Games recommending 30 FPS? I thought 60FPS was supposed to be the Bare Minimum acceptable FPS?

[JimmyRecard00]

Hello

I just went to the link for Assassin's Creed: Odyssey to see the various levels of System Requirements and I was shocked to see at all hardware levels it recommended 30PFS?

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/...nts-for-assassins-creed-odyssey/000060740#CPU

What the fudge?

Is this just some lazy copy paste job from the Playstation specs that didn't get corrected?

Surely FPS don't work differently now days - still exactly the same?

I'm baffled!


cheers

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Probably because if they recommended specs for 60 FPS too large a market section would be under it and not buy the game. Nothing more to it then that

Also noticed that it states that the minimum requirements are for 'lowest perset'. UBIsoft proof reading is actually worse than mine.

 

[Zloth]

Surely FPS don't work differently now days - still exactly the same?

Did you miss the whole thing about 15 years back when TVs were using 24 frames per second as a selling point, because that makes it just like the movies? (I didn't. I gave a salesman at Best Buy a really strange look because of it. )

What framerate you'll need depends a lot on the game. If you had, say, a game of tic-tac-toe, your frame rate isn't going to matter at all. The only time the picture changes is when somebody makes a move, so having one frame every second would be more than enough.

When framerates get down into the 20's on a PC, they start to get noticeable. If you're looking for it, you can see framerate speeds a lot higher than that, but somewhere below 30fps people start seeing the frames without looking for them.

Framerates do matter above that, though, even though you aren't watching for them. If you try to move a pointer/crosshair/whatever to a specific spot quickly, you'll do better with a higher framerate. First person shooters ask you to do that a lot, so 60 frames per second makes the game easier to play. People who play shooters competitively online can benefit from 120fps or even higher framerates!

A game like Portal is somewhere in the middle. You're shooting to make the portal holes and sometimes you do need to be somewhat fast, but you never need split-second timing, and your shots don't need to be especially accurate. So I wouldn't really want to play that one at just 30fps, but even 60fps is way more than enough.

Assassin's Creed: Odyssey has some reaction time in it, and you can shoot a bow on occasion, too, which benefits from headshots. I don't think 30 would work out so well in that game. 50 might not be too bad. (I would likely aim for 40, but I don't mind dying a few times for pretty graphics. It is better to look good than to feel good! )

 

[Zed Clampet]

Hello

I just went to the link for Assassin's Creed: Odyssey to see the various levels of System Requirements and I was shocked to see at all hardware levels it recommended 30PFS?

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/...nts-for-assassins-creed-odyssey/000060740#CPU

What the fudge?

Is this just some lazy copy paste job from the Playstation specs that didn't get corrected?

Surely FPS don't work differently now days - still exactly the same?

I'm baffled!


cheers

60 FPS and above is mostly for the leading edge (tech wise) gamers. A stable 30 is still completely playable. And that's a good thing because if you look at the Steam hardware survey, you see that most PC gamers are in that 30 FPS range. The average CPU for Steam users is a 4 core at 2.3 ghz, and that's not going to get you 60 FPS in an Assassin's creed game. Regardless of their GPU (average is an Nvidia 970), they are going to be CPU bound.

The attitude among some that it's 60 or bust is going to really hurt PC gaming for the next few years as people get left behind in the tech shortage.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

As PC gamers, we forget that in the console world, 30fps has been the standard for a very long time. Even now, you get the choice between higher frame rate and effects+resolution. Console gamers have been perfectly satisfied with 30fps forever. Now the thing we need to remember is that games like Assassin's Creed are really games targeted at consoles, but we're lucky enough to have them port those games over to PC. They don't actually develop most games with PC in mind, or else we'd leave consoles in the dust, and consoles are their real money makers.

 

[Brian Boru]

We had another discussion on this 3 months ago:

How crazy are you about your frames per second?

For me, as long as I can get at least 45 fps, I'm usually content with it. I should point out that I don't play competitive games anymore where the framerate might matter more. But I'm more of a beautiful graphics kind of guy. I'd rather play Red Dead 2, for example, on Ultra at 45 fps than play...

forums.pcgamer.com

 

[Zloth]

As PC gamers, we forget that in the console world, 30fps has been the standard for a very long time.

Huh? 60fps was a BIG BIG deal for all games to get to on consoles a few years ago. Before that, they didn't care at all - framerate was just more numbers to ignore.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Huh? 60fps was a BIG BIG deal for all games to get to on consoles a few years ago. Before that, they didn't care at all - framerate was just more numbers to ignore.

Yeah, but my point was that even now, they're still accustomed to not hitting 60fps. They have to choose between a mode with higher framerate, but lower resolution and less effects, and higher resolution with more effects, but 30fps. And even then, they still don't always hit the frame rates. They're starting to break out of that "30fps is good enough" mindset, but it's still a stretch for them to hit a solid 60fps. It's still a matter that they struggle with.

But meanwhile for us, 60fps has been the minimum for years and years.

 

[DoomedX]

I personally play Valorant on 25 fps with a laptop, and the experience is pretty bad XD. Its one of my favorite games though, as my friends and I play it quite often and is a place for us to have fun and laugh at each other whiffing. Its a shooter game by Riot and coming from League with a laptop I wasn't too worried since I was acquainted with the screen saying: Low client FPS, Network Problem, High Average Ping. If anyone is interested in Valorant(which I highly recommend).

 

[Zloth]

Yeah, MMOs are like that. The game is only half of the fun, tops. It's mostly about having fun with friends. If you can get it playable, you're set.

 

[dxchase]

Probably because if they recommended specs for 60 FPS too large a market section would be under it and not buy the game. Nothing more to it then that

Exactly. So my wifes computer is an i5-4690k with a 980, so seeing lower specs that hit 30fps is good to know, even if she can pull way more than 30, i at least have a guideline to follow for what she should be getting at 1080p, 1440p,etc. (she has a 1440p monitor so if a games recommended hardware for 60fps is 1080p, she runs in 1080p, at least she has gysnc lol)

 

[Colif]

The average CPU for Steam users is a 4 core at 2.3 ghz, and that's not going to get you 60 FPS in an Assassin's creed game. Regardless of their GPU (average is an Nvidia 970), they are going to be CPU bound.

Those averages sound like my last pc, I5 4690k with GTX 980.
Considering how hard it is to get new GPU now I am not surprised the average game is 30. Tied to fact most games are made for consoles now and PC is a 2nd thought, you get 30 fps

last game I played ran at 60 but then Diablo 2 should run at 60 on a Ryzen 5 3600 and with an RTX 2070 Super. If a 21 year old game can't, the engine is a fail... refer GTA defective edition (lol)... not the PC.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Exactly. So my wifes computer is an i5-4690k with a 980, so seeing lower specs that hit 30fps is good to know, even if she can pull way more than 30, i at least have a guideline to follow for what she should be getting at 1080p, 1440p,etc. (she has a 1440p monitor so if a games recommended hardware for 60fps is 1080p, she runs in 1080p, at least she has gysnc lol)

I spent several years away from PC gaming. But then about 8 years ago, I got back into it. The first PC I built when I got back into it was a 4690k with a 970. It was a really solid PC. My two sons are still using hardware from it in their PCs. That 970 is still great for 1080p gaming to this day. A 980 is even better.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Tied to fact most games are made for consoles now and PC is a 2nd thought, you get 30 fps

This was the case 10 years ago or more when people were saying PC is dead. Then the consoles moved to x86, ports got better, Fxxtnxxe and MxxxCxxt, Indie games became easier to publish through Steam Greenlight and other places etc.

PC is getting more games than the consoles combined, only really the Sony exclusives left and they are all coming to PC too as improved versions.

 

[Zloth]

I think they still need to design around console, though. If your game ends up demanding a little more hardware than planned for PC, you can up the spec requirements a little. You'll lose some customers that were on the edge. If your game goes over what your target console can deal with, though, you'll lose all the customers on the target console. Ooof!

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I think they still need to design around console, though. If your game ends up demanding a little more hardware than planned for PC, you can up the spec requirements a little. You'll lose some customers that were on the edge. If your game goes over what your target console can deal with, though, you'll lose all the customers on the target console. Ooof!

Like Cyberpunk 2077 did by accident at launch.

Its true that late in the previous 2 generations consoles were definitely holding back PC games, or PC games were going beyond what the consoles could do by the end. I guess its possible the PS4 and Xbox One limited at least AAA game design since 2013 due to their low end even at release laptop CPU's. Although obviously the way games are made on consoles allows them to punch above weight.

I'm not a game designer or programmer, it would be interesting to hear if anyone has any insight on how exactly. I can only take a semi random guess at things like physics and amount of AI's on screen at the same time. Maybe the size of world possible and draw distances linked to RAM? Graphical stuff I suppose can just be scaled up with improved filters, effects and resolution and so on, looks nicer but is basically the same game, like Sony is doing with God of War, Days Gone, etc on PC.

The current consoles are a few steps above an older or even more expensive current PC with the way prices are, haven't seen any games yet requiring 8/16 core CPU's, most still work on a straight quad core without HT. A quick look shows COD Vanguard will run on a dual core I3 with HT, FF7 Intergrade an I5 3350.

Lowest common denominator will shift as the generation moves on again, but I think developers still have an eye on catching as much of the PC market as possible as well. It's a way bigger market then it was in 2010. 25 million concurrent Steam users in the last 48 hours and apparently 120 million active monthly accounts. That measures up quite well against 150 million Xbox's and PS4's sold over 7 years in total. The latest console gen has only sold about 20 million total across both companies apparently.

PC is holding consoles back!

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I think they still need to design around console, though. If your game ends up demanding a little more hardware than planned for PC, you can up the spec requirements a little. You'll lose some customers that were on the edge. If your game goes over what your target console can deal with, though, you'll lose all the customers on the target console. Ooof!

I disagree, and here's why: PC games are created to be able to scale to a lot of different power-levels of PC hardware. They don't make PC games to only run on the most powerful PCs. With that in mind, it's a lot easier to scale down than to scale up. My opinion is that they need to target games at the top PCs, but make them scalable, so they can be scaled down to lesser PCs and consoles. That way, everybody wins. It will never happen, though.

 

[Zloth]

With that in mind, it's a lot easier to scale down than to scale up.

Eh??

Say you've got a point in the game where a whole bunch of easy enemies are going to be coming after the play. A lot has been leading up to that point, so you want it to be (ahem) epic. How many of them can you have scuttling toward the player, and how smart can they be? Scaling it would get ugly - you would have to do some sort of formula to make each little critter tougher depending on how many the machine can deal with. Best to figure out exactly how many critters the GPU can draw out, how many of their little brains the CPU can deal with, and then balance the battle accordingly. You don't want to scale it up or down, so the design has to target the 'lowest common denominator.'

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Eh??

Say you've got a point in the game where a whole bunch of easy enemies are going to be coming after the play. A lot has been leading up to that point, so you want it to be (ahem) epic. How many of them can you have scuttling toward the player, and how smart can they be? Scaling it would get ugly - you would have to do some sort of formula to make each little critter tougher depending on how many the machine can deal with. Best to figure out exactly how many critters the GPU can draw out, how many of their little brains the CPU can deal with, and then balance the battle accordingly. You don't want to scale it up or down, so the design has to target the 'lowest common denominator.'

I was thinking more along the lines of resolution, textures, and effects. If you create hi-res textures, it's easy to down sample those. But if you create low resolution textures, you can use interpolation, and stuff, but it's not going to look anywhere near as good as native hi-res textures.

With effects, it's better to develop a game with a lot of visual effects in mind, and turn down or off those individual effects to cater to lower end hardware.

But even with things like you're talking about, you can scale them. When it comes to the number of NPCs on a screen with each having their own AI, not only can you scale that, but they do it all the time. Think about back when Watch Dogs came out, and they tried to cram it onto the Wii U. You could walk down the street, and on PC, there would be tons of people roaming around, on the PS4, there would be a lot, but less, but then on the Wii U there weren't nearly as many people walking around. They did stuff like that in GTA V, too.

What I'm talking about with scaling happens all the time, especially with console ports. I'm just saying they need to aim a little higher and develop games for powerful PCs, and then scale them down to where they need to be for consoles. That would be better than developing them for the most powerful console, scaling down for weak Nintendo systems, and being limited for PCs that can handle more.

 

[Zloth]

I was thinking more along the lines of resolution, textures, and effects. If you create hi-res textures, it's easy to down sample those. But if you create low resolution textures, you can use interpolation, and stuff, but it's not going to look anywhere near as good as native hi-res textures.

Yep, that's true. Well, technically that's true. Artistically, it can be pretty harsh. Best to have some cookies around when it happens.

But even with things like you're talking about, you can scale them. When it comes to the number of NPCs on a screen with each having their own AI, not only can you scale that, but they do it all the time. Think about back when Watch Dogs came out, and they tried to cram it onto the Wii U. You could walk down the street, and on PC, there would be tons of people roaming around, on the PS4, there would be a lot, but less, but then on the Wii U there weren't nearly as many people walking around. They did stuff like that in GTA V, too.

Yeah, that should work OK for the extras walking around. They don't need a whole lot of balance. What's not so easy is if they are attackers that the designers have to balance against the player. It can still be done by using a formula, but it's going to be harder to balance than simply trying it out against a fixed number.

What I'm talking about with scaling happens all the time, especially with console ports. I'm just saying they need to aim a little higher and develop games for powerful PCs, and then scale them down to where they need to be for consoles. That would be better than developing them for the most powerful console, scaling down for weak Nintendo systems, and being limited for PCs that can handle more.

All I'm saying is that that's too general. For some parts of development, that makes sense. Best to have an engine that can do ray tracing, then just turn it off for consoles and weaker PCs. For other parts, that won't be right, and could even be outright backwards.

P.S. I wonder if those pedestrians have a top limit? It would be a riot if they didn't so the powerful PCs of the future got clogged with pedestrians.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Yeah, that should work OK for the extras walking around. They don't need a whole lot of balance. What's not so easy is if they are attackers that the designers have to balance against the player. It can still be done by using a formula, but it's going to be harder to balance than simply trying it out against a fixed number.


All I'm saying is that that's too general. For some parts of development, that makes sense. Best to have an engine that can do ray tracing, then just turn it off for consoles and weaker PCs. For other parts, that won't be right, and could even be outright backwards.

So you're saying NPCs can be scaled, but enemies can't? But things like that are built into almost every game. That's exactly what changes when you choose whether to play a game on Easy, Normal, or Hard. Pretty much everything can be scaled except for things like puzzle logic and level design. Not only that, but they already are scaled in the game engines, like you mentioned. Everything I'm saying is already being done. All I'm saying is they need to target for the top and scale down, rather than target the middle and be limited at the top.

 

[Zloth]

Do you want a game to get harder when your hardware gets more powerful? Scaling up enemies while keeping the difficulty the same is tricky. It CAN be done, but it probably isn't going to be a simple formula. Things like reload times and max ammo can make a real mess.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Do you want a game to get harder when your hardware gets more powerful? Scaling up enemies while keeping the difficulty the same is tricky. It CAN be done, but it probably isn't going to be a simple formula. Things like reload times and max ammo can make a real mess.

No, you're right about that. Scaling up/down enemies wasn't even in my mind when I was talking about that. Enemies should stay the same, as well as the enemies' AI. I don't have a problem with non-hostile NPCs and their AIs being scaled, though. But there shouldn't be any changes that affect the gameplay, other than frame rates. I think mostly what needs to be scaled would be the level of graphics and maybe physics, as long as the physics changes don't affect gameplay.