People that say "oooh i'd try it if it wasn't first person" need a good smack upside the head 😤
why is it such a common hangup for people haha. It's seriously like it's the phrase of the day over here
Jesus Christ!!! (be praised) it's like people have an actual mental block and can't even comprehend that their life is in fact lived in first person and it hasn't held us back so far 😅
I'm definitely in the anti-first-person crowd myself. Personally it takes me out of the experience - sure, we experience real life in "first person" view - but in reality we also have a sense of self, depth perception, peripheral vision, etc., which I don't think is captured in first-person games. With a third-person perspective I get a better sense for my character and how they interact with the world - bonus if they look cool as well. I'm willing to try first-person games but more often that not I find it off-putting - personally I find it only works for games where aiming through a reticle (i.e. first-person shooters).
As for frame rate? I'm primarily a Switch gamer so I'm quite used to 30 fps. That said, when available, I will almost always opt for 60 fps / performance mode over a 30 fps fidelity mode. There are several factors at play for me as to whether 30 fps is acceptable - genre, overall graphical style / fidelity of the game, etc. Always stable 30 fps over dipping 60 fps though.
I feel like the only people who say "30 fps is fine actually" are people who have never played a game in 60 fps, or play all their games on a 15 year plus old TV.
This is silly if you sit and think about it for five seconds.
Most console games during the seventh and eighth generations ran at 30fps, and they were fine. People still enjoyed them then. And people can still enjoy them now. You're just used to higher framerates now, since it's only recently that consoles have been able to consistently run 3D games at a smoother framerate.
30fps isn't ideal, but sometimes it's necessary, especially on lower-end hardware like portable PCs or hybrid consoles, or even on power consoles for more ambitious games that push the hardware.
I feel like the only people who say "30 fps is fine actually" are people who have never played a game in 60 fps, or play all their games on a 15 year plus old TV.
This is silly if you sit and think about it for five seconds.
Most console games during the seventh and eighth generations ran at 30fps, and they were fine. People still enjoyed them then. And people can still enjoy them now. You're just used to higher framerates now, since it's only recently that consoles have been able to consistently run 3D games at a smoother framerate.
30fps isn't ideal, but sometimes it's necessary, especially on lower-end hardware like portable PCs or hybrid consoles, or even on power consoles for more ambitious games that push the hardware.
Any game released on Xbox or PS5 within the last decade that didn't launch with a 60 fps mode as standard, is unacceptable as far as I am concerned and consumers should demand more if it doesn't deliver that, rather than just accepting subpar performance because it was acceptable 15+ years ago.
@Pizzamorg A decade ago was 2015, when a ton of AAA console games were targeting (and often not consistently hitting) 30fps. Games were still perfectly playable. It's only since 2020 that 60fps became standardized on power consoles.
"Demanding more" doesn't mean anything, really, considering most games only target lower framerates on less performant hardware.
30fps IS fine for the majority of genres. Gaming at 60fps is a better experience. Both can be true. And a decade from now, when most games are hitting 120fps, 60fps won't then suddenly become unplayable, either.
@Pizzamorg A decade ago was 2015, when a ton of AAA console games were targeting (and often not consistently hitting) 30fps. Games were still perfectly playable. It's only since 2020 that 60fps became standardized on power consoles.
"Demanding more" doesn't mean anything, really, considering most games only target lower framerates on less performant hardware.
30fps IS fine for the majority of genres. Gaming at 60fps is a better experience. Both can be true. And a decade from now, when most games are hitting 120fps, 60fps won't then suddenly become unplayable, either.
Yeah I suppose really it should be 8 years, since the PS4 Pro came out at the end of 2016 I believe, allowing 60 fps gaming to move away from being trapped entirely on PC. Although ironically in that time, it still seems mostly trapped on PC, at least on launch. With several titles not getting 60 fps modes at launch on console, although weirdly this seems to be more on the Xbox side of things, as Sony does seem to generally try and have their games release with a 60 fps mode at launch.
60fps definitely makes a difference but it’s never stopped me going ‘back’ to 30. The first time I remember it’s impact was playing Dark Souls 2: SotFS at 60 and then moving onto Dark Souls 3 at 30. It was noticeable… and did take a bit of acclimating too but was fine after the initial couple of hours.
I also go back to ps3 and ps4 games pretty regularly and have thoroughly enjoyed many 30fps games on them since buying my ps5 in 2020. So while I would ideally want to play everything at 60 if possible, would I allow a great game being stuck at 30 (or worse) to stop me playing it? Not a chance.
I’m one of those people who sometimes chooses to play at 30 fps in quality mode. And yes, I have a LG OLED with HDMI 2.1, 120 hz with VRR, @Pizzamorg 😅 I’ll usually start in quality mode and then if the game still feels fine to play I just stay in it. Often I’ll switch over to performance and try it out and then decide from there which I like. More often than not, I switch back to 30 fps. Usually it looks better and often is more stable anyway (although VRR enabled games do make the dips and stutters better). If it’s locked 30, honestly I think it usually feels fine. Sometimes better than a variable 60 or 120 that drops a lot. I’m not invalidating people’s preference for high frame rates, I get it. I think anyone would say that 60 fps is better than 30 fps if all other aspects were equal.
However, like mentioned by @graymamba and @Ralizah there’s so many games over the last few generations that were 30 fps that maybe my brain got wired to tolerate it? Many, many of the greatest games of all time are 30 fps (although some have been remastered to be enhanced within the last generation). Some are still locked at 30 (hello Bloodborne, RDR2, BotW, etc) and are no less masterpieces. Heck, Witcher 3 was 30 fps on console until just about 2 years ago, long after it accumulated all its GOAT awards.
@nomither6 I know you’ve often said (which is a hot-take but a perfectly defensible one) that PS3 was your favorite generation and the last two gen’s have been a major disappointment. The majority of PS3 was 30 fps — Uncharted, TLoU, Bioshock, Borderlands, inFamous, RDR, MGS4, etc. Did these games not make you motion sick? What changed? That’s very sad if you’re now unable to enjoy your favorite games due to a reliance on the current gen performance boosts. Thank goodness for remasters, I guess. 😄
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Buizel yeah, that's fair enough and well put. Even though in general I don't agree about the immersion and depth part, beyond personal taste, but it's impossible to argue with personal tastes.
I was mostly exaggerating in my comment out of sheer exhaustion about the comments section on websites though, where it just feels like a lot of people come to say their one matter-of-fact statement because they want to put forward this stubborn one line opinion and act like developers are wrong and they are right, because it's just what people do these days. So we get this "don't care, won't try it" type comment from people that aren't open to maybe trying something new because they can't comprehend different types of games, depite all of the classic, well loved games with first person perspectives, that would actually be awkward in third person because the whole game has been designed around it being first person.
And honestly I feel in these cases all it takes is one good experience with a game you enjoy to make people open up to the idea, and I kind of believe this because I am someone who used to think I'd not enjoy first person open world games, rpgs and the like, as my only experience with FP was in shooters, and in those other genres it was always third person that i'd played, so I guess somewhere in my mind I thought that is just how it is. And I can kind of see this in other people, except these are the type of people who aren't also open to trying new things so just angrily slate stuff instead as if developers are flat out weong and don't know what they are doing, which kind of annoys me tbh 😅
When it seems you're out of luck.
There's just one man who gives a f*************ck
⚔️🛡🐎
30fps is fine. It always has been and always will be. 60fps (when implemented well) will always be better for gameplay responsiveness that's a fact. The same as 120fps will always be better than 60fps for that same reason. But that isn't the whole story, as we all know. Games aren't always just gameplay experiences and not all games are equal.
Also. Tut tut, everyone else 🤦♂️😜
I always love the "well you mustn't have tried it" argument. Or the "your tv is bad" argument.
Maybe it is their eyes and brains that are the issue 😉
I know myself I can easily play games like TLoU and KCD2 unlocked ranging between 60/120fps with VRR and they are smooth as silk, sports games (the higher frames the better) But some locked 60fps games are total garbage too, and in those cases 30 or 40fps is the only solution. 60fps games can lead to weird sped up motion, especially in games that are supposed to be cinematic and for whatever reason the 60 is just implemented badly. All very perceptible changes, and all require choosing on a game by game basis.
My own personal preference would always be unlocked frame rate VRR as I have had zero bad experiences with those games. And I guess that is because the devs had performance to spare with their builds. Then locked 30fps quality or 40fps Quality. Then locked 60 is still last, as a lot of the time the locked 60 games are still not up to scratch, unless it's a game that is nothing but gameplay (sports) or made to perfection, like an Astrobot type deal. But in other cases you lose out on image quality, which is fine on a small monitor, but not so much on a large tv. And in a lot of cases the 60fps is just bad. 60 in Astrobot is perfect. 60 in Assassin's Creed looks kind of off in motion, for example, and you still lose a range of graphics options if you opt for 60.
It will always be personal taste. But the most extreme views with strong adjectives usually come from the "it has to be this or it's just wrong" side of the argument.
So thanks again to those who made logical, rational cases above 🙏 as the thread was starting to look a bit "comment sectiony" 😛
@Ravix Yeah I guess it can be frustrating if people are hung up on a single thing about a game you like, especially if it's a hang up you've managed to get over yourself in the past.
It's all personal preference at the end of the day. If first-person is important to the developer's vision...well so be it, I'm not going to argue against that. And if a game is first-person but everything else about it seems appealing to me, then I'll give it a go. But I think also we have so much choice in games these days that it's very easy to dismiss games based on an individual aspect (I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing necessarily). Personally I find the terms "rogue-like" and "souls-like" very off-putting as well - they are typically not my genres - but again, I'd be open to trying them in the rare instance that everything else about the game appeals to me.
@Ravix And to throw my two cents in about the first person vs third person discussion, I’m always apt to prefer third person, and never totally understood why, but I think @Buizel may have explained some of it with the depth perception and field of view.
And it’s interesting that I’m the opposite situation to you, where if I look back I realize that many of my favorite games of all time are first person! And yet I now always prefer third person. So somehow I’ve inadvertently trained myself to gravitate that way. I think early in my gaming days I just accepted the fact that first person was the most immersive and rational way to experience something. So I thought nothing of jumping into Skyrim, BioShock, Borderlands, Portal 2, and various walking sims like Gone Home, Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, What Remains of Edith Finch, and found immense enjoyment in them. At some point, my preferences changed and I think it was maybe Dishonored that first did my head in and felt like it would have been a fun game if I could play it in third person but otherwise I just wasn’t feeling it. And now, I have to admit that a game being first person only does give me pause. I still plan to play the modern Resident Evils, KCD, and probably Indiana Jones, among others. I tried Cyberpunk (which I just didn’t care for) and first person view was part of my hangup, but honestly it was more than just the viewpoint.
My most recent foray into first person was Immortals of Aveum, which I felt was a decent game. (Incidentally I played it in 120 fps with VRR, to circle back to the other topic, and it was nice and smooth, but didn’t make the game noticeably better or easier for me) I do think my reaction time and shooter skills are fairly average, maybe slightly below average.
But thinking about this made me realize how many first person games I actually adore and a good portion of my all-time list is actually FP. Strange to me since now I heavily favor third person games. 🤔
What games did you feel were so unstable at 60 FPS @Th3solution that you chose to play the 30 fps mode instead? I cannot personally say I ever experienced that.
Even games like FF16, which had notorious reports of severely degraded visuals in the 60 fps mode, a fast paced action game like that feels awful in 30 fps, and the visual downgrades people reported were never noticeable enough for me to consider a sacrifice in performance. The only exceptions I make in this regard are handheld / Switch games cause I don't really have a choice (although hopefully the Switch 2 sets us free in that regard). And if it is a turn based game, I don't sweat the performance but in basically every other genre where reaction time matters, I would never willingly choose 30 fps as its an objective downgrade over 60 fps.
But yeah, I agree with your second point. And it is like that with anything. I used to play competitive shooters at 30 fps on a controller, then I started playing them on a keyboard and mouse on a PC at 100+ FPS, and I realise now how I was experiencing these games in the worst possible way, and I find playing shooters in that way despite playing them like that for well over a decade borderline unplayable now, but I didn't at the time know any different, so it didn't feel like I was experiencing the worst version at the time, I just have the context to understand that now.
I know you’ve often said (which is a hot-take but a perfectly defensible one) that PS3 was your favorite generation and the last two gen’s have been a major disappointment.
I don’t recall ever saying that the PS4 generation was a disappointment? I rank it with the PS2 as the second best era of Playstation after the PS3; I couldn’t decide which was better between the PS2 or PS4. The PS4 brought me a lot of joy & the PS2 has a stacked library.
The majority of PS3 was 30 fps — Uncharted, TLoU, Bioshock, Borderlands, inFamous, RDR, MGS4, etc.
As I said earlier, I emphasized that 30fps (imo) doesn’t work for most games today (especially for online multiplayer). I still love the PS360 era very much and as of right now is still the GOAT generation in my eyes (no pun intended). I also said that 30fps can work for some games. Ive even played more 7th gen games this generation than current gen , 30fps for these (now) old games were mostly tolerable, but even back then there were some stinkers.
Did these games not make you motion sick? What changed?
I got motion sick from games back then, but when it came to $ony & M$ exclusives - their games were very optimized and didn’t have the same jank or stutter as third party games. The things that changed is me realizing what FPS was, experiencing PC gaming, and age.
That’s very sad if you’re now unable to enjoy your favorite games due to a reliance on the current gen performance boosts.
I enjoy them very much & still prefer playing them on their original hardware, screw remasters for the most part. If you’re talking about current gen games that are 30fps - as i’ve said some games it can work, but gotham knights was 100% not one of them. Arkham Knight (last gen i know) played almost as smooth as butter.
30fps vs 60fps - in fairness, can be a tough choice depending on game. Steamdeck has a nice middle ground in terms of optimisation, and I've played a few games at 40-45fps locked which was a really nice compromise for both graphical fidelity and frames (Lies of P was a good example, also Monster Hunter World was a terrific experience at 40fps)
@nomither6 Ah, my bad. I remembered that you’d really championed the PS3, but I was mistaken about the two subsequent generations. Regardless, it does sound like PS3 is far and away your GOAT generation for consoles. I’m glad you’ve still been able to enjoy those games at their lower frame rates.
The online aspect of technical performance is definitely a key differentiator. I suspect those that play competitively or that do a lot of first person shooter play are going to have tuned their brains the most to the higher frame rates. Since I almost never play competitively and first person shooters are not amongst my favorite genres, perhaps that’s why the 30 fps doesn’t bother me. Which is interesting since I’m no stranger to actual real-life motion sickness (boats, planes, and long car rides are killers for me)
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Pizzamorg The main game that comes to mind now is Jedi Survivor. I played at 30 fps and enjoyed it thoroughly. I had very few issues, crashes, or major performance hiccups, whereas apparently those playing on performance were having a nightmare of a time. I tried the game on performance and it did feel a little unsteady with some frame drops, as I recall, and so I just stuck with 30 fps mode and played the whole game to completion, considering it one of my favorites that year.
I had also tried Hogwarts Legacy on performance and had some stutters. The main reason I stuck with quality mode though was the overall better visuals though. Same for FF7 Remake (and I read the performance mode for Rebirth is/was especially rough). I played FF16 in quality mode too, I think. 😅
In the case of Jedi Survivor, Horwarts, and FF16 I think patching has fixed a lot of the performance mode issues. But those were games I played at launch, pre-patches. I’ve yet to get to FF Rebirth but I think what I hear is that the performance mode only really works decently on the Pro, which I’ve not upgraded to (yet? 😄).
Interestingly with Spider-Man 2 I jumped around from mode to mode, and probably played most of it in the balanced VRR mode but another half of it split between quality and performance. I liked performance mode for it until I’d be climbing around and notice the lesser reflections, so I’d click over to fidelity mode for a while, and vice versa.
Other games recently where I had a choice were no-brainers like Life of Strange True Colors… didn’t need much performance for that game so an easy pick for fidelity mode. 😄
Some games don’t give the option and I don’t think I was able to play Resident Evil remake or Star Wars Outlaws in anything except 60 fps.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Ah I get you @Th3solution - I think almost all of the games you described there just launched in rough shape in a general sense, and I'd say that is its own separate conversation beyond the 60 / 30 fps thing (and trust me, I could talk until Christmas about the horrible state of modern game optimisation and the overreliance of tech like DLSS and frame generation being used as a crutch to avoid getting games in their absolute best shape before they are put in a consumes hands).
I guess in my head I was thinking you were more talking about a game that was well polished and in otherwise good shape, but for whatever reason the performance mode exclusively on console just wasn't well implemented in some way.
But yeah, there is also another wider conversation in the other direction here with you talking about the reflections, and like stuff like that doesn't matter to me at all if I have to sacrifice performance. The Rebirth complaints sound very similar to the performance mode complaints for FF16, but again, because I don't really put a premium on visuals, the degradation reported in FF16 never affected me, the performance uplift was worth it for me.
And I think you're probably on the majority side of this to be honest, I think we've seen enough to say the bulk of the average joe audience that makes up most of the revenue probably puts way more premium on the visuals, and doesn't even really actively think about performance unless the game is running so poorly it actively breaks the game. I do think getting the absolute best performance out of your games is more of an enthusiast thing, which is why weirdos like me buy extremely expensive PCs to play Cyberpunk with full raytracing and still play at 100 fps. 😂
@Th3solution Eh, maybe i’m getting motion sickness confused then - maybe it’s eye strain (& headaches) that’s my issue, because now that you’ve mentioned car rides in particular - yeah , i definitely know that feeling & boat rides too. its not the same feeling i get from bad frame games, thanks for the clarity. You’re not wrong about brain tuning to frame-rates either, as someone who likes online multiplayer, once you notice 60 or especially 120 frames, it’s hard to unsee or “unfeel” it!
@Pizzamorg I think we can definitely agree on that broader issue of lack of polish on release. To their credit Sony has typically been really good about that and most of their games are in great shape at launch (exceptions off the top of my head being Days Gone, and just about every PC port this gen 😅)
@nomither6 ah yeah, that does make sense. I think you’re onto something there with it being eye strain (which will result in headaches, which might result in nausea). Which would explain why it could be an acquired problem, because although eye strain is mostly subconscious, there’s definitely part of it that is effort based (trying to concentrate really hard in a fiercely competitive setting online) and also learned from repetition on your eye muscles.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 1,221 to 1,240 of 1,244
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic