Why would I need more than 30fps for this game?

[Narkulus]

I mean, you just sit there and watch buildings grow. I scroll the map at 30fps and it looks fine. 60+fps would be nice, but doesn't really change what I'm looking at. Is there something here I'm missing reading all these complaints about frame rates?

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Originally posted by Apples:

I played Dark Souls2 on 30 FPS, no i didn't have a terrible experience. I played CS2 on 20-25 FPS, again i didn't have a terrible experience.

I've played games on the NES, Snes, Sega Megadrive, PS1, N64, PS2, PS3 & PC , i watch movies which are a standard 24 FPS for the most part, so lets not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

N64 and above all had 60 fps games. Hell F Zero X one of the most famous was 60 fps.
In fact N64 had 60+ games that ran at 60 fps.

PS1 had a dozen games at launch that were 60 fps.

By ps2 60 fps was basically on the vast majority of their games.

You can travel a mile hopping on 1 leg. It doesn't mean you should.

More proof 30 fps can't be defended. I'm about to break out my N64 and crank up SimCity 64 probably runs better then CS2

[evergreen]

Originally posted by Narkulus:

I mean, you just sit there and watch buildings grow. I scroll the map at 30fps and it looks fine. 60+fps would be nice, but doesn't really change what I'm looking at. Is there something here I'm missing reading all these complaints about frame rates?

Do you own a monitor with 144+ hz? Then go to you desktop and move your mouse around with 144 hz enabled, now turn it down to 60 and do again, notice a difference? Now do it at 30 hz, notice a difference? If you dont notice a difference it might be fine for YOU to have games running at 30 FPS, the majority of people DOES percieve a HUGE difference. Even arguing that 30 FPS might be enough for a city builder is not the right approach form the devs and makes me super angry, also missing the obligatory "we are sorry",a re they to rpoud to say this? If the game would look super nice i would not even be that mad, but the game looks visually very bad even on MAX settings and performs realy bad even on low settings (this combination of low framerate and bad visual quality on an emtpy! map is like WTF are they doing and makes me wanna puke). SHAME

[MagicHp]

Originally posted by Sasha Mason🎃:

30v60 FPS does matter when moving the camera around, but the problem here is, 30 FPS, when? They say, yeah we target for 30 FPS, but the problem is, under which conditions are you supposed to reach that? The more your city grows, the more your frames are going to tank, and before you know it, you'll dip well below that.

This isn't some kind of roleplaying adventure game where the environments are fixed. You build a city, so you'll have more and more things going on as it progresses. 30 FPS as a claim matters none when there is no reference how much city you can have and still maintain that performance.

And, if you are really stuck at 30 FPS, the moment you expand a little further, it'll quickly be less than that. Unless sub 20 FPS is acceptable framerate for you. It ain't for me.

This indeed.

If you start at 30 Fps, you'll likely drop by the low 20s reaching 10K population.

Reaching anywhere above 20K population would simply not be handled by your hardware, leading to crash in-between unplayable slideshow. And 20K pop is a very small city.

Last patch did seem to help a lot, no more freeze every 20 seconds when above 50K here and a smooth experience so far. Still many city-breaking bugs , but at least it gets playable on bigger cities.


Also, are people actually comparing the 24 frames per second of movies to FPS in games? That's getting ridiculous...

Besides, have you tried the same test? Watch some video recorded at 24 Fps , then try the same recorded at 48, 60 or any other number supported by your screen, and come tell everyone here that you don't see the difference ^^

Now, does it makes sense to use high Fps for movies? Is the ratio between added costs and visual gain worth it? Is there any visual gain to begin with?
Most of the times nope. Sometimes yes. Movies don't work the same way a video game does............

[Sasha Mason]

This is why we need some sort of reference for when 30 FPS is meant to be reached. 30 FPS, all the time? 30 FPS at a specific pop? Being able to completely fill up all the tiles available to you and still maintain 30 FPS?

It makes a big difference, unfortunately not disclosed. An empty city doesn't run the same as a mid-sized city, and by the time you reach the last milestone, you'll have a significant hit on performance.

I'd say 30 FPS when you are literally at the last milestone would be more than reasonable, as at that point, your city is gigantic, and everything smaller than that is going to run better.

[Apples]

Originally posted by JimmysTheBestCop:

Originally posted by Apples:

I played Dark Souls2 on 30 FPS, no i didn't have a terrible experience. I played CS2 on 20-25 FPS, again i didn't have a terrible experience.

I've played games on the NES, Snes, Sega Megadrive, PS1, N64, PS2, PS3 & PC , i watch movies which are a standard 24 FPS for the most part, so lets not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

N64 and above all had 60 fps games. Hell F Zero X one of the most famous was 60 fps.
In fact N64 had 60+ games that ran at 60 fps.

PS1 had a dozen games at launch that were 60 fps.

By ps2 60 fps was basically on the vast majority of their games.

You can travel a mile hopping on 1 leg. It doesn't mean you should.

More proof 30 fps can't be defended. I'm about to break out my N64 and crank up SimCity 64 probably runs better then CS2

Incorrect, some games were, not all.. and even then PAL games were usually less.

[MagicHp]

Originally posted by Sasha Mason🎃:

This is why we need some sort of reference for when 30 FPS is meant to be reached. 30 FPS, all the time? 30 FPS at a specific pop? Being able to completely fill up all the tiles available to you and still maintain 30 FPS?

It makes a big difference, unfortunately not disclosed. An empty city doesn't run the same as a mid-sized city, and by the time you reach the last milestone, you'll have a significant hit on performance.

I'd say 30 FPS when you are literally at the last milestone would be more than reasonable, as at that point, your city is gigantic, and everything smaller than that is going to run better.

I fully agree with that. I have no performance issues as of now on the way to 100K at 60 FPS, but I'll be very happy if I still have 30 Fps when I reach a million ^^

[JimmysTheBestCop]

Originally posted by Apples:

Incorrect, some games were, not all.. and even then PAL games were usually less.

Go read my statement. I literally never said all games in fact I explicitly listed the number of games.

I said all systems N64 and above had 60 fps games. That is not the same as saying all of their games were 60 fps.

Reading comprehension my friend. No wonder you are satisfied with 30

[MagicHp]

Originally posted by Apples:

Originally posted by JimmysTheBestCop:

N64 and above all had 60 fps games. Hell F Zero X one of the most famous was 60 fps.
In fact N64 had 60+ games that ran at 60 fps.

PS1 had a dozen games at launch that were 60 fps.

By ps2 60 fps was basically on the vast majority of their games.

You can travel a mile hopping on 1 leg. It doesn't mean you should.

More proof 30 fps can't be defended. I'm about to break out my N64 and crank up SimCity 64 probably runs better then CS2

Incorrect, some games were, not all.. and even then PAL games were usually less.

That is exactly what he said, some games, not all. Consoles are pretty hardware limited and don't make much sense here anyway.

The PAL question is still running at full speed. The only difference is that PAL fullspeed was 50Hz when NTSC was 60Hz , making games run 20% slower (most noticeable with musics that were also slowed down ^^ ) .
But we are talking about the Snes/Megadrive era then. Some PS1 games already had 50/60hz options and it got widespread during the PS2 era.

Also, the PAL or NTSC question never made sense in PC gaming, 60 hz was always the norm.

And that difference was caused by a difference in power distribution policies and electronics manufacturing between Europe and most of the world, quite far from the topic ;)

[danko9696]

Originally posted by Molotov Milkshake:

It is slightly choppy, but it works because your brain fills in the blanks. It's why The Hobbit films (shot at 60FPS) looks cartoonish. 30fps is good for a film or TV, but it's bad for a game where you have to control the thing. The two mediums are completely incomparable because of that key element: interaction.

It works because of that but also because film has inherent motion blur due to limited shutter speed of the cameras while video games have perfect frames taken with infinite virtual shutter speed.

Anime movies usually have even much lower than 24fps and they can get away with it because they use many tricks, like "motion lines'.

And animation CGI at 24fps adds advanced motion blur, while in video games motion blur is just not good enough plus you want high framerates anyway because the better responsiveness.

Originally posted by JimmysTheBestCop:

Shooters and Actions games arent the only ones that need FPS. Try running just Windows desktop at 30 FPS it will drive your eyes and brain crazy. Its default is 60, Run it at 120 and even basic desktop stuff is buttery smooth.

Yes. The difference is plain huge just moving the cursor, the resolution and the mouse sensitivity being the same.

That in part is why there are options like adding motion blur to the cursor in windows and other OS. It is harder to lose track of it with higher framerate and/or motion blur (or higher contrast a bigger cursor...

[gwTheo]

well it's the simple truth 144hz compared to 60hz is smoother but not nearly noticeable as 30 vs 60. and depending how you play you're zooming scrolling around do a lot where 60+ is just simply better.

but let's ignore that, games are bring launched on console locked to 30fps so clearly this is still a debate.

my issue is with a 12th gen i7 and a 4070 I get a nice crisp 80+ maxed out, woah right? wrong. the more you play your fps goes down quite fast.

so 30fps min but actually max for many, on a game where performance is known to tank as you play, a game where you have population milestones, is telling you 30fps is playable.

big L

[Apples]

Originally posted by JimmysTheBestCop:

Originally posted by Apples:

Incorrect, some games were, not all.. and even then PAL games were usually less.

Go read my statement. I literally never said all games in fact I explicitly listed the number of games.

I said all systems N64 and above had 60 fps games. That is not the same as saying all of their games were 60 fps.

Reading comprehension my friend. No wonder you are satisfied with 30

I never said the systems were not capable though, did i? so less of trying to be a smart ass.

The standard was always less than 60, and more along the lines of 30... if that was unacceptable, then nobody would have bothered, it doesn't automatically become unplayable.

Originally posted by MagicHp:

Originally posted by Apples:

Incorrect, some games were, not all.. and even then PAL games were usually less.

That is exactly what he said, some games, not all. Consoles are pretty hardware limited and don't make much sense here anyway.

The PAL question is still running at full speed. The only difference is that PAL fullspeed was 50Hz when NTSC was 60Hz , making games run 20% slower (most noticeable with musics that were also slowed down ^^ ) .
But we are talking about the Snes/Megadrive era then. Some PS1 games already had 50/60hz options and it got widespread during the PS2 era.

Also, the PAL or NTSC question never made sense in PC gaming, 60 hz was always the norm.

And that difference was caused by a difference in power distribution policies and electronics manufacturing between Europe and most of the world, quite far from the topic ;)

Sure i misread a little part of that, but still I never said the consoles couldn't produce that many frames, 30 fps was quite the norm though, and that does depend on NTSC vs PAL, as PAL was slower., since we are talking about consoles here, not PC.

If 30 FPS was so damn unplayable, nobody would have bothered.

[H3M1V3]

i can play at over 60fps with a ryzen 5 1600 and a gtx 1070 on low to medium settings. sure new pc is already on the way so i can indulge in the eye candy on max settings. but tbh its a city builder and the gameplay is my top priority and playing without laggs is more important then having stunning graphics even though im a sucker for good graphics. so idk i cant understand all the whining around performance. got 0 issues on that front.

[Apples]

Originally posted by gwTheo:

well it's the simple truth 144hz compared to 60hz is smoother but not nearly noticeable as 30 vs 60. and depending how you play you're zooming scrolling around do a lot where 60+ is just simply better.

but let's ignore that, games are bring launched on console locked to 30fps so clearly this is still a debate.

my issue is with a 12th gen i7 and a 4070 I get a nice crisp 80+ maxed out, woah right? wrong. the more you play your fps goes down quite fast.

so 30fps min but actually max for many, on a game where performance is known to tank as you play, a game where you have population milestones, is telling you 30fps is playable.

big L

Yeah i saw a list of PS4 games locked to 30fps, though 60% of them were at 60fps, Even those at 60 on a PS5 many appear to be at 1080p with the odd few at 1440p and 4k.

Even though the PS5 says it supports 4k, it doesn't mean everything will run on it at 60FPS, it's a same with graphics cards.

[PokerSmile]

Originally posted by Narkulus:

I mean, you just sit there and watch buildings grow. I scroll the map at 30fps and it looks fine. 60+fps would be nice, but doesn't really change what I'm looking at. Is there something here I'm missing reading all these complaints about frame rates?

And your population is?
Tell us you have 60+ FPS with 100,000 citizens then, we'll talk

[Narkulus]

Originally posted by PokerSmile:

Originally posted by Narkulus:

I mean, you just sit there and watch buildings grow. I scroll the map at 30fps and it looks fine. 60+fps would be nice, but doesn't really change what I'm looking at. Is there something here I'm missing reading all these complaints about frame rates?

And your population is?
Tell us you have 60+ FPS with 100,000 citizens then, we'll talk

This thread is about 30+ fps and playing, still wanna talk?