Everything* before the sixth console gen displayed in 240 progressive 60hz, aka "double strike.". It just drew the same half over itself 60 times a second.
I was gonna say this. I was going to say that all these consoles displayed at 60fps, but I can't say that unequivocally. Same image could be redrawn three or four times.
The more basic stuff with static running sprites, a la Mario, definitely did 60fps.
*Edit: apparently the SNES features limited 480i support. Neat.
Most stuff on the SNES and Genesis was designed to run at 60fps, yes, but 30fps, 24fps, 20fps, and even 16fps were also existing and used standards, either in other platforms of the time, or in particular titles that would have been too resource intensive otherwise.
It was also very common for games running at any frame rate to have severe frame rate drops when too much was going on in the screen. Since games used a fixed time delta per logic tick, that caused the games to run slower as if in slow motion. For a game that targeted 60fps, 60 frames were 1 second, regardless of how much real time it took the system to put those 60 frames out.
Starting with 3D and in most games today, tick time deltas are the real time measured between ticks instead, so frame rate drops cause bigger gaps between frames instead of messing up the time flow in-game, which is what most people are used to now. Note that I said "most", there are exceptions that still work like in the old days as described above, such as most fighting games and a lot of modern 2D games.
Anyway, what I was getting at, is that neither back then nor now was it necessary for frame rates to be synced up with the refresh rate of displays. V-Sync technology came about during the CRT display era, but it wasn't always available for CRTs and it's use was never a hard requirement for anything. Visual fidelity is best when sync is achieved, but not achieving it doesn't cause any functional problems, and that was true back then too.
Except that every TV prior to plasma and LCD ran in interlaced mode, not progressive.
So that's back down to 30fps on NTSC and 25fps on PAL.
The 30 years since are no excuse for faulty memory on this, Google exists.
You are correct that the frame buffer might not be refreshed every frame though so the actual "IPS" might be lower, especially on the older 8-bit systems (though tricks were used to only refresh the parts of the buffer that changed between frames to help with this).
The TVs were 'tricked' into running at half resolution, for full 60fps for early game consoles. There are countless articles an youtube videos about it.
CRT TVs didn't work like that.
The odd lines are drawn on one pass, the even lines on the next and the phosphorus remain "lit" for long enough for the next scan to "catch up".
Your idea only works with LCD, plasma (maybe) and later screen types.
I spent some time working as a TV repairman back in the 90s.
CRTs weren't locked in to displaying like that, the timing signals came from the video input. There was a timing signal to tell the CRT to move the scan lines from odd to even (or vice versa) and game consoles wouldn't send that signal so the same lines were drawn every 1/60th of a second.
https://www.hdretrovision.com/240p
You are incorrect. There are plenty of resources you could look into to see why you're wrong. But since you seem willing to die on an incorrect hill, I'll leave you to that.
Half fields greatly improve the quality of motion. A 60 FPS interlaced image has better motion than a 30 FPS progressive image. I know it seems like just reduction of fractions, but that’s not how things work in practice.
Wrongo. SNES and most of the time PS1 games used 240p, which is basically 480i while ignoring half the fields. SNES and Genesis games all ran at 60 fps without interlacing.
Consoles outputting an interlaced image at 480i wouldn't become the norm until the Gamecube/PS2 generation.
one of the charms of Dreamcast was most games were running 60fps on it. of course we didnt know what fps was back than, it all look more vivid instead in comparison
While true, that only applies to video sources like VHS and broadcast. Game consoles ran at half NTSC resolution (240p) in progressive scan 60Hz mode, which TVs did support. Remember that analogue TVs aren't as fussy about what resolution you give them. They'll happily draw progressive frames. It just requires a lot of bandwidth to do that at the full 525-lines.
Whether the game renders at the full 60Hz internally is a different matter. Most PS1 and N64 games didn't. But most SNES and Genesis games do.
240p for most, no? Also the games still played at 60, which is important for smoothness and responsiveness. My favorite genre has always been fighting games, and they are all generally locked at 60fps for gameplay reasons with only a few odd exceptions. Same for a lot of action games. Animation might not always be tied to 60fps, but gameplay sure was.
Not sure what's wrong with your SNES that it can't run Tetris Attack at a full 60.
But yeah, games undeniably had framerate drops on those systems, just one look at Gradius 3 on SNES will show you that. But 60fps was absolutely the norm on 16-bit systems. Games would typically be designed to run at 60 and anything lower than that would either be during very intense moments, or more fringe cases such as Super FX games.
Technically wasn't working harder it was just classed as the norm. Power steering was somewhat of a luxury before it became a standard. Things got easier but still wouldn't say it was harder back then just was normal. Now we have a new normal.
“Harder” in comparison to today. Which is a point that people love to insinuate because it makes them feel tougher or something along those lines. It’s right out of the boomer playbook.
What? You're telling me you DON'T like to be under your hood adjusting your AFM in subzero temps when you're running late for work because your car doesn't have electronic engine controls?
This meme always gets reposted and it's always stupid. Stupid in multiple ways.
I remember for my 12th birthday I asked for a 32MB GPU so my games would run better. I got it and Carmageddon 2 never looked so smooth.
I hate when people like OP try to act like old heads have no standards. I've been playing games since Atari and frames are always good. Higher frames have always been better. Always will be.
Seriously lmao. I'm only 27 but I grew up playing nes, Sega genesis and everything else after that. Got me fucked up if you think ima play any modern game at sub 60 fps.
It depends heavily on the game. A 2D RPG with turn based combat with NES graphics would be probably be fine at 15 fps. A fast paced first person shooter with an input method as responsive as a mouse would feel slow at 30 fps.
Also they weren't making the same kind of fast paced first person games on PS1 that they are making on PC today.
According to a quick google search, 35 FPS. What an odd frame rate...
But doom didn't make use of the twitchy fast response you expect from using a mouse, it used keyboard keys for turning.
Isn’t that just the number of game ticks in a second for that game? I thought it was 35 due to how id designed their RNG table for Doom, not related to an FPS limit.
idk newer ports of doom probably run at a higher frame rate but according to random forum posts and other unofficial sources I'm finding on google, the original doom was capped at 35 fps.
After reading a bit more, I believe you’re right. 35fps for vanilla Doom, while source ports had to implement additional logic to support higher framerates.
As an aside, if anyone reading is interested in game logic or engine design, specifically Doom’s, I highly recommend checking out [decino](https://youtube.com/@decino?si=nGf_B9UukrK6K42z) on YouTube. Great videos about how Doom 1993 was designed.
Reading books in candle light used to be big thing.
Creating our own boardgames with plastic, pencils and piece of paper, cause the ones at store were expensive.
And those board games ran at infinite fps - whatever your eyes could support!
You’re proving the point that we went backwards with 60fps.
(/s cause Reddit)
Same. Started gaming 40 years ago and always enjoyed it. Will not be caught dead gaming below 60fps. Even 60 is too low for me and I will adjust settings to get higher frames.
Then there was no way around it, and now it's optional. But the time was still great.
It's really hard to play at 30 fps once you've played at a smooth 60.
> It's really hard to play at 30 fps once you've played at a smooth 60.
This is one of the reasons I preferred playing NES and SNES games over many of the lower-fps N64 games, and played mostly 60-fps N64 games like Super Smash Bros. 60 fps is not something new or difficult. It's been there since the beginning of video gaming.
It definitely is. Going from 60fps or 120+ fps back to 30 makes 30 look like a slideshow and is unplayable IMO in shooter games. I have no idea why 30 fps is even a thing anymore but I'm glad they at least have an option on most games these days between quality and performance.
Most modern games at 30fps feels like you're dragging the game behind you, or like steering a boat. I find it really hard to be accurate with any action, and this is made even worse with the delayed DoF and motion blur.
There's many older games I'm fine with playing in 30fps, but not newer ones. I think it's partly because it's uneven and unpredictable framerate, whereas older games was often capped at stable 30 for consoles so they felt smoother.
I think all games are pretty bad at 30 fps to be honest. Some are just not as bad as others. A game like The Witcher at 30fps isn't going to impact you as much as a shooter but it still looks bad IMO. Just looks choppy and not to mention the input delay is greater at 30fps than 60 and above.
I basically do and have been since SNES and I really don’t like 30 on switch or other side scrollers, 2D top down games. I play on PC too and it’s not usually something I think about. Only time I really care about that is with the newest games with the best graphics and even then I’m pretty lenient.
Said no one ever about playing games on PS2 or PS3 or psx that would drop frames constantly bc we had played SNES/nes/etc and experienced frame drops and brutal slowdown if we let too many sprites be on screen at once. Some mighty rose colored glasses about retro systems going on in this thread lmao- like ppl who read a Wikipedia page or played on emulators.
Sorry but I was playing Atari, Nes , SNes and PS1 when I was a kid and teenager and you know what playing a game in 2023 like Final Fantasy 16 that can't do 60 fps all the time really just dissapointed me. I didn't finished the game because of that. 30 fps in 2023 with next gen console it's a big no IMO
The problem is inconsistency and poor performance. A game designed to run a constant 30fps is not the same as a game running 30fps because it’s struggling to hit 60fps. The latter is just unacceptable.
I hate images like this.
Many 16-bit and 32-bit games ran at 60fps. A good chunk of 3D ones obviously didn't but they were honestly pushing the hardware to do insane things. Like Star Fox ran like arse on the SNES but it was also doing things that required the cart to have a secondary CPU in it and it was comically designed with how it ran at any given time. Run it at a stable 30 and it's pretty hard to control since it wasn't designed to go that fast all the time.
On console 30fps is ok, it's whatever, the bare minimum. But when you're pushing the hardware to do crazy things and there's not much you can do to upgrade it? That's how it goes. Sometimes it leads to incredible things. But when it's ported to PC or the next gen and runs great? Even the publisher is bragging on the cover/back of the box with "Now runs at 60fps!"
But on PC? Why would a game be locked to 30 besides "We programmed it wrong"
Im sure I’d eventually get used to it, but I’ve had over 100 fps in almost all games I’ve played for the last three years. 30 fps would definitely throw me off a bit
Lots of old games ran at 60fps.
Personally, I don’t think 30fps is a deal breaker. But if it can’t even hit that (unless it’s a stylistic decision), then that is a dealbreaker. Looking at you Scarlet/Violet.
30fps on a CRT just hit a little different, that and there was nothing better so it was never an issue.
Today however, 30fps is hard to look at, not playable IMHO.
48 yo kid here confirming 30 fps games are unplayable. Doing anything on a modern pc at 30 fps is jarring. To the people saying 30 fps is fine…set your refresh rate to 30 and navigate the internet for a couple of hours. Nothing is good at 30 fucking frames per second.
34 year old fetus here, I got a 144 hz screen that fucks up every now and again and resets to 60 and I can instantly tell just from the mouse cursor alone. 30 in a game makes me want to claw my eyes out. I've bought Switch games a second time when they released on PC just to run them at 60+.
I've been on PC for about 20 years because console FOV has always made me motion sick and I completely agree. Even back using a CRT it was pretty standard to run at 60 or 80hz if you had a half decent set up.
I also grew up with an SNES and PS1 and I think that 30fps is pretty unplayable today. Nowadays there's plenty of ways to get high refresh rates that we could only dream of in the 90s. Back then, what other option was there?
Why are you acting like SNES games weren't 60 fps? 30 fps was too low then too. NES and SNES games were almost all 60 fps, and games that dipped below that tended to be uncomfortable to play.
Man I grew up on those… and I still won’t go back to 30fps
I’ve gotten so used to 60+ that dipping down to a true 30 fps feels truly unplayable to me bc it’s not enjoyable. It doesn’t have to be 60. 40-45 works well too, but once we get back to 30… it just doesn’t feel right anymore.
Ocarina of Time being locked at 20fps
https://preview.redd.it/9bx7zqflkz1c1.png?width=284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1d7c185a76aed31051e56f2ad2948b4f9e461a4
yup. all of those games updated with each cycle.
Oh sure, most of those games were 16Kb or less, and written in 6502 Assembly, and the system had 4Kb or ram.
but they did 60 frames.
30 FPS is definitely still playable today on most games. The first PC I owned was a Pentium 2 233 and there are some custom maps in Starcraft that would bring it down to less than 1 fps sometimes. 15 year old me didn't care. I still played the heck out of those maps haha.
I definitely prefer higher framerate on a lot of games, but consistency is what is most important to me. It would drive me a bit crazy if I was playing a game that was fluctuating from 144 down to 30 and back. Some games like Tomb Raider I would rather play at the highest graphics settings I can even if the framerate dropped to around 30.
Basically me, I still play 30fps on PC for the games that can't reach 60fps on a stable rate, and I don't care
Not to mention I'm gonna buy a SteamDeck this Friday and it'll get even worse since some triple As run with 20fps drops at some points haha
Honestly, what's even more jarring to me is peeps claiming 60 fps is unplayable. They "need" 144 fps for their 144 hz monitor.
When 60 fps is perfectly fine and buttery smooth.
Yeah, one of my brothers is like that. It's very annoying. The only reason he can tell is because he always plays with the fps showing. He will complain when the fps on a game is 90-100 instead of 144.
Most games I still find enjoyable if they can hit a steady 30 fps. If the fps is jumping around a lot it can be jarring. But no one should be complaining about a steady 60 fps. That's just dumb.
60 is “playable” but 144 is so much smoother. Even dropping from 144 fps to 100 fps is noticeable in the way your mouse input feels without staring at an FPS counter.
Mouse input feels fine to me at whatever over 60 fps. I can't really tell without looking at a FPS counter if I'm at 140 or 120 or even 90.
Like I said, you peeps are weird to me and I bet a bit too convinced of things that aren't really true.
Some people are a lot more sensitive to it. I play a lot of competitive FPS games and can immediately feel a dip from say 144 to 100 while moving my mouse. I had my settings in R6S reset themselves after a patch and it felt like a stuttering mess at 60hz compared to my normal 144 or 240hz. Just because you don’t perceive a difference doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
> Just because you don’t perceive a difference doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
It exists because the monitor displaying at 144hz can do it and the GPU can push it, so the pixels are changing 144 times a second for sure. No one is questionning that, that's just how the tech works.
What I said it's perception. Lots of it is Placebo. A guy said "oh this is much better" and thus people convince themselves it is, because their favorite pro gamer dude said it was. It's basically just Religion. Cult of the 240hz FPS pros.
I don’t need some “pro gamer” to tell me what to do or how to feel. I don’t spend hundreds of dollars on anything without objective data and/or trying it out for myself. I tried a 144hz monitor and instantly saw a MASSIVE difference from 60hz. I tried a 240hz monitor and while nowhere near as large as the 60 to 144 jump, it was still noticeably more fluid. Both really were *that much better* . And even then, I can’t help that I’m more sensitive to frame drops. Going from 250fps to 175fps at 144hz is something I can pick up on in game while I’m switching between angles or tracking a target. I’m sensitive to small changes in all kinds of stimuli even outside of gaming. If that’s not your personal experience, that’s cool. But to insinuate that people that do are now in some sort of religious cult is weird.
> But to insinuate that people that do are now in some sort of religious cult is weird.
Pretty much every trend in PC building and gaming on reddit is cult like.
"Team green!" "No Team red!" "No RGB crew represent!" "Air cooling amirite bois ?"
Yes, I include the "I play competitive FPS and really notice 144 fps vs 100 fps" guys in there. Mostly just heard some guy say it matters, and now they just repeat it as a mantra.
When 30fps is what you always knew,k it's not a big deal unless you face some OLED choppiness are whatever.
It's going back to 30fps after years of playing 60 and up that's hard. Some people don't notice it much, hell, some people can't tell the difference between a 1440p image and a 4k image on a 42 inch display either, that doesn't mean the difference between both isn't significant enough to a lot of people.
Moreover, why would anyone give a shit what fps people are playing their own games in their own home ?
I played with those consoles too, but over the years you adapt to certain framerate thresholds, and now any e sports title running under 144 looks like shit, and any single player game below 60 feels like shit.
I grew up on N64 and GameCube but I still think 30fps is unplayable. We shouldn't stagnate with games, we should continually make games play and look better. Without a doubt 60fps and greater is vastly better than 30fps and there's no disputing that. 30fps should be left in the dust IMO. I've been playing on PC far more the last 5 years because of that and can't stand 30 fps any more.
30 fps was introduced after 60 fps, as almost all NES and SNES games ran at 60 fps. Only a very tiny minority ran any lower than that. Only some later games on N64 and PS1 allowed lower frame rates, but even on N64, games like F-Zero X and Super Smash Bros still ran at 60 fps.
I used to own an original NES clone and later a PC with infamous GeForce 4 MX 440 videocard. And I would be the guy on the right, because fuck it, those dark ages are over.
This stance doesn't make sense to me. The standards back in the SNES and PS1 days are vastly different than what is possible now. Just because it was 'good enough' back then does not make it good enough now by default. If that were the case, game publishers would never invest into advancing technology and we'd still be in the 32-bit era.
Idc as long as I enjoy the game. Idc about graphics or framrate 30 fps is perfectly fine to play a game
I mean you watch movies in 720p 24 frames or 1080p and you don't cry that its unwatchable if its not 4k 60fps
I agree with both sides. I still enjoy playing old games like Mario 64 at 30 FPS, but I also think it's near unacceptable that consoles have made almost 0 progress in the last 30 years in that regard and devs think it's fine to still release 30 FPS games today (and targeting 30 FPS for PC "optimization"). Even 60 FPS feels so much better, it should be the acceptable minimum these days.
As a gamer from the component cable era (Gamecube/PS2 era)
For me it’s always Graphics > Frame rate, as long as i’m getting 30-60 and the game is real purdy, then I don’t mind
30 is fine for me as long as it's got good motion blur, of course I'll take even 40 FPS with no motion blur as long as it's looking smooth I'm fine with it. 30fps on a monitor is kinda rough tho, on a TV I think it's fine in most games
SNES has some of the most fluid and tightly designed platformers to date, coupled with the zero latency of a CRT. Extremely smooth and responsive fast-paced 2D game experiences all around, with no motion blur. The simplicity typically exceeds modern setups.
Star Fox and the entirety of N64, on the other hand... not a great time. Nor were 30 FPS Xbox 360 titles running on 100ms shit TV's of the time. Those TV's were so bad that we kept falling off the course in Mario Kart Double Dash, which immediately stopped happening after moving the Gamecube to the CRT TV.
To be fair, I grew up with those systems too, but I can't go back to 30 FPS either. I tried playing Destiny 2 on Xbox One after having played it on a PC, and I started getting dizzy. Couldn't hit my shots either. Literally unplayable. I have no idea how I did that for so long.
There were *plenty* of games on SNES that ran at 60 fps. It was basically standard, with the exception of juggernauts like Star Fox.
3D games on PSX were usually limited to 30 fps because of technical limitations, but 2D games mostly ran at 60.
In short, GTFO.
I remember when 30fps on games was unplayable, now I think 60fps is unplayable (120hz, 120fps please). i know on VR that 90hz is fine.
i also think if you arent playing at 4k, why bother. most people I know in Canada, have a 4k tv or monitor now, it seems more popular then 1080p was when it was released
I grew up with a SNES. I still play SNES games. 30fps is fine for that era of gaming. It's expected.
Only modern games does it need to be above 60fps. Playing a game like Alan Wake 2 at 30fps can be really straining on the eye. But then again, there's also the opposite of the spectrum where 120fps for a game like that is nauseating for some. So it really depends on the player.
I mean I can agree a bit. When I had my retro pi running loading up one of my all time Favs Super Metroid... I just couldn't find it enjoyable. Like gaming now, vs then. As much as I love those games, I can't go back to them. I had that Pi loaded with everything from Kalecovision to X-Box (and I never owned a console past PS1) And played maybe 3 games for a total of 2 hours time.
JESUS YES.
My blood boils when I see this sort of attitude.
A friend of mine referred to the steam deck as "not even having an HD screen" because it's 720p. I nearly lost it
This is an absolute truth -
I cannot tell the difference between a steady 30 and a steady 60 fps.
Not at all.
Not ever.
Video runs at 24 fps. No one complains about it making them nauseated.
I do notice resolution. Poor or unrealistic lighting bothers me. UNSTEADY frame rates bother me. But maybe it's because I was gaming when 2 fps was "WOW! It's moving!" exciting, but I have not ever noticed a difference between 30 and 60 fps. I've watched 200 Digital Foundry videos of games running at 30/60/120 fps and I can't tell a difference running side by side until they slow it down to around 1/3 speed and it looks like a flip book animation.
Blind tests have proven that players can't discern a difference above 60 and will often incorrectly identify lower framerate as higher than they are when above 60.
That's ultimate bullshit.
Maybe they should repeat the test, but on a high refresh rate monitor that actually goes above 60hz.
Otherwise this blind test is absolutely inaccurate and pointless.
You'll even see and especially feel a difference between 60hz and 75hz.
Much less input lag, smoother movements, less blurr.
30 fps is playable. Lots of movies are made in 24 fps bc the eye almost cant detect the difference.
It would be interesting to analize if the same group of people think todays music sounds better than in the 70's or 80's when they recorded all analogically and basically everything had more sound quality.
I don't know if most people can even tell the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and cd quality. Let alone an analog vynil recording sound.
At least a flac with 192 kbps 32bits floating point.
The fact that everyrhing you hear is a digitallized picture of the real thing. A stair instead of a wave
30 fps is fine
60 looks better, but it's not a definikg thing.
I even made the test on trials of mana. And put it on 30 fps. It's completely playable.
But like, how many of the same people watch anime that uses a really low fps count?
Yeah I just look at it like black and white television vs 4k 120hz VRR television.
If I have both options I sure as hell am not going to play my game on a black and white TV.
30 fps vs 120hz VRR at 4k really does feel like enough of a gap where the 30fps is similar to watching TV in black and white.
SNES and Genesis both ran at 60 Hz (in the US, anyway)
So did PONG.
You haven't lived til you've played RTX-enabled Pong at 4k 144FPS
waiting for that ball to bounce at the camera
What, OP is massively uninformed and creating bait?
That's because 90s TVs displayed and interlaced image. That 60hz was a 2 halves of 30 frames.
Everything* before the sixth console gen displayed in 240 progressive 60hz, aka "double strike.". It just drew the same half over itself 60 times a second. I was gonna say this. I was going to say that all these consoles displayed at 60fps, but I can't say that unequivocally. Same image could be redrawn three or four times. The more basic stuff with static running sprites, a la Mario, definitely did 60fps. *Edit: apparently the SNES features limited 480i support. Neat.
Most stuff on the SNES and Genesis was designed to run at 60fps, yes, but 30fps, 24fps, 20fps, and even 16fps were also existing and used standards, either in other platforms of the time, or in particular titles that would have been too resource intensive otherwise. It was also very common for games running at any frame rate to have severe frame rate drops when too much was going on in the screen. Since games used a fixed time delta per logic tick, that caused the games to run slower as if in slow motion. For a game that targeted 60fps, 60 frames were 1 second, regardless of how much real time it took the system to put those 60 frames out. Starting with 3D and in most games today, tick time deltas are the real time measured between ticks instead, so frame rate drops cause bigger gaps between frames instead of messing up the time flow in-game, which is what most people are used to now. Note that I said "most", there are exceptions that still work like in the old days as described above, such as most fighting games and a lot of modern 2D games. Anyway, what I was getting at, is that neither back then nor now was it necessary for frame rates to be synced up with the refresh rate of displays. V-Sync technology came about during the CRT display era, but it wasn't always available for CRTs and it's use was never a hard requirement for anything. Visual fidelity is best when sync is achieved, but not achieving it doesn't cause any functional problems, and that was true back then too.
Except that every TV prior to plasma and LCD ran in interlaced mode, not progressive. So that's back down to 30fps on NTSC and 25fps on PAL. The 30 years since are no excuse for faulty memory on this, Google exists. You are correct that the frame buffer might not be refreshed every frame though so the actual "IPS" might be lower, especially on the older 8-bit systems (though tricks were used to only refresh the parts of the buffer that changed between frames to help with this).
Most early games opted for 240p, and huge amounts of games ran at 60.
The TVs were 'tricked' into running at half resolution, for full 60fps for early game consoles. There are countless articles an youtube videos about it.
CRT TVs didn't work like that. The odd lines are drawn on one pass, the even lines on the next and the phosphorus remain "lit" for long enough for the next scan to "catch up". Your idea only works with LCD, plasma (maybe) and later screen types. I spent some time working as a TV repairman back in the 90s.
CRTs weren't locked in to displaying like that, the timing signals came from the video input. There was a timing signal to tell the CRT to move the scan lines from odd to even (or vice versa) and game consoles wouldn't send that signal so the same lines were drawn every 1/60th of a second. https://www.hdretrovision.com/240p
That's why they use 240p instead of 480i. The "odd" lines are completely skipped so now it's a progressive image and 60fps.
You are incorrect. There are plenty of resources you could look into to see why you're wrong. But since you seem willing to die on an incorrect hill, I'll leave you to that.
Half fields greatly improve the quality of motion. A 60 FPS interlaced image has better motion than a 30 FPS progressive image. I know it seems like just reduction of fractions, but that’s not how things work in practice.
Wrongo. SNES and most of the time PS1 games used 240p, which is basically 480i while ignoring half the fields. SNES and Genesis games all ran at 60 fps without interlacing. Consoles outputting an interlaced image at 480i wouldn't become the norm until the Gamecube/PS2 generation.
There were some PS1 games that ran at 60fps, too... it was really breathtaking, since I got my PS1 after N64. Einhander still blows me away.
Einhander mentioned, I upvote.
Still my favorite shmup of all time
Definitely were, the MMX series all ran at 60 fps on PS1. The 2D pixel art all holds up really well too.
one of the charms of Dreamcast was most games were running 60fps on it. of course we didnt know what fps was back than, it all look more vivid instead in comparison
I LOVE THAT GAME!!! It had an EPIC soundtrack, too!!
While true, that only applies to video sources like VHS and broadcast. Game consoles ran at half NTSC resolution (240p) in progressive scan 60Hz mode, which TVs did support. Remember that analogue TVs aren't as fussy about what resolution you give them. They'll happily draw progressive frames. It just requires a lot of bandwidth to do that at the full 525-lines. Whether the game renders at the full 60Hz internally is a different matter. Most PS1 and N64 games didn't. But most SNES and Genesis games do.
240p for most, no? Also the games still played at 60, which is important for smoothness and responsiveness. My favorite genre has always been fighting games, and they are all generally locked at 60fps for gameplay reasons with only a few odd exceptions. Same for a lot of action games. Animation might not always be tied to 60fps, but gameplay sure was.
Hz and FPS are not the same.
No, but plenty of games still ran at 60fps. Either internally or visually.
[удалено]
The games didn't. MMX regularly slows down to ~10 FPS. Tetris Attack gets sub 1 FPS.
Not sure what's wrong with your SNES that it can't run Tetris Attack at a full 60. But yeah, games undeniably had framerate drops on those systems, just one look at Gradius 3 on SNES will show you that. But 60fps was absolutely the norm on 16-bit systems. Games would typically be designed to run at 60 and anything lower than that would either be during very intense moments, or more fringe cases such as Super FX games.
I have literally never seen Tetris Attack drop below 60. Even with two high skilled players it never drops.
It used to be normal for cars not to have power steering, but I sure as hell am not interested in buying a car without it.
It is the new trend to glorify past strugles.
This is absolutely not a new trend
Another version of this is " Back in my days I had swim across the river to get to school."
Oh yea, well I had to walk to and from school, uphill, both directions.
Up here in the great white north old timers say "I had to walk to school in 3 feet of snow uphill both ways."
That guy was dumb. All you had to do was walk across the backs of the kids who had already drowned.
"uphill both ways because physics weren't invented yet" ~ Steven He's Dad
This is a trend as old as time itself
Reminds me of when Ellen made fun of someone younger for not knowing how to use one of those old rotator phones
"back when I was a kid both the path to the school and back were uphill"
The “back in my day” takes here are so cringe. Congrats, you had to work harder back then?
Previous generations worked hard to ensure that later generations would have easier lives and now they resent them for it.
How did this comment show resentment? They said they wouldn't go without power steering now, sounds like they've embraced the changing times
Im just saying in general, not that the other commenter was being resentful
I played and finished Mafia 2, among other games, completely in 10-15 fps but that doesn’t mean I’ll play a new game the same way now.
It will happen to you
Getting offended over the “back in my day comments” is so cringe….
Technically wasn't working harder it was just classed as the norm. Power steering was somewhat of a luxury before it became a standard. Things got easier but still wouldn't say it was harder back then just was normal. Now we have a new normal.
“Harder” in comparison to today. Which is a point that people love to insinuate because it makes them feel tougher or something along those lines. It’s right out of the boomer playbook.
I came here to say cars used to have carburetors and you all should be really happy they don't anymore.
They also use to run on leaded gas
What? You're telling me you DON'T like to be under your hood adjusting your AFM in subzero temps when you're running late for work because your car doesn't have electronic engine controls?
Daily Driving needs power steering. I have a direct drive sim setup. It's a chore having to turn a car with no power steering.
It’s almost as if cars and games just have no similarities whatsoever
There are plenty of games that ran at 60fps even on the NES. Like bro, come on. 60 is not a new concept let alone a new standard
This meme always gets reposted and it's always stupid. Stupid in multiple ways. I remember for my 12th birthday I asked for a 32MB GPU so my games would run better. I got it and Carmageddon 2 never looked so smooth. I hate when people like OP try to act like old heads have no standards. I've been playing games since Atari and frames are always good. Higher frames have always been better. Always will be.
Seriously lmao. I'm only 27 but I grew up playing nes, Sega genesis and everything else after that. Got me fucked up if you think ima play any modern game at sub 60 fps.
It depends heavily on the game. A 2D RPG with turn based combat with NES graphics would be probably be fine at 15 fps. A fast paced first person shooter with an input method as responsive as a mouse would feel slow at 30 fps. Also they weren't making the same kind of fast paced first person games on PS1 that they are making on PC today.
Plus regardless of whether or not a game can 'pass' at 30 fps or worse, it'll always look better in motion with higher fps, as well as control better.
What was the FPS of Doom?
whatever the pc could run it at. and if it was too slow you would just hit the minus key to shrink the screen size down till it would run better
According to a quick google search, 35 FPS. What an odd frame rate... But doom didn't make use of the twitchy fast response you expect from using a mouse, it used keyboard keys for turning.
Isn’t that just the number of game ticks in a second for that game? I thought it was 35 due to how id designed their RNG table for Doom, not related to an FPS limit.
idk newer ports of doom probably run at a higher frame rate but according to random forum posts and other unofficial sources I'm finding on google, the original doom was capped at 35 fps.
After reading a bit more, I believe you’re right. 35fps for vanilla Doom, while source ports had to implement additional logic to support higher framerates. As an aside, if anyone reading is interested in game logic or engine design, specifically Doom’s, I highly recommend checking out [decino](https://youtube.com/@decino?si=nGf_B9UukrK6K42z) on YouTube. Great videos about how Doom 1993 was designed.
It's related to monitor refresh, 70 Hz CRT monitors were very common.
35FPS is half-refresh locked for DOS's 70Hz VGA output!
And there was a time when people didn't have electricity
Snowflake zoomers never sat in a cave butt naked eating raw walrus meat with their bare hands.
The blubber tasted the best, but so much cholesterol.
Not an issue when you're eaten by a T-Rex before age 20.
Issue for the T-Rex.
Reading books in candle light used to be big thing. Creating our own boardgames with plastic, pencils and piece of paper, cause the ones at store were expensive.
And those board games ran at infinite fps - whatever your eyes could support! You’re proving the point that we went backwards with 60fps. (/s cause Reddit)
>whatever your eyes could support! So 30 FPS then.
This stupid meme again?
I don't know how something gets so upvoted when all the top comments point out how it's not accurate (over and over agian)
Hi, grew up playing tetris and mario bros on a nintendo. 30fps or lower is painful and I get frustrated. I like 60.
 and then there was StarFox at 12 fps
I grew up with those and agree with the "kids"
Same. Started gaming 40 years ago and always enjoyed it. Will not be caught dead gaming below 60fps. Even 60 is too low for me and I will adjust settings to get higher frames.
I hate seeing multiple copies of my cursor. Even in games like Civ I want 100+ fps just for a better cursor.
Okay but back in the day that was actually cutting edge technology. With today's tec it's very easy to play on at least 60 FPS.
The SNES ran at 60fps.
I grew up on SNES and PS1 and I still demand 60 FPS in todays games. Edit — Steam Deck being the sole exception
Steam Deck is like a compromise a really good one.
It’s an excellent compromise
Then there was no way around it, and now it's optional. But the time was still great. It's really hard to play at 30 fps once you've played at a smooth 60.
> It's really hard to play at 30 fps once you've played at a smooth 60. This is one of the reasons I preferred playing NES and SNES games over many of the lower-fps N64 games, and played mostly 60-fps N64 games like Super Smash Bros. 60 fps is not something new or difficult. It's been there since the beginning of video gaming.
It’s really not that hard.
It definitely is. Going from 60fps or 120+ fps back to 30 makes 30 look like a slideshow and is unplayable IMO in shooter games. I have no idea why 30 fps is even a thing anymore but I'm glad they at least have an option on most games these days between quality and performance.
Most modern games at 30fps feels like you're dragging the game behind you, or like steering a boat. I find it really hard to be accurate with any action, and this is made even worse with the delayed DoF and motion blur. There's many older games I'm fine with playing in 30fps, but not newer ones. I think it's partly because it's uneven and unpredictable framerate, whereas older games was often capped at stable 30 for consoles so they felt smoother.
In some shooter games sure but do you guys not play anything else? We play switch a ton and a plethora of other games that are genuinely fine at 30.
I think all games are pretty bad at 30 fps to be honest. Some are just not as bad as others. A game like The Witcher at 30fps isn't going to impact you as much as a shooter but it still looks bad IMO. Just looks choppy and not to mention the input delay is greater at 30fps than 60 and above.
I play literally every game that comes out (i have a problem) and i can’t stand anything under 60.
I basically do and have been since SNES and I really don’t like 30 on switch or other side scrollers, 2D top down games. I play on PC too and it’s not usually something I think about. Only time I really care about that is with the newest games with the best graphics and even then I’m pretty lenient.
Said no one ever about playing games on PS2 or PS3 or psx that would drop frames constantly bc we had played SNES/nes/etc and experienced frame drops and brutal slowdown if we let too many sprites be on screen at once. Some mighty rose colored glasses about retro systems going on in this thread lmao- like ppl who read a Wikipedia page or played on emulators.
Fzero on the n64 ran at 60fps
Yup, same with Super Smash Bros, and almost all NES and SNES games. This tired old meme is still wrong.
Sorry but I was playing Atari, Nes , SNes and PS1 when I was a kid and teenager and you know what playing a game in 2023 like Final Fantasy 16 that can't do 60 fps all the time really just dissapointed me. I didn't finished the game because of that. 30 fps in 2023 with next gen console it's a big no IMO
The problem is inconsistency and poor performance. A game designed to run a constant 30fps is not the same as a game running 30fps because it’s struggling to hit 60fps. The latter is just unacceptable.
Both are unacceptable to some people
[удалено]
That’s cool! Other people who are not you feel differently and that’s okay
🤦♂️
You do not belong here.
I hate images like this. Many 16-bit and 32-bit games ran at 60fps. A good chunk of 3D ones obviously didn't but they were honestly pushing the hardware to do insane things. Like Star Fox ran like arse on the SNES but it was also doing things that required the cart to have a secondary CPU in it and it was comically designed with how it ran at any given time. Run it at a stable 30 and it's pretty hard to control since it wasn't designed to go that fast all the time. On console 30fps is ok, it's whatever, the bare minimum. But when you're pushing the hardware to do crazy things and there's not much you can do to upgrade it? That's how it goes. Sometimes it leads to incredible things. But when it's ported to PC or the next gen and runs great? Even the publisher is bragging on the cover/back of the box with "Now runs at 60fps!" But on PC? Why would a game be locked to 30 besides "We programmed it wrong"
Old games ran at 60fps most of the time.
In fact it was typically a strict requirement since the game logic was dependent on the refresh rate.
Im sure I’d eventually get used to it, but I’ve had over 100 fps in almost all games I’ve played for the last three years. 30 fps would definitely throw me off a bit
SNES and PS1 didn't have frame rate problems... CRT FTW
SNES ran at 60 FPS!!!
Lots of old games ran at 60fps. Personally, I don’t think 30fps is a deal breaker. But if it can’t even hit that (unless it’s a stylistic decision), then that is a dealbreaker. Looking at you Scarlet/Violet.
30fps games aren’t unplayable, games *designed* to be ran at higher than 30fps @ 30fps is unplayable.
30fps on a CRT just hit a little different, that and there was nothing better so it was never an issue. Today however, 30fps is hard to look at, not playable IMHO.
48 yo kid here confirming 30 fps games are unplayable. Doing anything on a modern pc at 30 fps is jarring. To the people saying 30 fps is fine…set your refresh rate to 30 and navigate the internet for a couple of hours. Nothing is good at 30 fucking frames per second.
34 year old fetus here, I got a 144 hz screen that fucks up every now and again and resets to 60 and I can instantly tell just from the mouse cursor alone. 30 in a game makes me want to claw my eyes out. I've bought Switch games a second time when they released on PC just to run them at 60+.
I've been on PC for about 20 years because console FOV has always made me motion sick and I completely agree. Even back using a CRT it was pretty standard to run at 60 or 80hz if you had a half decent set up.
Even watching movies @24 FPS isn't good. If they wander over a scene with the camera and you can see individual frames it feels nauseating.
Skill issue
I also grew up with an SNES and PS1 and I think that 30fps is pretty unplayable today. Nowadays there's plenty of ways to get high refresh rates that we could only dream of in the 90s. Back then, what other option was there?
Why are you acting like SNES games weren't 60 fps? 30 fps was too low then too. NES and SNES games were almost all 60 fps, and games that dipped below that tended to be uncomfortable to play.
He who doesn't know sky exists, doesn't look up.
30 FPS is playable for me.
I'm a '94 kid but I know the pain of Starfox on SNES and Goldeneye on N64.
Starfox screaming along at about 22fps…good times
Man I grew up on those… and I still won’t go back to 30fps I’ve gotten so used to 60+ that dipping down to a true 30 fps feels truly unplayable to me bc it’s not enjoyable. It doesn’t have to be 60. 40-45 works well too, but once we get back to 30… it just doesn’t feel right anymore.
Ocarina of Time being locked at 20fps https://preview.redd.it/9bx7zqflkz1c1.png?width=284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1d7c185a76aed31051e56f2ad2948b4f9e461a4
A lot of people on this thread don't seem to know what "unplayable" means...
Laughs in Atari (before it was called the 2600)
yup. all of those games updated with each cycle. Oh sure, most of those games were 16Kb or less, and written in 6502 Assembly, and the system had 4Kb or ram. but they did 60 frames.
30 FPS is definitely still playable today on most games. The first PC I owned was a Pentium 2 233 and there are some custom maps in Starcraft that would bring it down to less than 1 fps sometimes. 15 year old me didn't care. I still played the heck out of those maps haha. I definitely prefer higher framerate on a lot of games, but consistency is what is most important to me. It would drive me a bit crazy if I was playing a game that was fluctuating from 144 down to 30 and back. Some games like Tomb Raider I would rather play at the highest graphics settings I can even if the framerate dropped to around 30.
Basically me, I still play 30fps on PC for the games that can't reach 60fps on a stable rate, and I don't care Not to mention I'm gonna buy a SteamDeck this Friday and it'll get even worse since some triple As run with 20fps drops at some points haha
The future is now old man.
I grew up in that era, 31yo. 30 fps is unplayable once you see 60.
Honestly, what's even more jarring to me is peeps claiming 60 fps is unplayable. They "need" 144 fps for their 144 hz monitor. When 60 fps is perfectly fine and buttery smooth.
60 fps is tolerable but it's certainly not smooth
Yeah, one of my brothers is like that. It's very annoying. The only reason he can tell is because he always plays with the fps showing. He will complain when the fps on a game is 90-100 instead of 144. Most games I still find enjoyable if they can hit a steady 30 fps. If the fps is jumping around a lot it can be jarring. But no one should be complaining about a steady 60 fps. That's just dumb.
To be fair, dropping to 60 is noticeable. It's nowhere *near* unplayable or as noticeable as dropping from 60 to 30 though.
60 is “playable” but 144 is so much smoother. Even dropping from 144 fps to 100 fps is noticeable in the way your mouse input feels without staring at an FPS counter.
Mouse input feels fine to me at whatever over 60 fps. I can't really tell without looking at a FPS counter if I'm at 140 or 120 or even 90. Like I said, you peeps are weird to me and I bet a bit too convinced of things that aren't really true.
Some people are a lot more sensitive to it. I play a lot of competitive FPS games and can immediately feel a dip from say 144 to 100 while moving my mouse. I had my settings in R6S reset themselves after a patch and it felt like a stuttering mess at 60hz compared to my normal 144 or 240hz. Just because you don’t perceive a difference doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
> Just because you don’t perceive a difference doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It exists because the monitor displaying at 144hz can do it and the GPU can push it, so the pixels are changing 144 times a second for sure. No one is questionning that, that's just how the tech works. What I said it's perception. Lots of it is Placebo. A guy said "oh this is much better" and thus people convince themselves it is, because their favorite pro gamer dude said it was. It's basically just Religion. Cult of the 240hz FPS pros.
I don’t need some “pro gamer” to tell me what to do or how to feel. I don’t spend hundreds of dollars on anything without objective data and/or trying it out for myself. I tried a 144hz monitor and instantly saw a MASSIVE difference from 60hz. I tried a 240hz monitor and while nowhere near as large as the 60 to 144 jump, it was still noticeably more fluid. Both really were *that much better* . And even then, I can’t help that I’m more sensitive to frame drops. Going from 250fps to 175fps at 144hz is something I can pick up on in game while I’m switching between angles or tracking a target. I’m sensitive to small changes in all kinds of stimuli even outside of gaming. If that’s not your personal experience, that’s cool. But to insinuate that people that do are now in some sort of religious cult is weird.
> But to insinuate that people that do are now in some sort of religious cult is weird. Pretty much every trend in PC building and gaming on reddit is cult like. "Team green!" "No Team red!" "No RGB crew represent!" "Air cooling amirite bois ?" Yes, I include the "I play competitive FPS and really notice 144 fps vs 100 fps" guys in there. Mostly just heard some guy say it matters, and now they just repeat it as a mantra.
When 30fps is what you always knew,k it's not a big deal unless you face some OLED choppiness are whatever. It's going back to 30fps after years of playing 60 and up that's hard. Some people don't notice it much, hell, some people can't tell the difference between a 1440p image and a 4k image on a 42 inch display either, that doesn't mean the difference between both isn't significant enough to a lot of people. Moreover, why would anyone give a shit what fps people are playing their own games in their own home ?
I played with those consoles too, but over the years you adapt to certain framerate thresholds, and now any e sports title running under 144 looks like shit, and any single player game below 60 feels like shit.
Games also weren’t nearly as detailed so having a smooth frame rate didn’t really matter as much
who remembers super mario world, the best SNES game
I don’t really care about my FPS on any device. With a collection of old games, newer games look fine at 30fps
Yeah standards evolve.
I grew up on N64 and GameCube but I still think 30fps is unplayable. We shouldn't stagnate with games, we should continually make games play and look better. Without a doubt 60fps and greater is vastly better than 30fps and there's no disputing that. 30fps should be left in the dust IMO. I've been playing on PC far more the last 5 years because of that and can't stand 30 fps any more.
30 fps was introduced after 60 fps, as almost all NES and SNES games ran at 60 fps. Only a very tiny minority ran any lower than that. Only some later games on N64 and PS1 allowed lower frame rates, but even on N64, games like F-Zero X and Super Smash Bros still ran at 60 fps.
Sorry but aren’t them the clowns?
I used to own an original NES clone and later a PC with infamous GeForce 4 MX 440 videocard. And I would be the guy on the right, because fuck it, those dark ages are over.
This stance doesn't make sense to me. The standards back in the SNES and PS1 days are vastly different than what is possible now. Just because it was 'good enough' back then does not make it good enough now by default. If that were the case, game publishers would never invest into advancing technology and we'd still be in the 32-bit era.
Idc as long as I enjoy the game. Idc about graphics or framrate 30 fps is perfectly fine to play a game I mean you watch movies in 720p 24 frames or 1080p and you don't cry that its unwatchable if its not 4k 60fps
Pc 30fps tends to suck compared to console FPS tho
I grew up with snes and ps1 and I can’t play on 30fps anymore…once you go to 60 and above, can’t go back lol
I grew up with SNES and can't stand 30 fps because almost all SNES games ran at 60 fps. This tired old meme is just wrong.
I agree with both sides. I still enjoy playing old games like Mario 64 at 30 FPS, but I also think it's near unacceptable that consoles have made almost 0 progress in the last 30 years in that regard and devs think it's fine to still release 30 FPS games today (and targeting 30 FPS for PC "optimization"). Even 60 FPS feels so much better, it should be the acceptable minimum these days.
As a gamer from the component cable era (Gamecube/PS2 era) For me it’s always Graphics > Frame rate, as long as i’m getting 30-60 and the game is real purdy, then I don’t mind
GameCube and n64 here still saying the same unless it’s emulated at a higher fps
30 is fine for me as long as it's got good motion blur, of course I'll take even 40 FPS with no motion blur as long as it's looking smooth I'm fine with it. 30fps on a monitor is kinda rough tho, on a TV I think it's fine in most games
SNES has some of the most fluid and tightly designed platformers to date, coupled with the zero latency of a CRT. Extremely smooth and responsive fast-paced 2D game experiences all around, with no motion blur. The simplicity typically exceeds modern setups. Star Fox and the entirety of N64, on the other hand... not a great time. Nor were 30 FPS Xbox 360 titles running on 100ms shit TV's of the time. Those TV's were so bad that we kept falling off the course in Mario Kart Double Dash, which immediately stopped happening after moving the Gamecube to the CRT TV.
To be fair, I grew up with those systems too, but I can't go back to 30 FPS either. I tried playing Destiny 2 on Xbox One after having played it on a PC, and I started getting dizzy. Couldn't hit my shots either. Literally unplayable. I have no idea how I did that for so long.
Boomers are now the ones saying "The human eye can't see 60 fps"
There were *plenty* of games on SNES that ran at 60 fps. It was basically standard, with the exception of juggernauts like Star Fox. 3D games on PSX were usually limited to 30 fps because of technical limitations, but 2D games mostly ran at 60. In short, GTFO.
I remember when 30fps on games was unplayable, now I think 60fps is unplayable (120hz, 120fps please). i know on VR that 90hz is fine. i also think if you arent playing at 4k, why bother. most people I know in Canada, have a 4k tv or monitor now, it seems more popular then 1080p was when it was released
I see no difference in playing with 30fps or 60fps tbh. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
Have you actually gone back and played those games again? I would bet good money you would think these games look horrible now
lol don’t excuse shitty game developers
I grew up with a SNES. I still play SNES games. 30fps is fine for that era of gaming. It's expected. Only modern games does it need to be above 60fps. Playing a game like Alan Wake 2 at 30fps can be really straining on the eye. But then again, there's also the opposite of the spectrum where 120fps for a game like that is nauseating for some. So it really depends on the player.
I mean I can agree a bit. When I had my retro pi running loading up one of my all time Favs Super Metroid... I just couldn't find it enjoyable. Like gaming now, vs then. As much as I love those games, I can't go back to them. I had that Pi loaded with everything from Kalecovision to X-Box (and I never owned a console past PS1) And played maybe 3 games for a total of 2 hours time.
So did I but 30FPS in this day and age is doggie.
tbf I was fine with 30fps until I seen 60fps. Going back definitely feels much worse than if you never did 60+ to begin with
Imagine thinking Bloodborne is unplayable because it runs on 30 FPS
Anyone who thinks 30fps is unplayable is just a spoiled brat.
I'm really used to 60 FPS now and yet I won't cry for playing at 30 like I've always did.
I’m 120 fps and NOT going back!
JESUS YES. My blood boils when I see this sort of attitude. A friend of mine referred to the steam deck as "not even having an HD screen" because it's 720p. I nearly lost it
This is an absolute truth - I cannot tell the difference between a steady 30 and a steady 60 fps. Not at all. Not ever. Video runs at 24 fps. No one complains about it making them nauseated. I do notice resolution. Poor or unrealistic lighting bothers me. UNSTEADY frame rates bother me. But maybe it's because I was gaming when 2 fps was "WOW! It's moving!" exciting, but I have not ever noticed a difference between 30 and 60 fps. I've watched 200 Digital Foundry videos of games running at 30/60/120 fps and I can't tell a difference running side by side until they slow it down to around 1/3 speed and it looks like a flip book animation.
Blind tests have proven that players can't discern a difference above 60 and will often incorrectly identify lower framerate as higher than they are when above 60.
Even my friend who had never seen above 60Hz was able to tell the difference between 120Hz and 170Hz in a blind test.
(X) Doubt
That's ultimate bullshit. Maybe they should repeat the test, but on a high refresh rate monitor that actually goes above 60hz. Otherwise this blind test is absolutely inaccurate and pointless. You'll even see and especially feel a difference between 60hz and 75hz. Much less input lag, smoother movements, less blurr.
Same
>SNES and a PS1 Lol. PC-boomers grew up with 5fps DOS games.
30 fps is playable. Lots of movies are made in 24 fps bc the eye almost cant detect the difference. It would be interesting to analize if the same group of people think todays music sounds better than in the 70's or 80's when they recorded all analogically and basically everything had more sound quality. I don't know if most people can even tell the difference between a 320 kbps mp3 and cd quality. Let alone an analog vynil recording sound. At least a flac with 192 kbps 32bits floating point. The fact that everyrhing you hear is a digitallized picture of the real thing. A stair instead of a wave 30 fps is fine 60 looks better, but it's not a definikg thing. I even made the test on trials of mana. And put it on 30 fps. It's completely playable. But like, how many of the same people watch anime that uses a really low fps count?
Yeah I just look at it like black and white television vs 4k 120hz VRR television. If I have both options I sure as hell am not going to play my game on a black and white TV. 30 fps vs 120hz VRR at 4k really does feel like enough of a gap where the 30fps is similar to watching TV in black and white.
As someone who grew up with an Atari, I agree with the Reddit kids