John Bain's definitive eyeopeners and masterpieces: - "The Great Framerate Non-Debate" - "What a PC Options menu is supposed to look like" - "Have single-player FPS gone backwards?" - "Modern Military Shooters in a nutshell" - every FarCry video featuring alligators
6 years later and we finally got the choice of 30 FPS or 60 on console. Took another generation but the Xbox Series X and PS5 now have the option to downgrade the graphical quality of games to get a higher framerate. Why we wouldn't get this during this generation is a mystery, but hey better late than never.
@@DrAnimePhD And now the new Ratchet and Clank game has a 60 FPS ray-tracing mode and even a 40 fps mode on 120hz displays. Hopefully the consoles keep maintaining their momentum of actually good options menus
@@TheGoreforce Yep. That's why the only console I own anymore is a Switch. I'll just wait for games to come to PC, and if they don't come to PC I won't bother. I waited for the PC versions of the Spider-man games.
I always remember this video every time a developer or publisher tries to defend their 30FPS game. Usually including the word ‘cinematic’ in there somewhere.
What he described about 7th gen machines running sub 720p and still can't deliver 30fps just happened again with 8th gen machines, at least the base models. Better stump up another $400 or $500 to avoid it. And right about now, everybody's getting hyped up for 9th gen consoles, and how this time surely there will be enough power for native 4k at 60 fps or higher. Nah. They're consoles. Developers will crank graphics up to make it look pretty for marketing materials and we'll still get stuck with 30 fps with drops. It'll be the same crap as PS3/360 and PS4/XB1.
@@SarahWeisters That tip was honestly terrible. You should absolutely pursue 60fps. It's very easy to reach if you have decent hardware. I would only apply that tip to going above 60fps. Once you get into 120fps, 144fps, 240fps, and so on, you can have problems unrelated to your hardware. Maybe you get a game that has an engine limit or some kind of bug, so you have to go back to 60 from 120 and then woof, it doesn't feel great. And of course, having to go from 120fps to 30fps because a game is just hard capped is really awful. But going from 30 to 60? Do it, 100%.
@@mjc0961 "Once you get into 120fps, 144fps, 240fps, and so on, you can have problems unrelated to your hardware." What does that mean? Do you mean things like the physics of a game freaking out if you run it at a higher framerate than 60 (e.g Skyrim)? If that's what you meant, then I would say that that doesn't apply anymore to most games released in the latter half of the previous decade. Almost every single new game comes with unlocked framerate. I'm going to actually say that 60 fps nowadays is outdated as well, especially after having used a 165 hz monitor for a couple of months now. 60 fps, to me, has become so choppy that I can't even use my laptop anymore.
Came back here after seeing people today coping about the new A Plagues Tale game running at sub 30 on consoles billing themselves on being able to run at 120fps+, not even two years into their life cycle.
I first learn about Framerate in gaming mostly via Totalbiscuit. This generation of console (XSX & PS5) with performance/ quality option would have made Totalbiscuit proud. Rest well friend.
You know I would like to add that I'm playing on the og Xbox one for 6 years. All the games now looks downgraded as hell can't even hold 30 fps sometimes and while I understand that if you're used to 60 fps it's unplayable when you're not it's completly fine and you forget about it when playing the game. I tottaly understand that 60 fps really add something to the experience I don't think we should blame devs for not allowing 60 fps on their games (if it's not justified by lies). I'm pretty sure it adds a lot of work considering there's a tons of different console now and sometimes it's just up to the devs. If they think prioritizing graphics over framerate is better for games then we should let them choose. Some games on consoles tottaly reduces the graphics to have a better framerate and it's ok because it fits the game.
Heck games become even more responsive when you go higher than 60 (though 60 is adequate the vast majority of the time). Take a look at One Finger Death Punch 2. The PC version has the option of unlocked framerate. There is a massive difference in input lag between the 240fps my PC can push in that game vs the Switch version running at 60.
I remember getting used to play say Witcher 3 at 30-40 fps with no problem. Then I bought a new pc and 60 fps felt so fast I was having trouble reacting to what is going. Now I am used to 60 fps sometimes the game drops to 50 fps etc. and I immediately notice it and get annoyed. Funny how our minds work.
I had someone tell me "The human eye can't see past 60 fps" today. They moved the goal posts now that consoles have "60fps" in their marketing. Still fighting the good fight out there. Frame Rate Deniers are functionally science deniers.
Instantly thought of Totalbiscuit when I saw that. Absolutely ridiculous. What reason is there at this point to buy a 500$ console instead of waiting a bit to get a gaming PC.
I played Monster Hunter Rise on my Switch at 30fps and it was buttery smooth, then I played the demo on PC at 30fps and it looked terrible. Apparently it was because the Switch's screen is more optimized for 30fps than my monitor was.
Honestly it depends on the game. If I'm playing XCOM or something else turn based, where there is going to be a forced delay in interactivity anyway, then I will be less likely to care. If, on the other hand, I'm playing a first person shooter, or any other genre where I need to be able to instantly respond to whatever is happening, then yes I am going to want 60 FPS.
I rarely played a game in 60fps, untill i got my first PC a year and a half ago. As in, i can think of maybe 3 or 4 games in my entire life i have indeed played in 60+fps. Killing Floor 2, Doom 2016, Doom: Eternal, and Battlefield 4. Battlefield 4 was the first for me. And, after spending some 2000 hours on Battlefield 3 at 30fps, Battlefield 4 was, frankly, a disorienting experience. Everything felt so much faster, i felt like i was playing after a shot of adrenaline. It almost felt like everything was on a skating rink. I have since played many games in 60fps thanks to my pc. And have gotten more used to it now. I can still play fine at 30. But, having played heavily under both rates, i can confirm thag 60+fps DOES make a big difference. If only because 60 is pretty much right at the threshold of the human eye-brain processing rate imo.
i must disagree with that everyone can feel it. i can, at least i can nowadays. i used to play on a terrible pc. 30 fps was a rare occurrence. i could not feel the difference between 30 and 60. nowdays i can and it feels so much better. but when you are used to that unresponsiveness it's hard to feel something is more responsive. of course 60 is still objectively better then 30. it's closer to real life (and to idiots, no, the eye doesn't see in frames. the eye sees changes, the smoother the change, the more frames a change uses, the better it looks). but not everyone can easily feel the difference.
nothing to back your statement up with? no evidence? just declaring i'm retarded? why should i change my mind? because a random twat on the internet said not even it was dumb, but that i was dumb? it's a very unconvincing argument.
Everyone *can* easily feel the difference. Give them a higher fps than they've experience, and they will intantly notice. All that needs to be done is make them play any first person shooter at 60 frames per second, then make them go and play the same game capped at 30fps. it is VERY noticeable. You WILL feel the difference.
so, in my experience that isn't the thing. at least not the jump up. like i explained i used to play skyrim at maybe 30 fps, generally lower. when it suddenly jumped to 60 i didn't notice it being smoother. of course the lack of stutters i could feel, but not the much higher framerate. maybe the games i played wheren't the best for it, but i didn't notice that jump up. but when you get used to it (or stop being used to 30) you will feel the jump down. i'm not saying it isn't better. but if you are used to bad the sudden jump to ok isn't that noticeable.
I might need to correct you on the fact that stutters have nothing to do with the framerate being higher. Stuttering is just the game playing herpa-derp. Regardless of whether you percieve the fps increase or not, you will naturally *feel* the difference. With 30 each frame needs to be displayed twice, so any buttons you press? The game has to wait for the next frame. With 60, pressing a button instantly displays the next frame. A higher framerate increases your reaction speeds, and is crucial for any instance where quick reactions are needed. That's why Uncharted 4's MP still ran at 60fps and the SP only ran at 30. The big devs have a reason to say a jump to 60+ is transformative. 30 is not as jarring if you use a controller on a console, but on a pc 60 is accepted as the standard for a reason: It just makes the games *feel* better and more responsive.
stutters aren't frame rate related? depends how low they get (: don't think many games these days calculate of frames anymore ether as it's a pretty stupid way to do things. it might work for a simple 2d platformer, but for real 3d games you want the game to calculate things over time. not frames, that messes up to easily. and i know 60 fps is better, i'll never claim against that. what i'm saying is that when you are used to gaming at 30 fps you won't feel the jump to 60. that's what i'm warning against. you and I both feel the difference between 60 and 30 fps. but if your brain is used to 30 fps you won't feel the difference. that's why console peasants say that 60 fps isn't needed: the few times they tried it their expectations of 30 fps meant that they couldn't feel it. saying that everyone always feels the difference is incorrect. and that type of talk makes them thing we are talking out of our ass.
I think despite humans not being able to see above a certain number of frames... a higher framerate is better because the way eyes track movement. (eyes track movement in a jerky motion which benefits from having more moments a image is available).
I think there is more to it than just that. There likely is a difference betweening "Seeing" somthing and "Perceiving" somthing. Seeing somthing is when you are looking at it and actively observing it. Perceiving is the ability for your brain to notice things that are there that you conciously cant. While we may only be able to See up to 30 or how many ever FPS its likely our brains Perceive up to and above 120 FPS. Easiest examples are when you think you see somthing move but werent paying attention. You didnt see it occuring but your eyes and brain where able to perceive it occuring.
I don’t agree with the stance that, “if it doesn’t run at 60 FPS, then it’s garbage.” I always felt that John was way too dismissive about it. Well, it’s nice that you can afford a computer that costs more than some cars Totalbiscuit, but what about those of us who can’t? I miss him though, I would have loved to have met him one day.
I would say that maybe with a 4K monitor where achieving constant 60FPS is difficult it is fine to run lower at some points, but then you need an adaptive sync monitor (which is very common nowadays) to make it look decent.Everything below 4K resolution I always aim for high framerates 60 minimum 120Hz+ preferred.
Spaceduck31 geez take it easy spacefuck enjoy your console gaming at shit fps if that's what you enjoy. the video is about how consoles and low fps are shit.
Don't know about that, really. I've always been unable to tell the difference between 16 FPS, and 60+. So doesn't matter to me, as long as it's not 5 FPS, or so. I'm going to wager that he was just overly hyper sensitive to it. That, or he just lusted for something to complain about.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Music to my ears.
John Bain's definitive eyeopeners and masterpieces:
- "The Great Framerate Non-Debate"
- "What a PC Options menu is supposed to look like"
- "Have single-player FPS gone backwards?"
- "Modern Military Shooters in a nutshell"
- every FarCry video featuring alligators
You forgot the God Hand video
If i could another. His research stream of guise of the wolf.
@@ISetYourFaceOnFire That video was hilarious.
@@ISetYourFaceOnFire that's not an eye opener, that's just taking a massive shit on a game that totally deserves it
Don’t forget “The Bore-Z”
God I miss him...
i was laughing when i saw him in the killfeed, heheheeh
6 years later and we finally got the choice of 30 FPS or 60 on console. Took another generation but the Xbox Series X and PS5 now have the option to downgrade the graphical quality of games to get a higher framerate. Why we wouldn't get this during this generation is a mystery, but hey better late than never.
MEME GOD Yep. Spiderman Miles Morales and the Demon Souls Remake are the first to have this feature.
@@DrAnimePhD And now the new Ratchet and Clank game has a 60 FPS ray-tracing mode and even a 40 fps mode on 120hz displays. Hopefully the consoles keep maintaining their momentum of actually good options menus
we are quickly aproaching 30 fps across AAA board, because they will want to push every bit of juice again :(
@@TheGoreforce Yep. That's why the only console I own anymore is a Switch. I'll just wait for games to come to PC, and if they don't come to PC I won't bother. I waited for the PC versions of the Spider-man games.
I just miss him so much...
Man, they still defend this shiet argument about 30fps games, what joke! We all miss you honest takes so much, mister Biscuit.
People still arguing that there isn't a sky.
@@mjc0961 and that a human eye cannot see above 30 fps
We gotta keep fighting the good fight for him. We are winning. I hope TB is smiling down on us.
I always remember this video every time a developer or publisher tries to defend their 30FPS game. Usually including the word ‘cinematic’ in there somewhere.
Because 30fps DOES look more cinematic...meaning looks more similar to movies that commonly use 24fps.
What he described about 7th gen machines running sub 720p and still can't deliver 30fps just happened again with 8th gen machines, at least the base models. Better stump up another $400 or $500 to avoid it.
And right about now, everybody's getting hyped up for 9th gen consoles, and how this time surely there will be enough power for native 4k at 60 fps or higher. Nah. They're consoles. Developers will crank graphics up to make it look pretty for marketing materials and we'll still get stuck with 30 fps with drops. It'll be the same crap as PS3/360 and PS4/XB1.
I've never had hardware good enough to run anything above 30fps, so I really don't know what I'm missing.
You're missing quite a lot. It's very hard to go back though, so don't pursue high framerates if you're comfortable with 30.
@@mungojerrie86 I'm comfortable with 30 :) Thanks for the tip.
@@SarahWeisters That tip was honestly terrible. You should absolutely pursue 60fps. It's very easy to reach if you have decent hardware.
I would only apply that tip to going above 60fps. Once you get into 120fps, 144fps, 240fps, and so on, you can have problems unrelated to your hardware. Maybe you get a game that has an engine limit or some kind of bug, so you have to go back to 60 from 120 and then woof, it doesn't feel great. And of course, having to go from 120fps to 30fps because a game is just hard capped is really awful.
But going from 30 to 60? Do it, 100%.
@@mjc0961 "Once you get into 120fps, 144fps, 240fps, and so on, you can have problems unrelated to your hardware."
What does that mean? Do you mean things like the physics of a game freaking out if you run it at a higher framerate than 60 (e.g Skyrim)? If that's what you meant, then I would say that that doesn't apply anymore to most games released in the latter half of the previous decade. Almost every single new game comes with unlocked framerate. I'm going to actually say that 60 fps nowadays is outdated as well, especially after having used a 165 hz monitor for a couple of months now. 60 fps, to me, has become so choppy that I can't even use my laptop anymore.
@@Achiez-z if you play alot of pixel art or hand drawn indie games you are stuck at 60fps alot of the time
And here comes ninja theory making the same tired lies.
8 years later, and nobody talks about framerate yet.
May you be in light, Total Biscuit.
Dragon's Dogma II now joins the ranks of shame
10 years later and most AAA games still don't look as good as that watch dogs trailer
Came back here after seeing people today coping about the new A Plagues Tale game running at sub 30 on consoles billing themselves on being able to run at 120fps+, not even two years into their life cycle.
And this shit is still relevant to this day💯💯
I first learn about Framerate in gaming mostly via Totalbiscuit.
This generation of console (XSX & PS5) with performance/ quality option would have made Totalbiscuit proud.
Rest well friend.
60 fps should be industry standard by now. There were no games that were less than 60 fps before 5th Gen consoles.
York doom snes, 32x?
Had to rewatch this after seeing someone argue for 30fps in the year of 2024.
Thank you TotalBiscuit.
❤
You know I would like to add that I'm playing on the og Xbox one for 6 years. All the games now looks downgraded as hell can't even hold 30 fps sometimes and while I understand that if you're used to 60 fps it's unplayable when you're not it's completly fine and you forget about it when playing the game. I tottaly understand that 60 fps really add something to the experience I don't think we should blame devs for not allowing 60 fps on their games (if it's not justified by lies). I'm pretty sure it adds a lot of work considering there's a tons of different console now and sometimes it's just up to the devs. If they think prioritizing graphics over framerate is better for games then we should let them choose. Some games on consoles tottaly reduces the graphics to have a better framerate and it's ok because it fits the game.
Heck games become even more responsive when you go higher than 60 (though 60 is adequate the vast majority of the time). Take a look at One Finger Death Punch 2. The PC version has the option of unlocked framerate. There is a massive difference in input lag between the 240fps my PC can push in that game vs the Switch version running at 60.
I remember getting used to play say Witcher 3 at 30-40 fps with no problem. Then I bought a new pc and 60 fps felt so fast I was having trouble reacting to what is going. Now I am used to 60 fps sometimes the game drops to 50 fps etc. and I immediately notice it and get annoyed. Funny how our minds work.
60 fps feels choppy now that I'm used to 165 fps. Once you make the switch, you won't ever go back.
I had someone tell me "The human eye can't see past 60 fps" today.
They moved the goal posts now that consoles have "60fps" in their marketing. Still fighting the good fight out there. Frame Rate Deniers are functionally science deniers.
Starfield 2023
Seriously, I've shared this video so many times with all the Starfield announcements.
Instantly thought of Totalbiscuit when I saw that. Absolutely ridiculous. What reason is there at this point to buy a 500$ console instead of waiting a bit to get a gaming PC.
I played Monster Hunter Rise on my Switch at 30fps and it was buttery smooth, then I played the demo on PC at 30fps and it looked terrible. Apparently it was because the Switch's screen is more optimized for 30fps than my monitor was.
Honestly it depends on the game.
If I'm playing XCOM or something else turn based, where there is going to be a forced delay in interactivity anyway, then I will be less likely to care. If, on the other hand, I'm playing a first person shooter, or any other genre where I need to be able to instantly respond to whatever is happening, then yes I am going to want 60 FPS.
The higher the framerate the better.
Thank me later or never.
Tacka mig senare eller aldrig.
I rarely played a game in 60fps, untill i got my first PC a year and a half ago.
As in, i can think of maybe 3 or 4 games in my entire life i have indeed played in 60+fps.
Killing Floor 2, Doom 2016, Doom: Eternal, and Battlefield 4.
Battlefield 4 was the first for me.
And, after spending some 2000 hours on Battlefield 3 at 30fps, Battlefield 4 was, frankly, a disorienting experience. Everything felt so much faster, i felt like i was playing after a shot of adrenaline. It almost felt like everything was on a skating rink.
I have since played many games in 60fps thanks to my pc. And have gotten more used to it now. I can still play fine at 30.
But, having played heavily under both rates, i can confirm thag 60+fps DOES make a big difference. If only because 60 is pretty much right at the threshold of the human eye-brain processing rate imo.
The word you are searching is not "faster", mate.
Its "smoother" because thats a difference from 30fps to 60 fps - a smoother experience.
@@KapitanPazur1 also that last part of the guys message like holy shit how are we not past this even now is amazing
i must disagree with that everyone can feel it. i can, at least i can nowadays. i used to play on a terrible pc. 30 fps was a rare occurrence. i could not feel the difference between 30 and 60. nowdays i can and it feels so much better. but when you are used to that unresponsiveness it's hard to feel something is more responsive.
of course 60 is still objectively better then 30. it's closer to real life (and to idiots, no, the eye doesn't see in frames. the eye sees changes, the smoother the change, the more frames a change uses, the better it looks). but not everyone can easily feel the difference.
nothing to back your statement up with? no evidence? just declaring i'm retarded? why should i change my mind? because a random twat on the internet said not even it was dumb, but that i was dumb? it's a very unconvincing argument.
Everyone *can* easily feel the difference. Give them a higher fps than they've experience, and they will intantly notice. All that needs to be done is make them play any first person shooter at 60 frames per second, then make them go and play the same game capped at 30fps. it is VERY noticeable. You WILL feel the difference.
so, in my experience that isn't the thing. at least not the jump up. like i explained i used to play skyrim at maybe 30 fps, generally lower. when it suddenly jumped to 60 i didn't notice it being smoother. of course the lack of stutters i could feel, but not the much higher framerate. maybe the games i played wheren't the best for it, but i didn't notice that jump up. but when you get used to it (or stop being used to 30) you will feel the jump down.
i'm not saying it isn't better. but if you are used to bad the sudden jump to ok isn't that noticeable.
I might need to correct you on the fact that stutters have nothing to do with the framerate being higher. Stuttering is just the game playing herpa-derp. Regardless of whether you percieve the fps increase or not, you will naturally *feel* the difference. With 30 each frame needs to be displayed twice, so any buttons you press? The game has to wait for the next frame. With 60, pressing a button instantly displays the next frame. A higher framerate increases your reaction speeds, and is crucial for any instance where quick reactions are needed. That's why Uncharted 4's MP still ran at 60fps and the SP only ran at 30. The big devs have a reason to say a jump to 60+ is transformative.
30 is not as jarring if you use a controller on a console, but on a pc 60 is accepted as the standard for a reason: It just makes the games *feel* better and more responsive.
stutters aren't frame rate related? depends how low they get (: don't think many games these days calculate of frames anymore ether as it's a pretty stupid way to do things. it might work for a simple 2d platformer, but for real 3d games you want the game to calculate things over time. not frames, that messes up to easily. and i know 60 fps is better, i'll never claim against that. what i'm saying is that when you are used to gaming at 30 fps you won't feel the jump to 60. that's what i'm warning against. you and I both feel the difference between 60 and 30 fps. but if your brain is used to 30 fps you won't feel the difference. that's why console peasants say that 60 fps isn't needed: the few times they tried it their expectations of 30 fps meant that they couldn't feel it. saying that everyone always feels the difference is incorrect. and that type of talk makes them thing we are talking out of our ass.
I think despite humans not being able to see above a certain number of frames... a higher framerate is better because the way eyes track movement. (eyes track movement in a jerky motion which benefits from having more moments a image is available).
I think there is more to it than just that. There likely is a difference betweening "Seeing" somthing and "Perceiving" somthing. Seeing somthing is when you are looking at it and actively observing it. Perceiving is the ability for your brain to notice things that are there that you conciously cant. While we may only be able to See up to 30 or how many ever FPS its likely our brains Perceive up to and above 120 FPS. Easiest examples are when you think you see somthing move but werent paying attention. You didnt see it occuring but your eyes and brain where able to perceive it occuring.
We can manage around 150 idk why 30 is a thing....
I don’t agree with the stance that, “if it doesn’t run at 60 FPS, then it’s garbage.” I always felt that John was way too dismissive about it. Well, it’s nice that you can afford a computer that costs more than some cars Totalbiscuit, but what about those of us who can’t? I miss him though, I would have loved to have met him one day.
You don't need a PC that costs this much to achieve 60FPS though.
I'd say it's not they're garbage as videogames, but defective/flawed as products.
Defective or flawed? lmao is too harsh and too simplistic as it applies to most games.
Masilya111 but that was how console games were for a long time. And frame pacing is more crucial than frame rate.
I would say that maybe with a 4K monitor where achieving constant 60FPS is difficult it is fine to run lower at some points, but then you need an adaptive sync monitor (which is very common nowadays) to make it look decent.Everything below 4K resolution I always aim for high framerates 60 minimum 120Hz+ preferred.
if you have a console your a child
Your comment says more about you than the people who buy game consoles it’s plastic and electronics get over yourself who cares what you play on.
Spaceduck31 it doesn't really matter it's my opinion why do you got fly a kite
Madtrickster rc why do you go fly a kite? Why don’t you learn to use some punctuation douche canoe.
Spaceduck31 geez take it easy spacefuck enjoy your console gaming at shit fps if that's what you enjoy. the video is about how consoles and low fps are shit.
I watched the video whole video do you not think I’m not aware of that?
Don't know about that, really. I've always been unable to tell the difference between 16 FPS, and 60+. So doesn't matter to me, as long as it's not 5 FPS, or so. I'm going to wager that he was just overly hyper sensitive to it. That, or he just lusted for something to complain about.
You need to get your eyes checked.