I think we can agree on that.

I agree that games like that, where your reaction time matters, definitely begets a higher framerate. I’d argue that there will probably still be instances of an FPS or similar game where 30 FPS is justifiable, but generally this would be correct.

Well, trust me when I say they have already put quite a bit of work into that PC port. Basically every developer that does so has to.

I agree with the sentiment you express near the end. 60 FPS is arbitrary and I applaud developers that can make their games variable. Sometimes though, it doesn’t quite work. In those cases, I think it’s fair game to lock the FPS to what you need it to be, either 30 or 60 or whatever else. I’d like them to be…

And that’s good. I’m fine with that, in fact I almost completely agree with it, so long as the general population also recognizes the logic that TB has put forth here which, judging by replies to me on here, is not exactly the case. I’ve got people hitting me with phrases like “60 FPS is ALWAYS better”. That…

Developers engage in a tug of war between providing a seamless (and fully functional) experience and giving consumers the options they want. I’m just trying to explain that there’s a reason that you can’t necessarily have both.

I respect that, I just don’t enjoy the way it’s being done. As I’ve noted, this curation group seems unintentionally elitist and sends the wrong message.

I wish I could see reality in such absolutes.

Oh, and sorry. This one was meant for someone else.

No, you misrepresented my argument by making it about FPS rather than about the design choice like I meant it to be, in order to deny it.

I’ve always found this XKCD to be surprisingly correct when the subject of options comes up, even when it’s not about workflows. I appreciate the thought, but everyone has a pet peeve/option that they want.

You know, I thought about how to respond to this for a little while, but I eventually decided that this is what we call insane troll logic.

Well, in all fairness, if you wanted to know if a game has an FPS lock, you could go look for that information and get it pretty quick. Having it on the page is nice, but as I said to another, it promotes an elitist atmosphere that disregards that some games may do it as a design decision or for a good reason. I agree…

It’s about perception, which was touched on in the article. It should be a standard to list the frame rate as the developer in the article said. However, making it a curation group reinforces this idea that 30 FPS is no longer a viable frame rate, while (in fact) some smaller developers may want to use it because it’s…

On the other hand, a developer has to be wary of just throwing in a feature like that. If a modder can make it work, they don’t have to worry about it if it accidentally causes a crash. A developer will have to shoulder any issues that accidentally come up.

It’s not always as simple as just unlocking the frame rate.

30 FPS is half as intensive than 60 FPS on principle. You can do quite a bit with that.

Now there’s a strawman if I’ve seen one.

How about this, does it matter that Disney Infinity 3.0 uses 30 frames per second on consoles?

There’s a fine line to providing information and simply acting like you know better than the guys actually making a game.