Why isn't 60 FPS an industry standard? There is no excuse for it...

>t. tranny

Cope God of War 4 runs at 30fps locked on a 7 years old hardware when pc can't even run doom eternal without shitting itself even on series 900

Forever, i doubt really high fps will be the standard anytime soon, as most people would rather go for prettier visuals as soon as they can get a stable 60fps.

except there's no benefit beyond +100 fps other than placebo

bait or retard

That's not true, you can consciously tell the difference up to 150fps and even beyond that you still have benefits like lower latency.

Because if you want shit to be incredibly detailed and realistic 60fps will never happen. I work in the industry and you compare a game like Neir Automata to RDR2. Nier is 60 fps and yeah its great but their world is empty for the most part with lots of shared textures.

60 fps is totally achievable but the level of detail and features will drop so dramatically most players will complain that there's nothing to do or the world is empty etc.

no u

No wonder games today are so shit if genuine retards like you are working "in the industry".

>when every console on the market is beyond capable of it.
Did I accidentally press the fast forward on my temporal rift manipulator?

why are framerate fags so god damn annoying? I couldn't give two shits about framerates unless i'm playing some ultra competitive fps. All my favorite games have always been 30fps. RE4, SotC, Bloodborne..have you seen the sacrifices Halo 5 had to make to be 60 frames? It's not worth it. Or just look at MGS5. It's the most barren and boring open world in any game i've ever played.

Because its pointless numbers for the sake of showing off high numbers.
Your average person can't even see over 30FPS, forcing 60 FPS as the standard is double the maximum amount you can even see. Why waste that GPU power on FPS when you could get 30FPS and graphics?

Attached: 1577074643720.jpg (362x346, 37.55K)

pc fats and their cope. not our fault you burnt +1000 bucks on hardware so you can enjoy those extra frames you couldn't possibly see

You don't need to sacrifice anything to achieve 60 fps if your game isn't stuck on a shitbox that was outdated before it even released.
Bloodborne could look far better on PC and still run at 60 fps easily.
(Theoretically it could do 140+ no problem, but From's engine is garbage and caps out at 60)

Great counter argument

The difference between 60 and 80 is noticeable. From 80 to 120 you really have to straight to figure it out. Above 120 it really does not matter in the slightest. I think 80 is a perfectly acceptable industry standard as that is when framerate stops being jarring and distracting.

Cope.

Attached: 120FPS.webm (853x480, 2.87M)

Honestly don't care if something is 30 or 60fps, and I assume most people don't care.

All gaming PCs are shitboxes compared to supercomputers. Might as well just make games for the most powerful supercomputer, then.

can you pc fags go away please? If the question is "why isn't 'x' framerate standard" than obviously your open box need not apply to the discussion.

>our
>cope
no need to insult those that know inherent technical advantages and notice the differences a higher fps makes. go be a retard somewhere else. buy a higher hertz monitor while you're at it too.

bland uninspired slow as fuck no weight gameplay

your response is the definition of cope, friendo

Any more tranny buzzwords you want to throw in, tranny?

>gets shot
>doesn't die
nice easy mode.

I play on pc but i honestly thought you are showcasing 60 fps before I saw the file name.

As cinema shows the human eye can't possibly see above 24fps. Consoles waste ressources to get those 6 fps extra, they should invest it in good graphics instead. Only Santa Monica Studio and Naughty Dog seem to do it though, the rest runs after a carrot that will never yield anything positive for the game.

Cope.

Attached: 60 FPS vs 30 FPS.webm (640x360, 2.62M)

Because you can't see 120 fps on a 60 hz screen, dum dum

Good thing the human eye doesn't seen in frames, then.

>120FPS.webm
>it's running at 60
>shit game
>shit graphics
>hurr durr cope
lol ok buddy. go back to suck gaben's cock

Attached: 1583703630076.png (500x277, 206.02K)

>This level of cope

Attached: the-pc-master-race-wants-you-to-think-60-fps-is-better-but-this-image-proves-there-is-no-difference.jpg (735x704, 186.95K)

I don't even like good graphics, I'd prefer good game play

Attached: 1415908105631.jpg (1920x1080, 345.06K)

>You don't need to sacrifice anything to achieve 60 fps if your game isn't stuck on a shitbox
wow, i didn't know pc's could change the laws of physics too. Retard, even super computers 30 years from now would still do twice as much of a rendering budget at 30 vs 60 frames. Star Citizen is getting framerates just barely above 30 on top of line the hardware because it's actually pushing technology forward. But geee none of that matters because i just need to have 144+ frames for every game i play.

0/10 literally

You can't do any precision aiming with a controller. Consolefags are also "immune" to high input latency. They just don't care about a fluid image when you can have games that look like movies.

because the industry makes more money this way and console fags will always be ignorant of what theyre buying.

stronger than the wall of misinformation that you spewed.

People literally cannot see past 24 fps.

Attached: Can your eye see the difference.gif (460x359, 76.56K)

Stop calling it god of war 4, that hot pile of dogshit has nothing to do with the god of war trilogy.

Literal facts about the industry.

When you wanna balance vfx, environment art, pedestrians, animation, ambient events, sound effects/music etc. on a massive world you aren't gonna get 60fps with console hardware.

But please prove me wrong with all your vast game industry knowledge.

it's very noticeable

>false flagging retards pretending you can't see past 24 fps
stfu please, that joke was funny for about a year.

60 FPS is the industry standard.

Looks the same.

>literally
Dilate.

Mario Odyssey had open environments and ran at 60 FPS on a Switch.
Cope.

>Mario Odyssey
cartoony dogshit for children. try harder

N:A>RedDead

>Open environments not open world
>cartoon style with low res textures
>no complex vfx/AI eating up resources.

I love odyssey but of course its gonna be 60 fps.

The 60fps argument depends on the game/genre at the end of the day. Game with simple art styles and/or medium to small size worlds can and should be 60fps.

However if a developer is shooting for a realistic look and/or does open world you wont see 60fps on console.

I love both but they're such drastically different games I wouldn't compare the two.

>if a developer is shooting for a realistic look and/or does open world you wont see 60fps on console.
Ratchet and Clank is neither

Never. You need a 2k pc to run a game at 144 fps with decent settings. Especially since companies optimize like shit.

Cope.

Its also not open world or complicated. Its got about the same size/scope as Odyssey for each world.

Like I said, small/medium games can and should be 60fps.

Open world games with high amounts of detail won't be 60fps on console hardwae.

>how many more years is it going to take
Way too long because PCMR subhumans are retarded faggots who even say stupid shit like "KBM is all you need!" even though for 3D movement something like an analog stick is far superior than 4-way digital.
One of the benefits of PC is that you can use anything you want.

See
It depends what you're aiming for.
A game isn't ruined by low fps (as long as it isn't too low). It's more enjoyable with higher refresh rate and better resolution/graphics but it doesn't change the game.
30fps is fine too but for action titles higher is definitely better but again, doesn't ruin it completely.
You can tell the difference even by just doing office work. It's way smoother especially with games you can tell a difference.

You're confusing me user

>Its also not open world or complicated
Exactly. That's what I meant.

>Open world games with high amounts of detail won't be 60fps on console hardwae.
R&C is neither open world nor highly realistic. It should run at 60fps but it's a 30fps game.

Dreamcast had a 60fps standard

Based and Dreamcastpilled.

Attached: Sonic Adventure 1.webm (720x576, 2.56M)

Ah my bad.

Yes its 30 fps but personally it could be 60 just depends on how solid of an optimization team Insomniac has.

Most studios know 30fps is the benchmark so they stick with it which is frustrating because they *could* hit 60 fps if they try.

While other studios like mine create such massive games that its a struggle to even hit 30fps on console hardware.

Not to bash Insomniac I don't know their pipeline so I can't comment much on them.

>being a console fag

kys

Attached: 55fb530624d99654676ddfe45b588734-imagegif.gif (200x195, 176.02K)

cope!? cope?..nigga you talking about a Mario game. You run around some smallish open environments and jump on goombas scripted to be contained in one area.

Attached: your_face.png (995x909, 640.95K)

playing games on a computer.

Attached: hahaa.jpg (800x800, 42.49K)

below 50 it's really disgusting

for many games 60fps is good enough

for shooters and racing games 80+ are good enough imo

100+ isn't noticable imo, it's just to sell things (MUH 1337fps/hz)

proof me wrong

Attached: 1549797828508.png (1000x1000, 176.72K)

Yes.

Attached: Dustforce - Apartments.webm (640x360, 2.94M)

It's frustrating because their PS2 games were all 60fps If I'm not mistaken. They gave a bunch of excuses when people found out the remake was 30 only.