Apologies, I am a very mathematic thinker. We engineers get so wrapped up in specs we usually forget to see whats actually important. When you said difference I was thinking you were going the birdseye, mathematic based viewpoint. The difference between 15 and 30 is the same as the difference between 30 and 60 or 60 and 120 (not talking differences as in subtraction but as in birdseye perspective difference, if that makes sense). You, obviously, meant the difference between our human perception of the two. I should have inferred this easily, you are correct.

Wait... are you the same person or a different person as Skillet98? You're talking like you said that.

Different, in fact we were just debating something and I think I'm a little more sane than to be arguing with myself. Though I understand...We kind of broke off into two different discussions in one thread...things get incomprehensible once that happens...

Where did OP go? It's like he just wanted to stir up a debate.

Before 60FPS gaming? That was almost 20 [censored] years ago in the 90's. We shouldn't be regressing!

Increase framerate on the PS4?

Given all the issues Bethesda games have had on Sony's platform, the honest question is why are you even playing it in such a suboptimal manner?

So are computers.

This statement makes no logical sense whatsoever.

A console is a fixed technology. By the time is is released to the retail market is is inevitably behind the cutting-edge technology available on PC.

PCs , on the other hand, are not fixed. There are low-end computers all the way up to high-end computers. And computer parts can be upgraded at any time.

So we cannot make these kinds of blanket generalizations about "computers." Unlike with consoles, it depends on the individual computer. Some are outdated when they are put on the market, others are not.

Each generation of technology will have its limits.

If 60fps is not offered on consoles, it's because it would lead to other gameplay issues if it was.

I'm replaying Fallout 3 on Xbox 360, watching the bridges pop into the scene only a short distance in front of me.

Something that would be unacceptable now.

Morrowind had the fog in the middle distance because the horizon could not be handled.

It's fine.

It all gets better over time.

Chill and enjoy the game.

umm point hes trying to make with computer is any tech you buy is outdated moment you get it manufacturers drip feed tech too the consumer.

look the new AMD graphic cards that just revealed at e3 dollars to donuts they being worked on last year maybe year before that and if specs are true than they dated all current AMD cards before they even were sold in last 2 years

I'm with you OP. I would rather have downgraded graphics and 60 fps than better graphics and 30 fps. Now, 30 fps on its own isn't terrible, but it's never a steady 30 fps. Throw in some enemies, particle effects, lots of action and that 30 fps soon becomes 20.

I'm currently playing Witcher 3 on my PS4 and although it looks amazing the frame rate chugs along in the low 20s on occasion, sometimes even dipping below that.

I didn't buy a so-called next gen console for 20 fps. I want as close as possible to smooth, lag-free gameplay, and if it means I take a graphical hit then so be it.

This made me LOL. Thanks for that.

I also find that a steady framerate is more important than a high one. I'd much rather have a completely-locked 30, than a 60 that bounces between 40-70 as I move around & fight.

But, then, I was content to play Skyrim at mid-30's with all the fancy graphics mods I added rather than mid-50's/vanilla. So I'm clearly not an FPS fanatic.

(kind of like I'm not an audiophile, so I've been happy using $10-20 basic radioshack/sony headphones & default-TV-speakers for decades.)

Pc users usually notice a bigger difference in fps because they sit closer to the screen than t.v. console users do. (so there, just move further away from your screen until everything is blurry and it'll look all smoooooth.) ..30fps capped is a good thing. It means all the animations, rendered objects and everything in the scene should sink up. If it all sinks up you can't really tell a difference. The only time you notice differences in fps is when there's a framerate drop., Something for you're eye to catch.. If a t.v. show went from 24fps to 12.. you'd definitely notice. If it was intentionally filmed at 12 you'd probably just think it was some artsy film effect and settle in to watch the film without complaint of the framerate. Most comparison videos out there use the same scene and lower the fps of one for the comparison.. so of course there's going to be a noticeable difference. They changed the fps on a scene that was filmed at a higher fps so those videos are sort of misleading. There is also obviously a big difference in film/t.v fps and game fps. .. there's a lot of stuff going on in a game and you are concentrating harder on whatever you are controlling within the game. .. So when something happens you catch it a lot easier than you would if you were just passively watching it. I guess what I'm trying to say is not everything just boils down to "60fps is the best fps and if it's not than it's poopy."

That's what you get for thinking a 400$ plastic box can keep up with a PC

Yeah, what you really need is a $1000 plastic box.

First off, the human eye is real time, it doesn't operated on "frame rates" it is all one continuous stream. It is the brain that converts the individual pictures into motion. Each brain is a little different but in general if the frame rate drops below 17 or 18 FPS, the motion stops and it looks like you are in a night club that is using strobe lights.

At 17 FPS you wind up with "true motion", sorta kinda. A picture of a person walking down a city street looks ok, but when a car passes you get a blur. (There is actually some blurring on the walking person but it is almost imperceptible). At 24 FPS (cinematic speed) the car is still blurred but it is recognizable. At 30 FPS the car is still blurred but you can read the car's license plate. At 60 FPS the blurring will be almost imperceptible. Take that same car at 60 FPS and put it on an expressway, and you have effectively reduced the detail down to around where is was at 24 or 30 FPS because it is moving faster now.

If you are just standing there watching the car with your hands in your pocket, 30 FPS or even 24 FPS is good enough, but if you have to drive it at 30 FPS, you are going to be all over the road and eventually you are going to run into something. The reason is that when you try to turn the steering wheel, the car will not immediately turn, it can take anywhere from a half second to a full second for the car to react and at 70 MPH, that is deadly. (For those of you that live in the Old World, I have gone through the trouble of converting 70 Miles per Hour for you into Old World measurements, just for you. Yes, I really am that nice of a guy. 70 MPH equals 188160 furlongs per fortnight.)

Basically, higher FPS gives you better control in a fast paced environment.

Having said that, most of the time spent in the Fallout Universe is spent in fairly slow paced tasks. Exploring, trading, talking do not require fast response times. In situations like we find ourselves most of the time, 30 FPS is more than enough and detail (higher resolution) is important.

This whole discussion revolves around personal preference. Some people want as detailed and vibrant a world as possible. Others are willing to sacrifice a little of that detail for better response times in a fight. There have been attempts to satisfy both crowds by using dynamic frame rates and resolutions, but that has very seldom worked in a way to satisfy everyone. Some people find the experience quite jarring. And there is a problem of a lag effect at the beginning of a fight.

I don't mind 30 fps but the reason why 60 is a must for me on PC is because it drops like 10 every now and then on both settings for a sec or two and 20 fps is unbearable.

Exactly. A $1,000 plastic box that you'll no longer be happy with in another two years.

1080p 30fps is fine by me, higher framerate only really matters for fast paced games like racing and twitch shooters (Gran Turismo or CoD for exemples), Fallout is pretty slow for the most part. It *would* be better at 60 sure but it's fine at 30

I would love a 720P 60FPS option in addition to 1080P but it might not be possible.

Slow perhaps in the old crappy round-a-bout way they did shooting mechanics in the last two games, but they literally hired people to improve it...so, its more twitchy than you might think.

First of all... who on god's green Earth, plays fallout on playstation, else then you and 10 other people, no offense, im just saying

People who have a Playstation and want to play Fallout?