In this modern age, 60fps is the norm, but PC gamers are always trying to push above 60fps. Why? I mean, why exactly 60 and 30, anyway? Why is 60 the standard and not higher? Well, here are two reasons, of which I’m going to delve into here, so make sure you’re paying close attention:
Limitations.
This is the more common response to the question asked above. Let’s first talk about consoles, of which faced heavy limitations. It’s important to note that today, it’s still difficult to push games to 60fps while maintaining a high resolution (i.e. 1920 x 1080). On the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, we’ve read reports of devs sacrificing resolutions in favor of fps or vice versa. It tells us, “It’s freakin’ hard as hell to maintain 60 fps and 1080p simultaneously.” So to this day, consoles are still limited. How can devs push any higher if a good few can’t ever reach 60 fps at a high resolution?
So here’s the next point I’m making: Hz monitors are limited too. But first, let’s look at PC monitors and their Hz. But wait, what the hell? What do Hz and fps have to do with each other? Well, they have a bit of a symbiotic relationship, you see. According to developer Mike Bithell, the frame rate is linked to monitor refresh rates, which come in 30Hz and 60Hz. It’s more of a standard that’s been accepted more than anything else.
He also goes onto explain that it’s possible to run games at 45fps, but it’d require animating one-and-a-half frames. It’s just simply more effective and easier to double the frames to eliminate the trouble of that animating that one-half.
“In fairness, most of the modern engines are pretty frame independent – which means the code is run every frame in a lot of cases – or it’s run at physics intervals which are independent of framerate. But very few games now are making per-frame calculations and movement, so whether you’re playing Call of Duty 12fps or 60fps, the game’s going to interpolate: the last frame took ‘this’ long to render and I want ‘this’ cycle so I need to move ‘this’ far forward. It’s not [that] you run slower if the framerate’s worse.”
So we know it’s partially the game engines that are partially causing the issues with console fps. I mean, there’s also hardware limitations too at stake, so let’s turn our attentions to the limitations brought about by the console hardware. The Xbox One and the PlayStation 4, for instance, can’t handle the amount of fps with the combination of the resolution for one major reason: the games themselves. On Steam, for instance, the games are easily scalable to the resolution desired. However, that’s not exactly an option on consoles. It’s fixed, no matter the case, so it’s entirely dependent on the developers.
For instance, the PlayStation version of MotoGP 14 featured only 30fps rather than 60fps, simply because the developers want to ensure that the players have a “stable and visually rich experience.” After all, MotoGP 14’s major feature is the ability to host 34 bikes simultaneously on one track. If the devs were to push to 60fps, then content would need to be removed, and they didn’t want to sacrifice that.
But when referring to the PC, the limitation lies more in the monitors than the hardware, as graphics cards and processors are more technically advanced than what’s running in consoles, giving developers more freedom to “go all out.” But as I mentioned, what does limit the FPS, at least visually speaking, are the monitors. A game running at 120fps while on a 60Hz monitor, for instance, may feel smoother because there is a drop in input lag. However, the screen cannot push past 60 Hz no matter the case, so issues like screen tearing result. Why, exactly? The monitor just can’t handle that beast of an fps. So in a sense, the fps is “bottlenecked” by the monitor.
FPS isn’t always limited by the hardware, either. There are the limitations brought by the term, “bandwidth.” Not exactly related at all to offline gaming, but I’m more referring to online gaming and streaming. Not everyone’s bandwidth, for instance, is capable of streaming 1080p at 60fps. The ability to accomplish the frame rate at such a resolution is dependent on the wireless card, the router, the ISP net package, and more.
Visuals
And then there are the visual components of FPS. It’s been long-regarded, for instance, that 30fps is accepted for cinematic quality of games, whereas 60fps is more designed for speed, action, and intense gameplay. 60fps, for instance, is downright essential nowadays for shooters, as it provides a life-like fluidity. After all, there have been instances of people explaining that 60fps hindered the quality of a “cinematic” game.
According to Ubisoft’s world level design director Nicolas Guerin in regards to Assassin’s Creed Unity running at 30fps for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One:
“At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60fps. I don’t think it was a good idea because you don’t gain that much from 60fps and it doesn’t look like the real thing. It’s a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird.”
Creative director Alex Amancio chimed in, “30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action-adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it’s at that 30fps.”
Yeah, here’s the thing: comparing films to video games is no different than contrasting apples against oranges. The reason why is why films can work with 24fps is merely because of the techniques utilized like motion blur.
But here’s my opinion though: I’ve taken a look at this site called Bo Allen, which features a comparison between fps. Now, I can totally see the difference. In the example, 15fps looks choppy and rather slowmo. It’s a bit disturbing for the eyes, as it just doesn’t look natural.
30fps, on the other hand, is smoother than 15fps, but at the same time, you can see the rigidness of the jumping cube. Again, it’s not all that natural, and you can even see the frames. 60fps, finally, has the least issues, and it looks the most lifelike. See what I mean? Well, you can if you click the link, but I believe that even cinematically speaking, 60fps is important because of it offers lifelike fluidity that’s essential to the experience.
That said, 60fps to PC gamers acts more like a wall that needs to be shattered. Lots of PC gamers want to push past 60fps because they can (or some of them admit, anyway). To achieve the best visual experience, however, the PC monitor needs to be a higher Hz in order to support the higher fps. Would it be even more lifelike? It’d definitely feel smoother that’s, for sure. Look smoother? You betcha.
In the end of it all, it’s all about the rendering. Jumping from 30fps to 60fps means twice as many pixels are being rendered, which is a troublesome issue. But the reason why fps is so important at 60fps is the fact that it’s what can currently be achieved with some modern hardware (excluding PCs). The fps of a game creates a totally different experience, that much is true. But someday, the standard may jump to 80 or more. It’ll just depend on the advancement of modern consoles.