
A while ago I was reading up on Starblade, one of the first commercial polygon-based games. What really struck me about the game was just how smooth it was compared to its spiritual successor, Starfox (granted the above links are YouTube videos that don’t accurately reflect framerates, but the differences are still quite noticeable).
It’s an extreme case, but one that nicely demonstrates the importance of rendering speeds.

Despite having animations that consisted of only 2-3 frames, many classic games ran at 60fps. This granularity helped to smove out movement, including Mario's beloved jump.
Of course no one ever complains about games being too smooth, but the debate of 30fps vs. 60fps continues to pop up. What’s more, the 60fps side keeps losing ground, often to the argument that humans can’t really detect more than 30 frames in a single second.
And that is completely untrue.
It’s an inherently flawed statement as humans are not digital machines. The human brain is always on, always receiving input. Light hits our eyes as a wave, and the information it carries is almost instantly transmitted to the Visual Cortex. The brain analyzes this data, focusing on changes brought on by motion and fluctuations in intensity. Displacement is interpolated via motion blur and identical input is discarded to avoid extraneous processing.
The “decoded” image is further analyzed by various parts of the brain, but the overall process — as complex as it is — is quite fast and versatile. Much faster than 30fps. Faster than 60fps, in fact.
So where does the myth of 30fps come from? Well, film and TV for the most part, but the framerates of those media are not analogous to those of videogames. Others have written extensively about the topic, so I won’t go too deep into it. What I’d like to talk about, though, is why high framerates are important to games.
As a preface, different titles obviously have different requirements, and some suffer more from a low FPS than others. Also, the reasons for Insomniac’s decision to move away from their 60fps standard were completely understandable, if a little painful to accept.
With that said, here’s why I think high framerates are important:
1). Granularity
The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic. As a result, action games that run at 30fps cannot have the same granularity of movement as those that run at 60fps. This might not matter much for turn-based strategy titles, but it makes an awful lot of shmups technically impossible to do at lower framerates.
2). Input Lag
Games are inherently an interactive medium, and as such the response times for input need to be virtually instant. On the hardware side this is rarely an issue, but a stuttering framerate can reduce the response times and greatly detract from the overall experience (especially in “twitch” titles).
3). Consistency
30fps isn’t bad, but what most people fail to realize is that it’s often the “ceiling” measurement, i.e., the best case scenario. Unlike TV and film, games are dynamic, and the processing required to render any given scene can fluctuate quite significantly. As a result, 30fps games actually tend to run at a rate of 20-30fps. These sort of inconsistencies can be very difficult to avoid, but they’re much less noticeable with higher benchmarks.
4). Motion Blur
Motion blur is the biggest reason TV and film get away with smaller framerates. The phenomenon of motion blur relies on the human brain’s ability to stitch together a series of blurred images into a single, smooth animation. Until fairly recently, games had absolutely no motion blurring, and even these days it doesn’t have quite the same effect. The reason for this is that post-process blurring is not always accurate, and in many cases purposely exaggerated to create a distinctive visual effect.
To properly accommodate for all these factors, a high framerate is a must. And when it’s there, it creates a certain synchronization between the player and the game; a smooth flow that more developers should strive to achieve.











Hi, my name’s Radek Koncewicz, and I work as a videogame design consultant. I'm also the creative lead of
#1 by justradek on January 6, 2010 - 12:30 am
[SB]: Framerates do matter. http://www.significant-bits.com/framerates-do-matter
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#2 by DefaultGen on January 6, 2010 - 1:06 am
Thank god for developers like Criterion who understand 60fps trumps *any* visual flair you can add to a game. Too many console developers would rather "push the limit" of the 2005/6 hardware they’re working with than maintain a playable framerate.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#3 by spyisaspy on January 6, 2010 - 1:24 am
I bought a 9800GTX a few years back just for this reason. Playing games with anything lower than 60+ FPS is just unbearable. Once you notice the difference you *can’t* go back. This is also the reason I haven’t bought a gaming console such as the Xbox360. I haven’t seen a FPS go above 30 FPS on a console in my whole life. It is a major bummer, and every time I’ve ever brought up something like this to a console gamer, they shut me out and pretend it doesn’t exist.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#4 by linkedlist on January 6, 2010 - 1:46 am
His reasons given don’t really serve as arguments as to why 60fps is so important. His first point is on granulity in which he says ‘The framerate of a game is usually directly tied to the processing of its logic’ which is not an argument to make a game run at 60fps. In fact a game could update graphics at 60fps but logic at 2fps, so what? If a game does a poor job of updating input and logic it doesn’t matter what the frame rate is, the game will feel choppy.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#5 by omnilynx on January 6, 2010 - 2:32 am
Er, no, a game has to update "logic" at least as quickly as it spits out frames, otherwise any additional frames would be the same as those before them. The granularity he’s referring to here is the time interval between world state updates. That’s because games calculate their physics using [numerical analysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis), so their physics is only as accurate as the calculation frequency allows. Perhaps you are thinking of UI and AI? Even those update much faster than 2 Hz (they don’t have "frames").
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#6 by linkedlist on January 6, 2010 - 3:09 am
>Er, no, a game has to update "logic" at least as quickly as it spits out frames, not true at all, logic can be broken off into several parts, not all of it has to be updated every frame for a high graphics framerate to be useless. In many cases if logic updates at a faster rate than graphics the game will still run smoothly, so in fact framerates mean jackshit.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#7 by rjg232 on January 6, 2010 - 3:18 am
Correct on the first point, wrong on the second. Bioshock on the PC has physics that had a "logic-rate" slower than the visual frame-rate (a concession to console hardware) which makes the game feel goddamned *weird* to play. Secondly, even if the game updated logic faster than the visuals, it wouldn’t mean shit if you can’t see it happening and therefore can’t respond to it. Playing MW2 at 2 frames a second isn’t going to be any better because the logic updates 60 times per second. You simply won’t be able to track moving targets. A lot of people will say they can’t tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps so the difference isn’t there and doesn’t matter. That’s just ignorant.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#8 by linkedlist on January 6, 2010 - 3:34 am
>Bioshock on the PC has physics that had a "logic-rate" slower than the visual frame-rate (a concession to console hardware) which makes the game feel goddamned weird to play. This is true for most PC games with higher framerates than consoles, if the physics is using a fixed timestep you’ll get these issues. >it wouldn’t mean shit if you can’t see it happening and therefore can’t respond to it. It will mean higher visual fidelity, what you do see will be smoother and far more physically accurate. In fact this is one of the advantages of a variable timestep, the higher your graphics framerate the lower it can be therefore the more times it will update between rendering frames and will yeild a much improved overall experience. >MW2 at 2 frames a second isn’t going to be any better because the logic updates 60 times per second. no, but MW2 at 30FPS with logic updating at 60fps is better than MW2 at 30fps with logic updating at 30fps. >A lot of people will say they can’t tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps so the difference isn’t there and doesn’t matter. That’s just ignorant. Depending on the way the game is coded no, you can’t tell the difference at all.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#9 by DanWallace on January 6, 2010 - 9:30 am
As much as I can appreciate your desire for 60 fps games, it’s silly to claim that 30 fps is "unplayable". It’s far from unplayable. In fact, most people wouldn’t know the difference one way or the other. "Unplayable" seems to be the most common gamer hyperbole out there. MW2 drops server support and it’s completely unplayable. Starcraft 2 requires you to connect to bnet and it’s unplayable!
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#10 by 02J on January 6, 2010 - 9:45 am
I recently bought a 5770 for the same reason. Once thing I’d love to see from PC game developers is a performance slider quickly and easily configure a game to hit a minimum performance threshold of 30/60 or some arbitrary number of frames per second. I really hate having to dig around the visual options, become familiar with the particulars of each engine and look up relatively obscure console commands in order to make a game perform at the level I want on my hardware. I’ve seen features along those lines, but they’re all pretty terrible in practice, recommend identical settings for two machines, several generations apart which actually exhibit a 5x difference in performance.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#11 by omnilynx on January 6, 2010 - 10:31 am
From the perspective of a programmer, I can tell you that, in so much as you can assign a "framerate" to game logic, it has to update at least as fast as the graphical framerate. The [game loop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_programming#The_game_loop), in very simplified terms, goes like this: calculate positions and states of all game objects, render frame, repeat. This includes the "interpolation" you were talking about, which is simply another method of calculating the physics. Which means that if the calculation didn’t take place, you’d be rendering the same frame twice (which actually does happen sometimes under high loads). There are various methods of separating out the logic and the display so that the game runs smoothly at multiple speeds, but they all boil down to the basic loop in the end.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#12 by wafflesfordinner on January 6, 2010 - 11:32 am
60 FPS is the reason F-Zero for the N64 and Gamecube felt so intense to play.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#13 by breakbread on January 6, 2010 - 11:51 am
30fps is certainly playable but I think the point the author wanted to make is that when developers say a game is running at 30fps it’s more than likely just fluctuating between 20 and 30 and not a solid 30.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#14 by breakbread on January 6, 2010 - 11:56 am
Can one of you explain what you mean when you talk about the logic updating relative to the visual updates? I understand how frame-rate works in the visual sense.
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#15 by DanWallace on January 6, 2010 - 12:05 pm
I was talking about DefaultGen calling 60fps a "playable framerate."
This comment was originally posted on Reddit
#16 by gnunixguy on January 6, 2010 - 12:28 pm
They all said I was crazy for wanting more than 30fps, I CAN tell the difference. here’s a bit of “proof” http://bit.ly/5elYhg
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#17 by Reddit == moutherbreathing on January 6, 2010 - 12:33 pm
Point 1 is very inaccurate. You’re making huge assumptions about videogame architecture, and while that is correct for many games, there are plenty where that is not correct at all. I would suggest that you stick to the perceptual qualities of framerate instead of making assumptions about game architectures.
#18 by Swizec on January 6, 2010 - 12:34 pm
Framerates matter! http://www.significant-bits.com/framerates-do-matter
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#19 by Konshu on January 6, 2010 - 12:36 pm
@PHLAK Worth a quick read on the FPS argument: http://bit.ly/6kbwzC
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#20 by PeterBjorklund on January 6, 2010 - 12:38 pm
30 FPS is far from good enough. http://bit.ly/8CWNWM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#21 by Mikael on January 6, 2010 - 12:43 pm
I don’t understand how anyone can think that 30fps is “enough”. I can’t even understand how people think 24fps movie is fine, I’d rather have 720p60 than 1080p24, anyone who has seen p60 must admit that it’s much smoother.
When I purchased my Nvidia 3D vision goggles I also tried turning it off and running it in 120fps, and that’s extremely nice, but let’s first try to convince everybody that 50/60 fps is the lowest acceptable, and then we can increase from there :P 24/30 is definitely not enough!
#22 by jaslinks on January 6, 2010 - 12:47 pm
http://www.significant-bits.com/framerates-do-matter
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#23 by Blind on January 6, 2010 - 1:05 pm
“Motion blur is the biggest reason TV and film get away with smaller framerates.”
I have noticed that films that are designed for interlacing, are extremely ugly when it comes to set designs. Look at some of Lucas arts stuff on an upscaled dvd player with a tv that can do 120-240 hertz. The film counted on interlacing to blur the ridiculously ugly sets, Look at it upscaled to 1080P and then switch the upscale setting to 1080i and you will see the difference. Progressive scan running at 60hz+ the motion becomes so clear you notice the sh*ty cardboard set design.
#24 by estebanuribe on January 6, 2010 - 1:12 pm
Why framerates matter http://bit.ly/5elYhg
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#25 by CharlesNeo on January 6, 2010 - 1:21 pm
Framerates do matter. « Significant Bits http://ow.ly/TnT8 For all you 30 fps gamers out there! haha just like me
This comment was originally posted on Twitter