You must log in or register to comment.
A developer tells this anecdote from a project from the PS2 era. They showed a pretty late build of the game to their publisher, very few weeks before the game had to be ready to begin the distribution process, and the FPS appeared at a corner of the screen, never quite falling below 30FPS, but often making important jumps. The people from the publishing company said that “Everything about the game looks fine, except for the FPS. 30 FPS is unacceptable, and we cannot publish it if you can’t reach a consistent 60 FPS”.
You don’t need to know much about development to understand that making such a demand weeks before the launch of a medium-sized project is asking the impossible, and so did this dev team. In the end, they changed the function that took the real calculation of the FPS so that it returned a fraction of the difference between 60 and the real FPS, so the next time the publisher took a look at the game, the FPS counter would always show a value between 58 and 60, even though they didn’t have the time to really optimize the game. The publisher didn’t notice the deception and the game was a commercial success.
The game was called “Tetris” btw
That seems highly unethical. 30 FPS really is unplayable and I’m sure that if this is true, it caused headaches in many players.
30 is unplayable? I guess I haven’t played all these games then.
I don’t know about you, but I get headaches when playing first person games with rapid camera movement if my FPS is too low. I guess that must not be common, based on the votes.
Did you not see the part where it said “PS2 era”? The turning rates of the player/camera in any console first person shooter from those times are downright sluggish by mouse/keyboard standards, but the games were also designed around that slower pace.
I never had a PS2, so how would I know that? No need to be so hostile!
Then why tf are you even commenting?? Some people smh
Because I didn’t realize there was a critical design difference that allowed 30 FPS to work without causing headaches. I’ve played my fair share of FPS games and have never, ever seen that slow camera behavior anywhere, so how the fuck would I even have any indication that it was present, especially if there was demand for 60 FPS? Lemmy truly is more toxic than Reddit 💀
Meh. 60 is enough for me. I didn’t notice 144 being that much better than 60.
30 can fuck right off though.I can mostly notice the difference in first person shooters. In most other things, 60 is plenty.
Me who play Minecraft at 20 fps because I installed a modpack called FTB :)
Can’t your eye only see like 30 frames per second in the center?
Also most monitors only go up to 60fps, and even if you have a fancy monitor that does, your OS probably doesn’t bother to go higher than 60 anyways. Even if the game itself says the fps is higher, it just doesn’t know that your pc/monitor isnt actually bothering to render all the frames…
That was true before high framerate monitors were a thing, which was around 10+ years ago…
no it wasn’t true back then either, CRTs have been doing 100hz and more decades ago and it was very much supported by OSes and games
Who plays games at 30fps? I’m fairly sure 60 is industry standard now no?
Cries in nintendo
