still cant run at 60 fps
To me, frame rate only matters depending on the type of game. I'd take a 24 fps on a photo real choose your own adventure narrative game, I'm happy with an RTS or city builder at 30 fps, but I will demand near 60 on a fast pace shooter.
I do agree that this Red Fall thing doesn't look good on the Microsoft consoles. If they were honest about the different fps between the S and X, it wouldn't be that much of a problem.
I did not think about 24 FPS on a "Choose Your Own Adventure Narrative Game" (most shorten it to simply "Adventure" or "Point-and-click"), but that's actually kind of genius. If it was animated in just about any style (not just photorealistic), then it SHOULD play at 24 because that's the safest number for animation.
6:03 ...and sadly, this kind of marketing has been a thing since the 90s.
Makes me wonder if when next gen comes out will there just be no cross gen games for Xbox because you would need to still be able to run on the series S?
I always feel like an imposter when people talk about framerates because i genuinely can never tell the difference between 60 and 30.
You need to get your eyes checked the...the difference is massive. I simply can't play 30
@@Rushman666 for us it’s massive but for normies they can’t tell a difference for some reason. I’ve explained to my wife and friends a million times but they are like “what”
@@Rushman666 don't know what to tell ya, I've played games my entire life but unless there's a fps counter at the bottom I would never be able to tell what frame rate it is.
I can sort of tell when going from 30 to 120 but even then I wouldn't be confident enough to make a guess.
Sound like you've got eye problems, mate.
I can't notice it either
3:15 is completely wrong, 30 fps is *at maximum* an additional ~33 milliseconds of lag after the frame has been sent to the screen.
The reason lower framerates often feel unresponsive is complicated and depends on how the game is written, but one of the biggest factors is that the camera and player movement are often tied to the frame rate and so are forced to update in bigger "chunks" when the time between frames is larger. If you've ever turned up the settings too high in a game you know how unwieldy and difficult to control things can get at super low framerates.
The other big culprit is double/triple buffering which can introduce a lot of display lag at lower FPS.
Yup
I've played and watched stuff at 1440p on a 4k display and it still looks good, so it does make me wonder why they don't have a 1440p mode for the series x on this game
What you said about the Series S is just wrong. Microsoft can literally just release it at 60 fps for Series X and 30 fps for Series S. There are already games that only run in 30 fps on Series S and 60 fps on Series X. The Series S is not holding Redfall back, it's literally just a problem with developers not having enough time to optimize the game.
I agree but msft could want the SS to also achieve 60 which could cause an extra burden(extended timeframe) on the devs to patch in 60 on sx
Are any of those games first party?
Seen on a pokemon emerald the part of look what 120 fps looks like, makes you apreciate when developers care.
Late to the party, but relevant: The Atari 2600 had to run games at 60 FPS or it would lose sync with the TV/flicker
Let that sink in - we've been gaming at 60 FPS at home in some shape or form since the mid 1970s. Nearly 50 years.
can anyone explain the reason behind there being like, 4 different channels seemingly run by the same guy covering the same kind of topics? is there some sort of knowledgehub lore i dont know
I thought this was going to be about the new Renfield movie, goes to show what I know about video games
What benefit can just turn-based-rpgs really gain from this? For any kind of action-style game, sure can see how this might improve game experience. Have heard criticisms about framethings in turn-based-rpgs recently; and can only come up with maybe itd help during a special move; but what benefit does this have for talking to townsfolk or a static boss fight? Would supercharging the frames during special moves improve things somehow?
This pisses me off personally. I purchased a Series X SPECIFICALLY to get AT LEAST 60fps on EVERY game that releases. This doesn't instill confidence to me, the consumer, that I cannot take advantage of the $500 box I purchased.
To be honest, I can live with 30 FPS. The bigger problem is that the game isn't even good.
whats your opinion on starfield and it being locked to 30 fps?
30 Fps? man sometimes able to run a game already make me happy
I have a series s, but like i know its not going to be the ultimate nexgen experience, but i knew that, is there really people that feel bad if the game is not in the same level has the series x?
I think people are sometimes sold on the idea that the Series S can do 60FPS, or even 120FPS sometimes. they forget that while the Series S is an upgrade from last gen consoles (with the exception of a One X, as that could be debated when it comes to graphical fidelity), it isn’t always going to be perfect.
I'm pretty sure the point of the video turned out to be wrong. The game came out, is a bad game and bad port with bad CPU utilization which is probably the problem on X and S needed to be patched later because the game was rushed with problematic development.
Maybe revisit this video, your take or comment something?
I want my games to look like quake aborted that runs at 400fps with a minimum cpu footprint
captain falcon thing on gamecube my favorite game
Nothing needs to run at more than 60 fps since our own eyes have limits in frame rate too.
Whenever my nerd friend in highschool bragged about his pc running minecraft at 400 fps, I legit chuckled and said
cool?... 😅
That's like gloating about how you trimmed your lawn to an equal height with a pair of scissors lmao.
Our eyes do not see in frames. Saying any certain frame rate is the limit is a complete lie. There are diminishing returns but you are completely wrong. What is far more important is response times. I bet you can see the difference between a crappy low response time LCD and a CRT even if both games were running at a stable 60fps
For those of us in the the PAL world, 50FPS was the norm, so I can only assume that means we all have better natural response times as a result
Games ran slower back then, though. Once we got to the 360/PS3 era, games either ran at the same speed with a lower frame rate or forced PAL60.
Pal60 was a thing during the late 5th gen and many 6th gen games had it from what I’ve seen online. Although I’m not from those regions
over 2 years in and people are STILL saying "next" gen?
so im sure itll still be "next gen" in 2025 , right?
How devs can fuck up the series S when there is minimum specs for PC ?
I would believe it may have something to do with the VRAM apocalyptic situation happening to PCs right now. There are GPU people paid a 1000 dollars a couple years ago that won’t be able to run 1440p on high settings and everyone in PC landscape is hellfire
It's honestly comical that my rx570 has as much or more vram, that I bought for 60 bucks brand new 5 years ago, than gpus sold for thousands of dollars today
Doubt it. The series S and X do not have dedicated vram and just use the system ram that they have on board. The Series S has 10gb of ram while the Series X has 16gb of ram. This has nothing to do with vram as that’s solely an nvidia problem
@@suspecm6316 no your rx570 does not have more vram. 4gb of vram is low and the only card to have that recently is the RTX 3050 laptop version. Every other GPU is 6gb and up
@@crestofhonor2349 the rx570 is a strange case I know because it alone has like 4 different versions. The most widespread is the 4 gig one but there is 6 gig and 8 gig versions of it, which I was lucky enough to snag before the whole GPU price hike.
Whimsu is the best channel to watch while enagging in unhealthy coping habits that will no doubt lead to a substance dependency
ayyyyyyy
bruh it really shows how absolute shit gaming has become when "60+ FPS" is a post-release patch feature.
For a guy like me who has a 6yo pc that isnt the strongest 30fps is my 60fps and 60fps is my 120fps if im lucky to even get that kinda fps
(also whats the game called at 2:48)
I heard on digital foundry podcast they havent cpu optimized the whole game yet, and that will take time they dont have, so lowering res wont improve frames
this is the most heated Tyler I've heard in a while
30fps is unacceptable for a high action first person game
My guess is that they knew they could get 60fps on the series x, but not even close on the series S. They probably understand your argument completely and couldn't afford the backlash of handicapping series S owners in a multiplayer title. it's a cynical miscalculation to lower the common denominator for everyone, but I can completely understand the argument. It was probably far easier to code too.
My only worry for GTA6 is the lack of a fidelity/performance mode.
i once had a few ps3s hooked up by ethernet. one tv was a old little crt. other was a midle age hd tv. i was running mw2... when i pushed the button to fire on the hd tv the crt tv shot first.
If a game's rated for 30fps at a specific resolution and I run it at a lower one, the console should increase the framerate accordingly.
I don't have experience in code, but that doesn't seem like it should be too difficult for a professional to implement.
Denuvo could also be what is capping at 30fps ?
Denuvo is not a thing on console at all. Denuvo only supports PC. No console has denuvo as they’ve said themselves they only do PC
While I will say your description of higher framerates equals higher response times it the best explanation I've heard. In still tried and bored of people complaining about framerates. To me and others I've talked to as long as the framerate is steady, I don't care what the exact framerates is.
Obscure example, but Battle Arena Toshinden 2 on PS1 has a 60fps low graphics option.
I only just now got it that it's a Snowman argument.
Thank god we have graphics settings on console games now. God knows that if we didn't have those settings, every developer would choose to lock their games at 4K 30fps with frame drops.
Just like how so many PS3 era games pushed the graphics and had shit framerates.
Well many ps3 and 360 games actually changed resolution based on what what output resolution you chose. Some games were just played better if you set your console to output 480i/p
FINALLY someone says it out loud. I could give a shit how much Ray tracing/hdr/texture mapping 100 miles from your field of view you shoehorn in a game; just for the love of yeezus PLEASE make it run smooth.
A game can look pretty as hell in screenshots for press purposes, but guess what? I'm PLAYING the game, not looking at pics of it🙃 I can't stand to go back to games like far cry, no matter how pretty they look, compared to games like COD/Resident evil/Battlefield just because of how sluggish it feels to play. This goes for third person open worlds in general; they're all so bloated that it's no wonder I find myself hardly playing them anymore.
Based take and fuck Google+
Dude go outside and touch grass
Unless your playing games online competitively, fps doesn't matter. It does not feel sluggish at all, you just keep telling yourself that.
@@ehsanghazavi470 lmao, as if FPS is the only competitive multiplayer genre. And this absolutely applies to single player games... play Mario Sunshine and Galaxy back-to-back and tell me the platforming doesn't feel better 🤔
@@SF.-_ if you play video games for more than an hour, you need to go outside.
i like playing on 60 but i can visually notice anything below 60 and its so uncomfortable to play anything below 60, it just looks and feels so wrong, and i would enjoy to play at 120 or more butmost games dont work the same way and alot of games take too much ressources out of doing low settings 120+ most games cant do ultra 60 and most games i have to ultra low 60 just so that it doesnt play awful, uses too much ressources, or too little ressources etc.
What worries me is that we seem to have entered into a time in the industry in which Console versions are treated as the primary, intended experience and PC ports are often more of an afterthought with mild to severe performance issues on launch, or at least other issues that don't exist for the console versions. If they are starting to not even be able to get the Console versions right during that, the whole thing could start to go south real quick.
The market share of consoles is larger, so what do you expect?
The point of PC gaming is the modding and indi scene- been that way for 12 years now
My point was in regards to the industry as a whole seeming to be going downhill, not just PC gaming. Indie titles are still thriving but often the business practices of larger companies is causing them to release outright unfinished games as though they were the finished product, even on console.
At least with the indie scene they're more upfront about early access and when a game is coming out of it, we don't get that luxury often with big name titles, nor even any guarantee that support for a game will last long enough for it to ever get finished. Could be that they take the money from the initial sales and that's it. The game is abandoned so they can work on the next product that might not get finished before release either. Employees get paid too little and overworked, etc.
That was every pc port always, now they're better than before. Shit like dark souls 1,yakuza 3 remastered, sonic adventure dx, and so on were trash ports
05:30 F Zero GX! Oh ffs, Nintendo, let's get that F Zero with some online play and a track editor.
Consolidation = Monopolization with extra steps
Except without the extra steps
@thecianinator tell that to the bureaucrats in the house of reps and supreme court
We don’t really have anything close to a monopoly yet in gaming
Pizza Tower runs smooth as butter.
Melty blood (2002) runs at a solid 60 fps on my PC from 2012
Meanwhile Fortnite has 60 fps and a form of ray tracing on the S. The Series S argument is so weak.
I love the RedLetterMedia Reference
Im glad this is happening to a game with vampires in it.
this is what 4k gaming is going to be, there is no way to properly render it at a high frame rate. I honestly have no idea why game companies are pushing for it
True next gen games sure.
Bigger number = THE FUTURE! It's the same reason they can sell people an underpowered PC every 5 years and call it a "console generation".
I have an Xbox Series S and I play GTA V Xbox One Version every so often, and it runs at 30 FPS, and boy can I tell the difference between that and other games
Is this game ue5? I still don't know any aaa games released made in ue5. It's been several years now.
Redfall was worse than I expected
They should uncap the Series X version and leave the Series S capped at 30 if they have to. Other games have different visual modes between the 2 consoles.