The folks over at TiLMENDOMiNATiON have uploaded a video to their YouTube channel which shows how Zelda: Breath Of The Wild would look if it were to be locked at 60fps. The captured footage does a good job to compare it against the 30fps we’ve all been enjoying since release.
Have a look for yourself below:
Do frames per second bother you when you’re playing games?
Weirdly enough, on my TV (Which is a 90Hz I believe and 4K) it makes the game look like it’s running in 60FPS on screen.
If the game is locked to 30, it won’t go up unless the system does it for you. The TV has no bearing on it unless the TV can run at 60 FPS AND the game/system is made to run 60. I have a 4K HDR 49Inch Samsung and Zelda is locked at 30FPS despite my TV having the capability to run at 120FPS
The pro on ps4 has to be used to run games at 60FPS despite the TV. FF released in December and couldn’t run at 60FPS unless you have the Pro and doesn’t matter if you have a 4K or not. Your TV needs to be at 60MHZ but if you don’t have the pro, you can’t do it.
The video doesn’t have any real differences with 60FPS and 30FPs, but when you yourself play from 60 to 30 in a game like Zelda, there’s a huge difference. Using videos like this won’t show anything. Hopefully that makes sense.
How did they do that? I don’t understand…
Game is locked to 30fps so how?
Exactly. Doesn’t make sense. Did they convert a 30fps video to a 60fps video? Still 30fps if you ask me.
They do a speed up on the video but you can’t tell the speed up is happening because you aren’t running at 2X on YouTube. It’s a dumb comparison because you need to see it first hand to decide if 60 or 30 has any care to you.
:-)
Why would I need to play it at x2 speed in order to see it speeded up, if they already speeded it up? Still don’t understand…
Because the video on the left is sped up, but you’re TV isn’t sped up. Put your YouTube settings to 60FPS and you should see it. There’s also the more likely possibility that homeboy is lying, playing the Wii u version of Breath on a computer, and he’s just making it run 60 as well.
*spoiler alert*
There is no virtual difference when you are playing
Read my comment above. In a nutshell, You won’t be able to see a difference unless you’re using a TV that runs at 60MHZ or higher, and usually, when you do have a TV that does, you need to 2X speed the video to see the 60FPS. Videos aren’t a good way of showing this stuff. In person, the difference will always be night and day. 30FPS to 60FPS is a big difference. The best example I use is UC4 because the story is 30 and the online is 60. Going from online to story is a kick to the balls at how great 60FPS run for the game but 30FPS was ideal since the since couldn’t handle it. The pro is needed to make the story run at 60, and it makes that game way better in mine and a few others opinions.
60fps is 60 Hz not 60 MHz and it doesn’t have to be double speed. Something can be 60 Hz and still show only 30 unique frames.
Totally right. Idk why I said MHZ and we’re talking TV and not computers. And I do agree that you can have a 60 or 120 Hz TV, but the game/system locks it at 30, then it’s staying at 30. I believe that’s what I wrote
The inference that videos aren’t a good way off showing off framerate differences is false though especially when you’re talking 60 fps and below. All current monitors and TVs are capable of 60hz as it was the standard in North America and Japan for about 80 years because the refresh rate of TVs were tied to power standards in those areas. That’s the same reason why Europe and other areas were 50Hz but that isn’t the case any more.
I don’t see it to be false, because if you go to YouTube, you have to enable 60FPS in order to see the difference. If your computer or your phone didn’t display 60FPS, you have to enable the video at 2X speed. You do remember that, yes?
But you’re not wrong in what you’re saying.
Are you fucking blind or just dumb?
Whoa Nelly!
Both.
Honestly, I can’t tell a difference from this video, and to iambigb0ss’s point, that’s expected of a YouTube upload.
And no, I can assure you I’m not dumber than you. Maybe more blind, I’ll concede.
I thought he was commenting at me 🙄
Not really, only to the OP saying “there is virtually no difference”
I already couldn’t stand it when i seen Tilmen… The guy is so obnoxious and made up a rumour last year for click bait
Well, golly. If only Nintendo’s hardware wasn’t abysmal, we’d have Zelda at 1080p 60fps.
We will get zelda at 1080p 60fps on Switch. Breath of the Wild was developed for WiiU and ported to Switch.
l0l
Unless your Switch Zelda comes out at the end of the hardware lifecycle, gets a duel release with the next system and get gets gimped so as not to hurt sells for The Switch 2.0 :D
With how well the Switch is doing so far it seems as though it won’t be a repeat of the Wii U and will have a much longer life than it too. Of course it hasn’t been a week yet and the numbers can definitely change over the course of just one year, but it’s hard to argue that the system is heading in the direction the Wii U took when you look at all the energy and money Nintendo is investing into the Switch.
Just something to note, the Wii had two Zelda games on it too: Twilight Princess port and Skyward Sword. Depending on how grand they want to make the next Zelda and when they start making it, it’s very possible that we’ll get a new 3D Zelda on the Switch a few years from now.
Rip the dream
Perfectly fine at 30. And thanks for the spoiler… ^^
He just used frame interpolation on the left side.
Funny. I CAN tell an appreciable difference on my gaming PC between when, say, Doom 2016 or Gears of War 4 are running at 60fps vs when they are running in the high 50s / low 40s….but on this video here, which allegedly shows 60fps vs 30fps, I am having to strain ridiculously hard to notice a difference, and what microscopic difference I can see, I’m not 100% sure isn’t just psychosomatic.
Now, sharpness, contrast, and color quality / depth differences from left to right are immediately apparent to me, and appreciably better on the one that alleges to be 60fps. It definitely LOOKS BETTER than the other – but in terms of actually appearing to RUN SMOOTHER – as is the whole point of this video in the first place – I just really don’t see it.
Slow down the video to half eed and you will see it.
*speed
notice how it looks more blurry? that is a byproduct of interpolation inserting extra frames that do not exist. It is a trick to make more frames bu having the tv GUESS what the middle frame should look like by manipulating the last image a little, creating a blurry middle frame which looks pretty bad. And because it needs to calculate between two frames it would mean that there would be a little lag induced too, since it would be showing on screen at least 2 frames behind.
I don’t get it. All I see is a split screen with different contrast on each side.
poop
Doesn’t matter… Game plays fine, looks good. Wii U version on a 60″ isn’t as sharp as I’d like, but the game is so good and there is so much going on in the world, even in the opening, there is little else to focus on other than being into the game.
I started to write this second comment last night as a follow up to the first, but it was late, and a I was starting to nod off. In my first comment I talked about the video itself, how a I could see color and sharpness benefits on the left side of the video, but not really a difference in frames, even though I can tell frame difference on the PC. For this comment, I wanted to answer the article’s direct question on whether or not fps matters to me in gaming in general:
Shortest answer: yes and no. Let me elaborate by way of an anecdote:
In my PC is a GTX 1070 graphics card. Now this card is billed as the “ultimate card” for 1440p, but not billed as a good 4K card. However, of the five big-to-middle-big games I’ve played on it so far, Doom 2016 (Steam win32), Fallout 4 (Steam win32), Gears of War 4 (windows store UWP), Forza 6 Apex (windows store UWP), and Recore (windows store UWP), I’m running all five of them in full 4k (vsync off) with absolutely every graphics setting cranked to the max.
But wait, can my 1070 equipped PC handle all that stunning graphical glory at 60fps? Surprisingly, Forza, Recore and Doom all stay pretty close, hanging out in the high 50s, while the other two spend most of their time in the high 40s / low 50s.
So the answer to the question is that my order of priority from high to low is fun and engaging, eye candy, frame rates. Now, to be sure, frames are not unimportant to me as I can tell when something is 60fps or lower, and I always like 60 better. Also, I have my limits. From now on, any new game I play, I’m going to first try to run in 4K – settings cranked, but if an FPS can’t hold 45fps well, or a non-FPS can’t hold 30, then I’ll kick it down to 1440p, and ultimately down to 1080 if I have to to achieve those fairly un-lofty fps ambitions.
So that’s my answer on frames. However, with a console, you don’t have control overgraphics settings by which to manage fps, so i just set my expectations lower, and take what i’m given. That said, whenever I hear the terms “full 1080”, and “60fps” – ESPECIALLY when it comes to the Switch, I get excited, and do regard the game, at least from a technical standpoint as superior to one that doesn’t achieve that. For instance, I -AM- a bit disappointed by the 900p, 30fps we get out of Zelda. But quality of game comes before quality of graphics, and Breath of the Wild is SOOOOOOOOOO glorious, that within seconds of playing I almost entirely forget about resolutions and frames (or painfully acute aliasing) in favor of the sheer Epicness of what may well be the greatest game of all time! :-)
So, yeah, “yes and no”.
Cheers! :-D
Good for you! I’m so tired of people squabble over graphics making a game inferior. Does the game look like it was made 20 years ago? No? Is it pretty? Yes? Is it fun? Yes? Awesome!
This is a game, we play it to have fun! Or ya know, have self imposed challenges and throw a lot of controllers, but same idea.