# Console Game Frames Per Second?



## PityOnU (Aug 18, 2013)

Is there a site or a compiled list out there that contains information related to the frame rate that console games run at?

I was playing Fat Princess on my 70" TV today from about 4' away and got a massive headache and my eyes were killing me. I think it is because with a screen as large as mine, if the game is running at 30fps (which I think Fat Princess is), the difference in an object's location in successive frames is too large and my eyes can't handle it properly.

I know Sonic Generations has a similar feel to it on the Xbox 360 (it runs at 30fps), as did the intro to The Hobbit (damn you Blu-Ray for not supporting HFR!). It may just be that I am sitting way too close, though. I won't know for sure until I can find some information about the frame rate of Fat Princess on the PS3, and that's proving to be difficult.


----------



## Kirito-kun (Aug 19, 2013)

The vast majority of console games run at 30 FPS or lower. The only exceptions I know of are call of duty multiplayer mode and SSBB.

If you want higher framerates, might I suggest a gaming PC?


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 19, 2013)

Kirito-kun said:


> The vast majority of console games run at 30 FPS or lower. The only exceptions I know of are call of duty multiplayer mode and SSBB.


 
I'm not certain this is the case... Didn't this just kind of become a thing recently since this console generation has been so long? I know GameBoy games ran at 60fps... and I'm pretty sure most Nintendo 64 and Gamecube game were 60fps as well.

In either case, Fat Princess was a game that was made for PS3, so I would say there's a decent likelihood it may run at 60fps. GT5 did, as well as God of War. So...



Kirito-kun said:


> If you want higher framerates, might I suggest a gaming PC?


 
I already have one, but Fat Princess is console exclusive.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 19, 2013)

Sit back from the TV. Jesus... 4 feet? Fuck man surprised your eyes didnt try running away.


----------



## J-Machine (Aug 19, 2013)

what shadowsoldier said. You are sitting way too close to the screen. 4 feet is good if you own a 32" 70 though? never bothered to check but I'm under the impression you got a tv too big for the room its in.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 19, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> I think it is because with a screen as large as mine, if the game is running at 30fps (which I think Fat Princess is), the difference in an object's location in successive frames is too large and my eyes can't handle it properly.


Very good observation!

But yeah, most console games do actually run at less than 60 FPS, even now.  It's less noticeable than on the PC because of the slight amount of blurring TVs introduce, but that only helps if successive frames are still relatively 'close'.

_Most emulators on the PC do not measure the number of differing frames generated by the game per second, but rather the vertical interrupts generated by the emulated hardware_.  This is generally 60 per second (50 per second PAL), so it can be used in place of the FPS number to give an indication of whether the emulated hardware is running at realtime speed.  This is separate from the actual number of differing frames per second that the game produces.

Two ways to measure the actual FPS output by a game are to either change the emulator's settings to not display VI's (in Project64 1.7 *2.0* you can go into the main settings and tell it to display "Display Lists" instead of "Vertical Interrupts" and you'll see that Zelda 64 actually only generates ~20-24 FPS in game, going up to 60 on the file load/save screen), or (only real choice for newer consoles) hook them up to a realtime capture device (i.e. not one that compresses) and then look through the recording frame by frame and count the average number of differing frames that occur in one second.

EDIT: Not to say that all games run at 24FPS or something like films tend to do, but games on the console are well-known to sacrifice FPS in exchange for higher resolution or just more going on.


----------



## XiTaU (Aug 19, 2013)

im quite sure most n64 games ran at 20-30fps except fzero which did 60 and then there are cases where they even ran much lower at certain points the lag in some n64 games was crazy.

60fps was a rare thing in 3d console gaming its still more of a next gen thing but has been around in 2d games for 30 years.

i think u need to just back away and consult a doctor if it doesnt help


----------



## Arm73 (Aug 19, 2013)

It's true, most N64 games run at 20-30fps or even lower , however most AAA GC games run beautifully at 60fps ( Metroid Prime, Mario sunshine, f-zero, Star Wars RB which was an amazuing launch title...).
But yeah, I kind of despise 30FPS games even on my PC.
If I can lower the graphic  settings to get more FPS I usually go for it.

On the consoles, like already mentioned, I would recommend you to use a smaller TV or si further back, that would alleviate the nausea problem that you get by sitting way too close for it.
I still don't understand why modern systems don't go for 60 FPS.
Nintendo is the olny one who cares about FPS these days.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 19, 2013)

Arm73 said:


> I still don't understand why modern systems don't go for 60 FPS.
> Nintendo is the olny one who cares about FPS these days.


Well to be fair, the kind of people most low-FPS games go for are the kind of people who don't even notice a lower framerate (being used to it, cinema, etc.), but they DO notice better shader effects and such.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 19, 2013)

Hopefully the graphics world can stop masturbating to itself and put some effort into motion blur once more so we can put this 60FPS lark to bed.


----------



## Nah3DS (Aug 19, 2013)

IIRC.... F Zero X (n64) is the first racing game to run at 60 fps


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 19, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Very good observation!
> 
> But yeah, most console games do actually run at less than 60 FPS, even now. It's less noticeable than on the PC because of the slight amount of blurring TVs introduce, but that only helps if successive frames are still relatively 'close'.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for this - the info is very much appreciated and was basically what I was looking for I suppose. From what I'm hearing, it seems highly likely that Fat Princess is indeed ~30fps (or at least, less than 60). At least I know I wasn't just imagining things and that is indeed the issue.



ShadowSoldier said:


> Sit back from the TV. Jesus... 4 feet? Fuck man surprised your eyes didnt try running away.


 
In response to this and everyone else who said something similar: What on Earth is the point of me spending all the money for my big TV if I can't sit close and enjoy the screen size and level of detail it provides?

Full disclosure: The TV is in my family room which is adjacent to the kitchen. The family enjoys watching movies during dinner, so where we usually sit is 15-20 feet away. This makes it so that we can enjoy the movies without the ill effects of their low frame rate. However, when I play my games (on the rare occasion I do), I lay on the couch which is tangent to the television, meaning my eyes are ~4 feet away. Clearly, that is too close if the content being viewed is not a higher frame rate, so I will back away in cases that require it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't imagining a problem that wasn't the case.


----------



## Coto (Aug 19, 2013)

I wonder what is the actual interrupt rate a common video DAC, ie: the N64, has.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 19, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> Thanks for this - the info is very much appreciated and was basically what I was looking for I suppose. From what I'm hearing, it seems highly likely that Fat Princess is indeed ~30fps (or at least, less than 60). At least I know I wasn't just imagining things and that is indeed the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

What's the point of having a sun if I can't look at it?!

Dude, it's bad for your eyes. Whatever eye problems you have or may get, it's not because of the games, it's because of you.


----------



## Osha (Aug 19, 2013)

NahuelDS said:


> IIRC.... F Zero X (n64) is the first racing game to run at 60 fps


 
What about F-Zero on the SNES?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2013)

NahuelDS said:


> IIRC.... F Zero X (n64) is the first racing game to run at 60 fps


 


Osha said:


> What about F-Zero on the SNES?


Even if those games would be capable of running at a 60FPS framerate, the television sets wouldn't keep up with that at the time. The average NTSC television ran at 30FPS, a PAL one at 25FPS - anything beyond that was a waste of processing power as the results wouldn't be displayed anyways.

As far as the SNES is concerned, I'm pretty sure the hardware adjusts to the refresh rate of your TV.

Of course now that we're embracing HD and analog television slowly becomes a thing of the past, this is no longer a problem.


----------



## EzekielRage (Aug 20, 2013)

Fun fact: PC games are framelocked to the synch rate of your monitor. So if you have a Monituro that runs at 60hz like I do, all your PC games cant run faster than 60 FPS in full screen. They can in windowed mode though. See Refresh Rate.
Other than that there are plenty of games running in 60 frames per second on consoles. There is even a list of most (but not all of them here:
http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/3015-3223/games/


----------



## tbgtbg (Aug 20, 2013)

Arm73 said:


> I still don't understand why modern systems don't go for 60 FPS.



They can make the games smooth at 60fps or they can make them pretty at less than 60fps. Still screenshots show off pretty, but they don't show off smooth.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Aug 20, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Even if those games would be capable of running at a 60FPS framerate, the television sets wouldn't keep up with that at the time. The average NTSC television ran at 30FPS, a PAL one at 25FPS - anything beyond that was a waste of processing power as the results wouldn't be displayed anyways.
> 
> As far as the SNES is concerned, I'm pretty sure the hardware adjusts to the refresh rate of your TV.
> 
> Of course now that we're embracing HD and analog television slowly becomes a thing of the past, this is no longer a problem.


Wrong... NTSC is 60 FPS and PAL is 50 FPS because of interlacing. Keep in mind that FPS works differently for progressive and interlaced video, but I can assure you that even with analogs TV showing only half of the frame each time we still perceive this as full resolution images with 60/50 FPS, the downside of interlacing is that it causes some undesired effects like flicker.

The snes and older consoles didn't have an interlaced mode, so they used half the fields of the television to produce progressive video and, thus, were limited to 30 FPS at most. But consoles like the Playstation and the Nintendo 64 were fully capable of taking advantage of interlaced mode with 60/50 FPS


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 20, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> What's the point of having a sun if I can't look at it?!
> 
> Dude, it's bad for your eyes. Whatever eye problems you have or may get, it's not because of the games, it's because of you.


 
http://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.c...too-close-to-the-tv-is-not-bad-for-your-eyes/

That's why the Oculus Rift has you sit back 6' to use it.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Aug 20, 2013)

Wordpress site.... totally reliable.


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 20, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Wordpress site.... totally reliable.


 
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/eyes/vision_facts_myths.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-tv-reading-with-bad-light-etc-ruin-your-eyes

http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-w...tting-too-close-to-the-tv-really-hurt-my-eyes

http://www.rebuildyourvision.com/blog/does-sitting-too-close-to-the-tv-hurt-your-eyes/

In addition, unlike most people, I enjoy using my TV or computer in a well-lit room.

Assuming the content has a high enough frame rate and a decent FOV, there really isn't any reason NOT to sit close to the TV.

Think IMAX or Oculus Rift.


----------



## Arm73 (Aug 20, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> They can make the games smooth at 60fps or they can make them pretty at less than 60fps. Still screenshots show off pretty, but they don't show off smooth.


Look man, console games have been pretty darn good looking ever since I first saw Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast.
Everything above that is just a surplus.
Why can't we settle on a 1080p / 60fps standard and forget about ultra realistic shadows / particles / polygons count / A.I / bloom effects / post processing / tasselation / water reflections / depth of field and so on ?

I really love Batman Arkham City for example and it runs like a beast on my modest gaming laptop at 1080p / 60 fps.
Why do we have to live and accept " next " generation games at 30 fps so that screen shots look " even " better ?
Sometimes I think we are all a bunch of graphics whores, when at the end of the day, the _game_play is what really matters in a _game_.
And a smoother gameplay is without a shadow of a doubt, at least twice better then a choppy 30fps.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 20, 2013)

Arm73 said:


> Lchoppy 30fps.


This is an important point I forgot to mention!  The lower your average framerate, the worse that the occasional dips and stutters are going to be.  This is part of the reason that people want 60 FPS, because it means that dips, stutters, and downright slow-rendering-areas don't make much of an impact on your gameplay (whereas if you average 30FPS or worse, they could mean going down to 3-5 FPS, which can get you killed easily as you can't react).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Wrong... NTSC is 60 FPS and PAL is 50 FPS because of interlacing. Keep in mind that FPS works differently for progressive and interlaced video, but I can assure you that even with analogs TV showing only half of the frame each time we still perceive this as full resolution images with 60/50 FPS, the downside of interlacing is that it causes some undesired effects like flicker.


Well, yes, I should've mentioned that the 50Hz/60Hz refresh rate meant that they're able to display 50/60 fields, so if you interlace the video signal, you only really use half of that so you can in fact display more.

That being said though, standard PAL is 25 frames and standard NTSC is 30 frames.


----------



## Rydian (Aug 20, 2013)

Semi-on-topic: I wish that "frame" meant "the whole image", so interlaced things would have to display half the framerate to customers.


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 20, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Semi-on-topic: I wish that "frame" meant "the whole image", so interlaced things would have to display half the framerate to customers.


 
Aw, but I love being able to see scan lines.


----------

