Sections

Carmack believes many “Next-gen games will still target 30 FPS”

Tuesday, 18th December 2012 08:14 GMT By Dave Cook

id Software co-founder John Carmack has stated that many next-gen software developers will continue to pursue 30 FPS titles, despite the additional clout of improved hardware from platform holders.

Carmack stated his concern over Twitter but didn’t offer any reasoning for his claim:

The tweet was in response to a fan question regarding the use of 30 FPS in next-gen titles – a fitting question for Carmack – whose titles Rage and Doom 3: BFG Edition both hit that 60 FPS sweet spot.

Even now, 60 FPS seems to be the threshold to aim for, with many gamers voicing disappointment when game fail to hit that magic number. It seems as if 60 FPS will still be a gold standard in the next generation if Carmack is to be believed.

What’s your view?

Thanks AusGamers.

Breaking news

43 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Double2Seven

    Of course it will….Many of the first batch of titles will not be as much optimised , as currente generation games….And the next generation consoles will not be as powerfull as people think, and even if they do, developers sooner or latter will trade the 60 fps for more complex games.

    Racing games and shooters , are the games i like to have in 60fps, but Forza Horizon is 30 fps, and its a great and playable game.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Erthazus

    They never will be in 60 frames per second in the next gen because hardware will be limited as always and we will have the same corridor shooters but with 2x or 3x quality in visuals, physics, details.

    I hate playing in less then 60 frames because after few hours my eyes start to hurt.

    45-60+ is much better thing.
    Try playing World Of Warcraft with 30 frames per second on a 25 man raid full of special effects and your eyes will go apeshit after a while.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Malmer

    For a huge amount of games 30 fps is the right call. It suspends disbelief and pulls you into the world. The feeling of fake is exaggerated in higher framerates. 30 fps is a perfect balance between gameplay and immersion.

    Sure, there are games – such as fighting games and sport games – where a higher frame rate is nessesary. But your regular action adventure is not one of those. And RPGs don’t need it at all.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. DrDamn

    Yeah expected really. As long as people go for the pretty stills rather than smoother gameplay then 30fps will be the target for a lot of game.

    Certain types of game will go for the higher figure. Anything where the view is more game controlled (like the Rayman titles for example) can shoot for more. 1080p 60fps is realistic there even on current hardware.

    @Erth
    Smoothness is key though so 45fps is going to look juddery on a 60Hz display. So 30 or preferably 60 needs to be the target for a home console.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. viralshag

    I wonder if the majority of gamers actually care about something like frame rate.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Docker Al

    I really hope he’s wrong,30 fps is just rubbish and it would be great to have something other than COD to play.It is staggering that with all the publishers trying to copy COD the one thing they never copy is the silky smooth “feel” of 60 fps.
    @5 it may be true that most gamers don’t know anything about frame rates but they know what they like and nothing else feels as smooth as COD’s 60 fps. You can be damned certain that Activision know exactly how important frame rate is to the success of COD. For those who are baffled about all this play some COD for an hour and then go immediately to a 30 fps game, say Halo or Battlefield 3 and it will feel like molasses. I’m talking consoles here by the way. I’m well aware that B3 and others do run at 60 fps on pc.Keep in mind also that 30 fps also has double the input lag from your controller.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. G1GAHURTZ

    No more 30fps games for me, thanks.

    60 or nothing.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Dave Cook

    @7 limiting your choice of games drastically there man :P

    Did you played Far Cry 3 yet? The jerkiness of the screen, particularly when looking around on the spot honestly makes me feel like I’m going to be sick. Shockingly bad frame rate on Xbox 360.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. G1GAHURTZ

    Nah, haven’t played it yet. Low frame rates give me a feeling of nausea, too, though.

    It’s shocking that every new generation, devs seem to think that 25fps is good enough. They’ve got to make 1080p/60 standard this time.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Francis O

    @8 Dave Cook,

    - Really? Everybody is praising Far Cry 3 like its best shooter ever with all of its super high review scores and it has frame rate issues?

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Dave Cook

    @10 because frame rate is somewhere near the bottom – if not the bottom – of my priority list for whether a game is good or not. It could look like an 8-bit shooter for all I care – as long a sit handles well (it does) and has a story that hooks me in (it does) then visuals and frame-rate matter much less.

    That’s just me though :)

    Far Cry 3 gets everything else right imo.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. viralshag

    @6, Do you really think that the frame rate is a reason for CoD to sell it’s millions though? Don’t get me wrong, for a lot of that crowd it probably could be.

    I have at least 10 friends that play BO2 for instance, I reckon myself and maybe one other knows or cares what frame rate they’re playing on. Obviously that’s based on a personal number but I still find it hard to believe the majority care. Of course I could be totally wrong but I just think if I was and FPS really was that important, why wouldn’t all those people flock to the PC to avoid those issues?

    @10, To be fair, FC3 is an absolutely amazing game!

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Stardog

    Just do what I do – play PC games.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. DrDamn

    @12
    You have to know or care what the frame rate is to understand it feels better to play though. There are quite a few reasons they don’t flock to the PC, but one of them is that they don’t know or care what the frame rate is :)

    #14 2 years ago
  15. G1GAHURTZ

    @12:

    Sure, they might not know what frame rate is, but I’m sure that they know that it’s somehow ‘smoother’.

    And when they pick up other games, I’m sure they can also feel that the ‘smoothness’ just doesn’t exist.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Edo

    A short but educational read http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html ….and sometimes it’s just sour grapes.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. viralshag

    @14 and 15, but like Dave said, I think frame rate is often going to be bottom of the priority list for the average gamer. Personally I think if you actually really care about something like that kinda sets you out of that “average” group.

    What I’m trying to say is there are far more important things to a lot of gamers than frame rate and that it’s really not a major selling point. That’s just my opinion of course.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. DrDamn

    @17
    What I’m saying is that frame rate is something the average gamer cares about, but they have no idea what it is. They just know the game feels better to play. I.e. ask them which game has the higher frame rate and they will glaze over, ask them which one is better to play and they will know.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Erthazus

    I played FFXIII-2 and enjoyed it a lot, but damn I wish that game had more then 20+ FPS at some places especially when there was a scene in a gigantic sci-fi city. Gorgeous stuff.

    Also, frame rate is not a selling point at all because people just don’t understand it and most of the guys that play games i hear: “I’m tired of it and I want to go to sleep” (or do something else) because in reality eyes are going apeshit at the certain moment.

    60 frames per second won’t do this.
    + for the hardcore gamers 60 frames per second is a must.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. viralshag

    @18, That will only work in comparison of games in the same genre though… I know what FPS is, I understand what it is, is it a reason I like to play BO2? Not really, I play it because I know my friends will and it’s fun, which is the same reason we played MoH, FIFA and Halo.

    Like Erth said, 60fps is for the “hardcore”. Most gamers will play CoD, Mass Effect, dishonored… and the difference in FPS is probably the last thing they will notice.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. blackdreamhunk

    reasons why the gaming industry is going down hill! Carmack hard on for console no surprise there.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. DrDamn

    @21
    I think you may have just superimposed your own opinion on what you think this article might possibly have been about.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. Docker Al

    @12 as DrDamn says whether or not the average gamer knows about frame rate is irrelevant to the point I’m making-it’s all about the feel. The mass market,the gamer who never reads sites like this, are gamers who most likely only buy 1 or 2 shooters a year. When they play a 30 fps game they know it’s different. When you’re used to COD other shooters do feel clunky, regardless of if you know the terminology or not.Also as Erthazus says eye strain can become an issue for some,particularly when playing for hours on end.And don’t forget the input lag-you pull the trigger and it takes twice as long before your bullet leaves your gun in a 30 fps game. Ditto for moving and every other input. If COD were suddenly to go 30 fps it would kill the franchise stone dead.Like I said Acti,Treyarch and IW know how important this is. The question is why are other publishers/developers not able to see it?

    #23 2 years ago
  24. DrDamn

    @23
    “The question is why are other publishers/developers not able to see it?”

    I’m not sure it’s that they can’t see it, more that they need to differentiate themselves. CoD maintains 60fps by not doing a lot of stuff other games do. If they also take this out there is not a lot left to really differentiate themselves with if they want to sit in the same sort of space (online military FPS).

    For example Battlefield is more about larger maps, vehicles, more players and better physics. That impacts the framerate and the devs themselves have discussed this point. If they wanted to hit 60fps and still include all these things then the graphics engine would have to be more basic than the one CoD gets stick for (from a stills perspective).

    #24 2 years ago
  25. viralshag

    @23, I’m sorry but I disagree.

    “The mass market,the gamer who never reads sites like this, are gamers who most likely only buy 1 or 2 shooters a year. When they play a 30 fps game they know it’s different.”

    Do you really think all those people who are buying the most popular, well advertised and played game by their friends game are sold on the frame rate?

    I really think you are putting FPS on a pedestal that is really not that important in comparison to all the other things the game offers.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. DrDamn

    @25
    They aren’t sold on the frame rate directly, but on how the game feels to play – and that is affected by the frame rate. Yes of course they are affected by the actual implementation and options too – but the frame rate is part of it.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. G1GAHURTZ

    It’s not sold on the frame rate alone.

    Nobody’s saying that it’s sold on the frame rate alone.

    But the frame rate is an important piece in the puzzle, along with many other pieces, that make the game sell as well as it does.

    Basically, my point, and I’m not sure if other people here have the same one or not, is about a subject that we’ve already touched on.

    Compromise.

    You either have 60fps and hold back on other things, or you have an engine that looks amazing in screenshots, but runs at 30fps or less.

    Games are supposed to be moving forward, so next gen, I want 1080/60 as a bare minimum. Forget your compromises, Carmack. I want the works, so if the average gamer doesn’t know the difference between 60 or 25fps, why should that hold gaming back?

    If the average gamer doesn’t know the difference between 720p and 1080p, why should that hold gaming back?

    If the average gamer doesn’t know the difference between a pixel and a polygon, why should that hold gaming back?

    Lets leave the compromises in the last gen.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. Cobra951

    By cutting the frame rate in half, you double the rendering time of each still shot, upping the freeze-frame quality significantly. Still shots are what end up on sites like this one. Trailer videos are usually 30 fps or less too, so 60 fps won’t help them either.

    As long as gamers don’t demand the sacrifice of some still-shot detail to get perfect frame rate (60 fps fully synched to a 60Hz progressive display) the advertising pressure to show the prettiest images at the expense of frame rate may continue, regardless of hardware.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. Docker Al

    @25 You clerly can’t read. How many times do I have to say it’s about how the game feels to play. No they are not sold on the frame rate: as I said they most likely have no idea about the frame rate. You say it’s “not that important”? A key feature of the biggest selling game in the world? A feature that is considered an absolute priority by the developers/publishers? Well then maybe they make it this way ’cause they like a challenge.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. friendlydave

    @27 Can’t happen. Like you said it is supposed to move forward so even in the next generation we will get to a point where the engine/graphics will be to much for the machines to run in what will be claimed as the ideal frame rate, unless the machines will be upgradable which I doubt.

    and personally I think for games to ‘move forward’ they need to concentrate more on story and individuality, both don’t necessarly require 1080p or 60 fps.

    On point I hate Carmack and Doom 3:BFG was a joke 60fps or not.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. Erthazus

    @G1GAHURTZ, “You either have 60fps and hold back on other things, or you have an engine that looks amazing in screenshots, but runs at 30fps or less.

    Games are supposed to be moving forward, so next gen, I want 1080/60 as a bare minimum.”

    If you want that, you need to stop playing on consoles because next gen, even in next-next gen this is impossible to do.
    Games are better every year and they have much better details in the end. You can’t make a 60 frames per second game every year if your hardware is limited and you can’t change that no matter how you want. Hardware is limited.

    So your wishes are impossible. Next gen will still have a videocard that will have it’s limits but with direct X11, maybe 1080p in some games as a standard this time.

    #31 2 years ago
  32. DrDamn

    @31
    Even the PS3/360 can do 1080p/60fps games so impossible is nothing to do with it. It’s compromises to achieve that being acceptable to gamers or not.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. Erthazus

    “Even the PS3/360 can do 1080p/60fps games ”

    LOLWUT? What? Ahaha. 3 shitty games you mean in 1080p and 60 frames? I don’t even know them.
    I remember only Gran turismo 5 that was in 1080p, maybe GT 5 prologue and indie games.

    when i’m talking about 1080p and 60 frames, i’m talking about every AAA game on console. PS3/360 can’t do SHIT with 60 frames and 1080p. Some of the games on consoles even SUB-HD and lower then 30 frames at the same time.

    360 and PS3 in 1080p/60 frames… Roflmao you made my day.

    #33 2 years ago
  34. DrDamn

    @33
    I said then *can* not that they *did*. There isn’t a technical limitation stopping it. What’s stopping it is the expectation of gamers.

    You need to check out what impossible means.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. Cobra951

    720p/60Hz is very achievable on the current gen. Rage (as maligned as it otherwise may be) did it. Forza 4 did it. Burnout Paradise did it.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. OlderGamer

    Two things, Doc is pretty much right…on all fronts.

    Second is….I told you so ;) No way next gen is going to be as powerfull as many of us were hoping.

    As long as devs have to make a choice between stuff like frame rates, AA or droping more detailts or better textures… Ya know?

    The games will look nice enough. I doubt too many of us will complain when we first play one. Personaly I will take game design, mechanics and arts style over number of gelgaflops or trihoofels.

    The biggest next gen feature I want from hardware is an integrated second screen. But thatbis another thread.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. G1GAHURTZ

    It’s a very simple process here, guys.

    You find out what PC spec you need to run a game like BF3 on ultra at 1080/60, and shove it into a console.

    It’s not rocket science.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. OlderGamer

    I agree that would be nice ghz, but it also might be too much to produce. Look at what WiiU costs. Plus current gen systems really are only just starting to reach lower numbers.

    I bet price is one of biggest reasons this gen has been so long. It might come aday when PC is the only real option for true high end gaming. Some can make tat case already.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. G1GAHURTZ

    The cost of the Wii U is so high because of the unnecessary controller.

    Besides, we’ve already seen MS testing the subscription plan, so there are many ways to balance the cost to manufacture with retail price.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. OlderGamer

    I think the subscription plan is prolly the way of the future for hardware.

    And you would have to pry this Gamepad out of my cold dead fingers if you were to take it away. Unnesecary lol. The WiiU would just be another xb or ps w/o it man. And I already own two of those, don’t need or want a third.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. solo king

    What the fuck!?!? 30 FPS?

    I remember when I was using 4:3 resolution monitors, I could go as high as 90herts refresh rate.

    And one day I switched to widescreen, and the highest available refresh rate was a whopping 60 hertz !!!!!!

    And now comes 30 FPS for next gen console games ?!?! WHAT THE FUCK !?!? So much for technological progress.

    I gave up playing on PS3 because I feel like vomiting whenever I rotate the camera for more than 5 seconds.

    #41 1 year ago
  42. Fin

    God who gives a fuck if it’s 30fps.

    If the game is fun to play fps doesn’t matter (so long as it’s acceptable). Sure 60fps is nice, but it’s not a fucking dealbreaker.

    #42 1 year ago
  43. Jerykk

    @3

    Silliest thing I’ve heard all week. A lower framerate helps you suspend your disbelief? Really? If we were talking about movies, you might have a point since we’ve been conditioned to watch movies at 24 FPS. However, games are not movies and have yet to come close to photorealism. At no point will you ever confuse any existing game for reality.

    Higher framerates result in objectively smoother and more responsive experiences. Low framerates just serve as a distraction. Every single game benefits from having a high framerate (60 FPS or higher).

    You can argue that 60+ FPS isn’t necessary for an enjoyable experience and many people would agree. However, to claim that higher frame rates are actually detrimental is simply absurd.

    #43 1 year ago