PC LA Noire locked to 30 fps, WTF

[Weaver]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

Maybe some people just legitimately can't tell the difference.
They look incredibly different to me.

edit: though your computer could be so slow it's running the 60fps flash video at a lower framerate.

 

[Silas13013]

I distinctly remember John Carmack saying that they did some testing with people with Rage running at 30 and 60 fps. He said that people saw a significant difference between the two. Whether you think it's "just fine" is simply your opinion and many of use would rather have it at 60. There's no reason to lock it on PC anyway.

^^This
I don't get why people are 'wrong' for having an issue with the frame rate being locked. There is a significant difference when the frame rate is cut in half, both values of which (60 vs 30) are able to be displayed on a monitor. That argument that it is 'just fine' might be a valid argument if the frame rates were 120 and 60, both of which are identical on a monitor with a refresh rate of 60FPS.
Anyway, the game is a pile of garbage on my monitor. 30 FPS is nowhere near high enough to look good when you are used to 75FPS (refresh rate of my monitor). It's just clunky and doesn't look as good as it could.

 

[MrTub]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

Maybe some people just legitimately can't tell the difference.
They look incredibly different to me.

I guess it mostly depends on what you are used to, I used to have a shit ass computer and then I could play at 20fps and not really see the lag. But after I bought a new one I could really see the difference. Same with a dude that used to be in our guild, he played at around 12-14fps and he didnt really think it lagged

 

[Joby Baumann]

I distinctly remember John Carmack saying that they did some testing with people with Rage running at 30 and 60 fps. He said that people saw a significant difference between the two. Whether you think it's "just fine" is simply your opinion and many of use would rather have it at 60. There's no reason to lock it on PC anyway.

^^This
I don't get why people are 'wrong' for having an issue with the frame rate being locked. There is a significant difference when the frame rate is cut in half, both values of which (60 vs 30) are able to be displayed on a monitor. That argument that it is 'just fine' might be a valid argument if the frame rates were 120 and 60, both of which are identical on a monitor with a refresh rate of 60FPS.
Anyway, the game is a pile of garbage on my monitor. 30 FPS is nowhere near high enough to look good when you are used to 75FPS (refresh rate of my monitor). It's just clunky and doesn't look as good as it could.

While I have no issue with people who want 60 fps, I feel that if that is the only thing you can complain about, somebody is going out of your way just to complain

 

[Mitchell Osborn]

need at least 40FPS myself. 30 does seem abit sluggish.

 

[MrTub]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

Like I said its not completely true. Did you even cheak the link that was linked?

Cause I can clearly see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 since everything is smoother.
And if you really do not think people can notice fps over 24 then why arent all console games fixed to 24-25fps? if there was no differnce they would do it since its huge performance save. And why is people buying 120hz screens?

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isn't really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it lagging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

I'm sorry but that seem rather ridiculous. Most people see an average of what? About 25fps. Even if you had amazingly fast receptors, you're still looking at about 35fps. A game running at 60 or above is really just for smoothing and so they don't have to use blurring techniques to help fool you. There's going to be no lag at around 30fps or above.

And anything about 60 is just posturing.

So you are saying for me there is no way to notice the difference between 24fps and 60fps?

Then why arent all consoles games fixed to 24-30fps? They would be able to put in a lot of more stuff then.

Yes, I saw the link. And it's a bit difficult to accurately judge anything when all the examples aren't lined up next to each other and moving at the same time.

Because the fps your eyes capture and the fps something as precise as PC outputs are two very different beasts. But as a rule of thumb. 30fps is more than adequate for any game that doesn't require you move angles at insane speeds. Like a twitch fps.

The difference between a game in 30fps and 60fps is the removal of blurring techniques used to fool you.

There is no lag detectable with our eyes at 30fps. There simply isn't. But what it sometimes does is show blurring and the occasional jitter. Because what you're seeing are actual frames. Not the weird mocap thing our retinas do.

There is 100%, no need to go about 60fps. That's probably a few more than we need in all honesty. Even with the harsh actual frames of digital media. And for non-twitch games. 30fps is more than fine.

As for why people buying TV's their eyes can't really appreciate? Marketing my dear Watson, marketing. If you market it, they will come.

I can only speak for personal experience so I really do not give a shit what Im suppose to see, but I and several of my friends can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. And when I play a game at 30 fps it feels like its laging, non responsive, the aim is fucked up. So I guess I either got some super eyes or its down to what you are used too.

And btw may I ask if you are playing on console/bad computer or with a good computer?

And game studios know this otherwise every single game for consoles would be capped at 24 fps since that gives them a lot more room for other stuff.

 

[Waaghpowa]

While I have no issue with people who want 60 fps, I feel that if that is the only thing you can complain about, somebody is going out of your way just to complain

As I stated in my original post, though not in detail, there's no good reason to cap the FPS unless the reason really is because of the facial system they're using for the game. Now if you wanted to cap the FPS for consoles in order to create consistency across a unified platform, then that's fine. But considering that PC has numerous hardware configurations and combinations, no two people will ever have the same experience, all you can hope for is that the devs do proper QA and optimize the game. Even Valve, masters of QA testing, can't make their games run on everything.

There's nothing more annoying than playing a game where the devs deliberately limit the games options, capping the fps is exactly that. I personally prefer to have all my games running at a steady 60 fps at all times, and it drives me crazy when I can't change that.

 

[Sleekgiant]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

 

[Sleekgiant]

I do LPs and I record at 60 then convert the video to 30 in post processing since it makes the file about half as big and youtube has a 30fps limit.

I know that, I also know a lot of people who do LPs that record at 30FPS with no issue.

TO me this whole thread is about as relevant as gaming on a Mac

 

[MrTub]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

Well then I guess I got superhuman sight. Freaking cool to have it!

So then I must ask the question, why is not all console games capped at 24fps? it would give them a lot of room to add other stuff? Instead they are reducing fov and such so they can stay at 60 fps...

Seems a bit odd.. I would thought that a huge gaming corporation would know that no human can see the difference between 30-60fps.. But I guess that they also got Super human sight?

 

[Sleekgiant]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

Well then I guess I got superhuman sight. Freaking cool to have it!

So then I must ask the question, why is not all console games capped at 24fps? it would give them a lot of room to add other stuff? Instead they are reducing fov and such so they can stay at 60 fps...

Seems a bit odd.. I would thought that a huge gaming corporation would know that no human can see the difference between 30-60fps.. But I guess that they also got Super human sight?

Your post makes no sense. Since when does FOV have to do with a capped framerate?

Also I have yet to see a console game run at 60(hell Mass Effect dipped to teens when I played it)

Console is usually 30-40 fps

http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-national/battlefield-3-30fps-on-consoles-not-possible-to-fit-everything-otherwise

No we always do 30 fps on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise.

Oh look, I have an article....

 

[MrTub]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

Like I said its not completely true. Did you even cheak the link that was linked?

Cause I can clearly see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 since everything is smoother.
And if you really do not think people can notice fps over 24 then why arent all console games fixed to 24-25fps? if there was no differnce they would do it since its huge performance save. And why is people buying 120hz screens?

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isn't really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it lagging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

I'm sorry but that seem rather ridiculous. Most people see an average of what? About 25fps. Even if you had amazingly fast receptors, you're still looking at about 35fps. A game running at 60 or above is really just for smoothing and so they don't have to use blurring techniques to help fool you. There's going to be no lag at around 30fps or above.

And anything about 60 is just posturing.

So you are saying for me there is no way to notice the difference between 24fps and 60fps?

Then why arent all consoles games fixed to 24-30fps? They would be able to put in a lot of more stuff then.

Yes, I saw the link. And it's a bit difficult to accurately judge anything when all the examples aren't lined up next to each other and moving at the same time.

Because the fps your eyes capture and the fps something as precise as PC outputs are two very different beasts. But as a rule of thumb. 30fps is more than adequate for any game that doesn't require you move angles at insane speeds. Like a twitch fps.

The difference between a game in 30fps and 60fps is the removal of blurring techniques used to fool you.

There is no lag detectable with our eyes at 30fps. There simply isn't. But what it sometimes does is show blurring and the occasional jitter. Because what you're seeing are actual frames. Not the weird mocap thing our retinas do.

There is 100%, no need to go about 60fps. That's probably a few more than we need in all honesty. Even with the harsh actual frames of digital media. And for non-twitch games. 30fps is more than fine.

As for why people buying TV's their eyes can't really appreciate? Marketing my dear Watson, marketing. If you market it, they will come.

I can only speak for personal experience so I really do not give a shit what Im suppose to see, but I and several of my friends can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. And when I play a game at 30 fps it feels like its laging, non responsive, the aim is fucked up. So I guess I either got some super eyes or its down to what you are used too.

And btw may I ask if you are playing on console/bad computer or with a good computer?

And game studios know this otherwise every single game for consoles would be capped at 24 fps since that gives them a lot more room for other stuff.

Quite frankly, you're not listening.

There is no lag. That is certainty incarnate. That's not how it works for a start. But you're missing what I'm saying completely. Of-course you can see a difference. That difference isn't lag though. And you really didn't get what I was saying about the human eye seeing an average of 24fps and the difference between the frames our eyes see and the digital frames our media outputs.

The whole point of increasing the frames is to trick you. You're eyes will capture on an average of 25fps. But what you're seeing isn't actually frames. That's just how your brain interoperates it. With media, we obviously can't show you true to life fluidity. So the next best thing is to reverse what our brain does with real life. It shows you a collection of still images. And the faster the images are shown, the better the trick.

30fps when used in tandem with blurring techniques for camera angle changes is enough to trick anyone. Providing the camera angle isn't been darted about faster than the frames can be changed. For something like LA Noire. You're not going to need more than 30fps. It's not a particularly fast paced game so 30fps is suitable enough to trick your eyes into seeing fluid motion most of the time.

For something like CoD or BF, yes. 60fps will make a difference. (anything above that is just silly though).

And I use a moderate to highend PC. I get 60fps out of most games. But If I end up playing at 30, I know it's not the end of the world.

I have never said that It lags. I have said that if feels like it lagging which are two completely different things.
And like I said I can only speak for personally experience and when I play a shooter with under 60fps it feels like it is unresponsive and the aim behaves differently which means that I need to control the recoil a different way, and honestly you can continue saying that 30fps is enough. And I agree that its most likely enough for something that is not used to playing on higher fps, but I personally cannot stand a game under 60fps and it might be two reasons, one could be cause of micro stuttering which happens when the frames takes different amount of time to render with my graphic card(Aka one gpu is done faster then other) and which means it will lag but I will still have 24frames per second but perhaps the frames will not come in sync during that second) and the second is that Im simply used to playing at 60fps or higher which means like I said that I've gotten used to aim in a certain way and I expect the game to act as if Im playing on 60 fps.



And really if you continue to say what I can and cannot see "cause its not possible" then Im not going to answer since Im quite certain the the majority of gaming companies would switch to 24fps if there was no difference in the feeling. And the fact that I can feel/sense/see/whatever the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

 

[MrTub]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

Well then I guess I got superhuman sight. Freaking cool to have it!

So then I must ask the question, why is not all console games capped at 24fps? it would give them a lot of room to add other stuff? Instead they are reducing fov and such so they can stay at 60 fps...

Seems a bit odd.. I would thought that a huge gaming corporation would know that no human can see the difference between 30-60fps.. But I guess that they also got Super human sight?

Your post makes no sense. Since when does FOV have to do with a capped framerate?

Also I have yet to see a console game run at 60(hell Mass Effect dipped to teens when I played it)

Console is usually 30-40 fps

http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-national/battlefield-3-30fps-on-consoles-not-possible-to-fit-everything-otherwise

No we always do 30 fps on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise.

Oh look, I have an article....

Seriously?

The fov has huge difference on the fps since the higher the fov, the more details you need to show which means more performance required.

Yeah bf3 did 30 fps since there was no other way to play that game on "master consoles" since they havent got good enough hardware, if they had a choice they would have done it on 60 fps.

And you know what mw3 the console series of this decade is using 60 fps since they say you get a worse feeling on 30 fps.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111353-60-FPS-is-Modern-Warfare-3s-Competitive-Edge

"Sledgehammer Games General Manager Glen Schofield says Modern Warfare 3's ability to run at 60 frames per second gives it a distinct edge over the competition because if you're not running at 60, you might as well not be running at all."

Sure its most likely a bit of pr, but if they didnt think 60 fps was required for a good feeling then they would sure as hell lower it

 

[Sleekgiant]

And you know what mw3 the console series of this decade is using 60 fps since they say you get a worse feeling on 30 fps.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111353-60-FPS-is-Modern-Warfare-3s-Competitive-Edge

That's their opinion, and its just Activision slinging mud towards EA.

Also why would they even ship the games if they thought 30FPS was unplayable?

 

[MrTub]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

Like I said its not completely true. Did you even cheak the link that was linked?

Cause I can clearly see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 since everything is smoother.
And if you really do not think people can notice fps over 24 then why arent all console games fixed to 24-25fps? if there was no differnce they would do it since its huge performance save. And why is people buying 120hz screens?

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isn't really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it lagging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

I'm sorry but that seem rather ridiculous. Most people see an average of what? About 25fps. Even if you had amazingly fast receptors, you're still looking at about 35fps. A game running at 60 or above is really just for smoothing and so they don't have to use blurring techniques to help fool you. There's going to be no lag at around 30fps or above.

And anything about 60 is just posturing.

So you are saying for me there is no way to notice the difference between 24fps and 60fps?

Then why arent all consoles games fixed to 24-30fps? They would be able to put in a lot of more stuff then.

Yes, I saw the link. And it's a bit difficult to accurately judge anything when all the examples aren't lined up next to each other and moving at the same time.

Because the fps your eyes capture and the fps something as precise as PC outputs are two very different beasts. But as a rule of thumb. 30fps is more than adequate for any game that doesn't require you move angles at insane speeds. Like a twitch fps.

The difference between a game in 30fps and 60fps is the removal of blurring techniques used to fool you.

There is no lag detectable with our eyes at 30fps. There simply isn't. But what it sometimes does is show blurring and the occasional jitter. Because what you're seeing are actual frames. Not the weird mocap thing our retinas do.

There is 100%, no need to go about 60fps. That's probably a few more than we need in all honesty. Even with the harsh actual frames of digital media. And for non-twitch games. 30fps is more than fine.

As for why people buying TV's their eyes can't really appreciate? Marketing my dear Watson, marketing. If you market it, they will come.

I can only speak for personal experience so I really do not give a shit what Im suppose to see, but I and several of my friends can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. And when I play a game at 30 fps it feels like its laging, non responsive, the aim is fucked up. So I guess I either got some super eyes or its down to what you are used too.

And btw may I ask if you are playing on console/bad computer or with a good computer?

And game studios know this otherwise every single game for consoles would be capped at 24 fps since that gives them a lot more room for other stuff.

Quite frankly, you're not listening.

There is no lag. That is certainty incarnate. That's not how it works for a start. But you're missing what I'm saying completely. Of-course you can see a difference. That difference isn't lag though. And you really didn't get what I was saying about the human eye seeing an average of 24fps and the difference between the frames our eyes see and the digital frames our media outputs.

The whole point of increasing the frames is to trick you. You're eyes will capture on an average of 25fps. But what you're seeing isn't actually frames. That's just how your brain interoperates it. With media, we obviously can't show you true to life fluidity. So the next best thing is to reverse what our brain does with real life. It shows you a collection of still images. And the faster the images are shown, the better the trick.

30fps when used in tandem with blurring techniques for camera angle changes is enough to trick anyone. Providing the camera angle isn't been darted about faster than the frames can be changed. For something like LA Noire. You're not going to need more than 30fps. It's not a particularly fast paced game so 30fps is suitable enough to trick your eyes into seeing fluid motion most of the time.

For something like CoD or BF, yes. 60fps will make a difference. (anything above that is just silly though).

And I use a moderate to highend PC. I get 60fps out of most games. But If I end up playing at 30, I know it's not the end of the world.

I have never said that It lags. I have said that if feels like it lagging which are two completely different things.
And like I said I can only speak for personally experience and when I play a shooter with under 60fps it feels like it is unresponsive and the aim behaves differently which means that I need to control the recoil a different way, and honestly you can continue saying that 30fps is enough. And I agree that its most likely enough for something that is not used to playing on higher fps, but I personally cannot stand a game under 60fps and it might be two reasons, one could be cause of micro stuttering which happens when the frames takes different amount of time to render with my graphic card(Aka one gpu is done faster then other) and which means it will lag but I will still have 24frames per second but perhaps the frames will not come in sync during that second) and the second is that Im simply used to playing at 60fps or higher which means like I said that I've gotten used to aim in a certain way and I expect the game to act as if Im playing on 60 fps.



And really if you continue to say what I can and cannot see "cause its not possible" then Im not going to answer since Im quite certain the the majority of gaming companies would switch to 24fps if there was no difference in the feeling. And the fact that I can feel/sense/see/whatever the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

Lowering the framerate wouldn't cause it to even feel like it was lagging until you got to the 20zone.

The only conclusion I can come to is that there is something hinky going on with your system because it's communicating with 2 GPU's like you said. Or there's something else making the game lag.

30fps should not feel like it's lagging, no matter how used to 60fps you are. The only reason it's a good idea to have 60fps is if you're moving the camera angle around very quickly and the amount of blur needed will cause jittering or almost nauseating effects. Not because it looks like it's lagging.

Well it was the same before I bought a second gpu and it feels like the game is unresponsive and I have adjust my aim.

And it's 4am here so I'm going to continue watching my tv serie and then sleep so I will perhaps respond tomorrow if there is something else then I shouldnt be able to feel/see/whatever the difference, cause for me its clear as day and night.

 

[MrTub]

And you know what mw3 the console series of this decade is using 60 fps since they say you get a worse feeling on 30 fps.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111353-60-FPS-is-Modern-Warfare-3s-Competitive-Edge

That's their opinion, and its just Activision slinging mud towards EA.

Also why would they even ship the games if they thought 30FPS was unplayable?

huh? I didnt know that Activision is selling bf3...

 

[redisforever]

.....Who cares about framerate? Yeah, games sometimes look better at 60 FPS, but honestly if that's all you're complaining about when it comes to a game I think you need to have priorities shifted. 30 FPS looks perfectly fine and sometimes even has a more cinematic feel to it

Hell, with this game , I think 24fps would be even better for the cinematic feel.

Ok, with an online shooter, or a racing game, I'd understand, but what?

 

[Sleekgiant]

And you know what mw3 the console series of this decade is using 60 fps since they say you get a worse feeling on 30 fps.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111353-60-FPS-is-Modern-Warfare-3s-Competitive-Edge

That's their opinion, and its just Activision slinging mud towards EA.

Also why would they even ship the games if they thought 30FPS was unplayable?

huh? I didnt know that Activision is selling bf3...

You can stop with the smartass comments, I already don't take you seriously as I see you trying to argue with everyone in this thread.

If 30FPS was not sufficient, why would EA sell BF3, why would Bioware sell Mass Effect(which did lag out on my 360 due to huge framerate issues).

 

[MrTub]

And you know what mw3 the console series of this decade is using 60 fps since they say you get a worse feeling on 30 fps.


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111353-60-FPS-is-Modern-Warfare-3s-Competitive-Edge

That's their opinion, and its just Activision slinging mud towards EA.

Also why would they even ship the games if they thought 30FPS was unplayable?

huh? I didnt know that Activision is selling bf3...

You can stop with the smartass comments, I already don't take you seriously as I see you trying to argue with everyone in this thread.

If 30FPS was not sufficient, why would EA sell BF3, why would Bioware sell Mass Effect(which did lag out on my 360 due to huge framerate issues).

Money.. What else?

And most people have no problem with playing at 30fps I have stated that several times.
Same way that most people have no problem with play fps games with xbox/ps3 controllers.

But I do have a problem with that and therefor Im playing on a computer with expensive stuff.
So why should I have to play at 30 fps when I have bought and paid several of thousands swedish kronor so I can play at the fps that I want and what I feel is best?

And is two people everyone in this thread?

 

[Sleekgiant]

So why should I have to play at 30 fps when I have bought and paid several of thousands swedish kronor so I can play at the fps that I want and what I feel is best?

Because you didn't make the game, and you already answered the question. So what if you wasted money on some monstrosity of a computer, does that mean companies should have to shell out a couple more million to get you 10 more FPS. NO. Go whine somewhere else.