This is not possible. 30 FPS is neither smooth nor responsive. that is a fact that cannot be avoided without breaking laws of physics. Now it is possible that your standards are so low as to find 30 FPS acceptable responsiveness. But that one is on you. If you genuinely cannot tell the difference then i highly suggest contacting a phisician, because there is a medical condition that prevents some people from telling a difference.MysticSlayer said:
Poll: 60fps vs 30fps? opinions?
- Thread starter maxtiggertom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So you're telling me that all those enjoyable gaming sessions at 30 FPS never actually happened? I'm guessing that you'll also claim that movies, which generally run around 24 FPS, are like watching a slideshow?Strazdas said:
What laws of physics?
Or you could be suffering a placebo.
And what possible medical condition would that be?
But really, all I'm reading here is a bunch of hyperbole. I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, but between the unspecified laws of physics and the unspecified medical condition, it feels more like you're trying to get me to waste my money on a physician than proving a point about the superiority of 60 FPS.
No, im telling you that those gaming sessions were not running the game smoothly and response time was higher than it should have been. I never used the term slideshow nor were we talking about movies. there is no response time in movies for one thing. Secondly, movies have real motion blur, which alievates the effort somewhat. but yes, i would like movies to have higher framerate as well.MysticSlayer said:
The ones that determine motion and human perception of it.
No, all scientific evidence points to the contrary, that you are the one suffering placebo thinking 30 FPS is smooth.
It may be a form of Akinetopsia
There is nothing hyperbolic about 60 fps being objectively better than 30 fps. Nor that increased framerate results in smoother game experience (both visual and gameplay) and reduces input lag. What i am trying to acomplish is to show that the thing you claim to care so much about are in fact governed by the thing you claim you do not care about, so you would better understand what causes the things you enjoy (and presumably find enjoyable things easier). I dont have to prove superiority of 60 fps. it is a self evident fact. Yes, some people are stubborn disbelievers, just like there are people that think the sun rotates around the earth or that the earth is 3000 years old, but that does not change the actual fact.
Movies have motion blur, which makes for a somewhat different experience from games. There's also input lag to consider when it comes to action oriented games.
However, there's a reason many developers aim for 30fps: it might not be perfect, but it's good enough.I'm sure some people can notice the difference well enough to be somewhat bothered by it, but the ones who claim it's making them nauseous or giving them headaches are probably the ones with the medical condition.
(Said medical condition may be something as harmless as a fragile ego, which makes them feel the need to defend their choices - such as spending money on a high-end gaming machine - to the bitter end.)
However, there's a reason many developers aim for 30fps: it might not be perfect, but it's good enough.I'm sure some people can notice the difference well enough to be somewhat bothered by it, but the ones who claim it's making them nauseous or giving them headaches are probably the ones with the medical condition.
(Said medical condition may be something as harmless as a fragile ego, which makes them feel the need to defend their choices - such as spending money on a high-end gaming machine - to the bitter end.)
As long as its stable and somewhere over 24 (what most movies are filmed at) I couldn't care less. I'd rather have 24 fps that stays locked at 24 rather than 60 that sometimes drops to 30 and back up if the cpu is chugging. Framerate is only noticeable when its jumping around and changing fps. As long as it's stable and the game is running smoothly the rate itself doesn't matter in the slightest.
It was a joke comment based on the idea that 30 FPS can't be smooth.Strazdas said:
Glad we're moving on from not being specific to being specific. /sarcasm
Apparently, not overwhelming enough, because I can't find whatever source you're using anywhere.
Did you just do a quick Google search for an inability to perceive motion? Because my understanding of Akinetopsia is that it is extreme enough that anyone with it would be able to tell something is wrong without needing video games to tell them something is wrong.
No, but when you start citing science you can't explain and medical conditions that you clearly have little to no understanding of, it does become severely hyperbolic.
I've cared enough about it to read on the subject, which is one reason I'm seriously doubting your claims to science and medicine. I've heard plenty of people make similar claims, but all my reading indicates that any perceptible differences are nowhere near as extreme as you're claiming them to be. In that regard, I do care, because I'm wondering where in the world you and others are getting your information from.
I just don't care when it comes to what my games are running at the time of playing. Because at the time of playing, 30 FPS offers just as enjoyable an experience as 60 FPS.
All the way back in 2002 this was already over and done with http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.htmlMysticSlayer said:
Humans can and do see the difference in framerate and the ONLY way to not do so is if there is something wrong with your perception.
Actually i learnt about Akinetopsia last year. What you descibe is acute cases, however there are also less acute cases that often goes undiagnozed for years because people think that is normal way things look and if the case is as mild as to only become visible when needing to see objects change position over 30 times per second one could easily live his life fully without realizing he has a problem. Its like most nearsighted people dont actually know they are nearsighted because they never saw the difference and just think this is how it normally looks. We are getting better with nearsighted people thanks to mandatory vision tests, testing movement perception is much harder though. To add to that we dont really know what exactly causes that so no known cure exists.
I can explain the science, but i didnt think writing a thesis on human vision is necessary for you to understand my point.
Have you ever though that if everyone but you sees the difference maybe you are not seeing it because of a problem rather than the entire world is lieing?
Only if your standards are very low or you are physically unable to see the difference or feel the input lag.
Hey, Strazdas, how about this: I can see/feel the difference, but I honestly don't care, because the difference isn't significant (atleast not in the genres I like). I can easily shift my concentration to something else, like the actual game I'm trying to play. You might call that having low standards, I consider it having my priorities in order.
You are correct that i do not play games if they are locked at 30 FPS. 60 FPS should be the bare minimum standard for videogames. I can understand when a person plays at lower framerate due to his hardware, but not out of choice. If that makes me autistic so be it.Affordablequote said:
All the major consoles (even the Wii U!) are capable of visually stunning games at 60 FPS. At this point the marginal improvement in graphics you gain from going 30 FPS is not worth it in almost any game.
But 30 FPS is by no means crippling or really bad. It is perfectly acceptable. But any lower and things get crappy.
But 30 FPS is by no means crippling or really bad. It is perfectly acceptable. But any lower and things get crappy.
Thanks for the article. That's more than I generally get.Strazdas said:
However, I'm not trying to make the claim that the human eye is incapable of seeing beyond 30 FPS (I think currently, the consensus is that we max out around 140-150 "frames"). I'm saying that you can have a smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames, and that article doesn't do a great job at disproving that.
(And just for clarification, I can pick up to the jump between 30 FPS and 60 FPS if I spend long enough looking at one before switching to the other. However, in the moment of playing a 30 FPS game that stays stable around 30 FPS, I find the experience as enjoyable as a stable 60 FPS game to the point where I'd need an FPS counter to determine which of the two it is at.)
I'm aware of the difference between more extreme cases and less extreme cases. However, my understanding is that it ranged from annoying to prohibitive. You use nearsightedness as an example, but as someone who is nearsighted, I can say that you do eventually realize that something is wrong. The only real reason you wouldn't is if only one eye is nearsighted, which may be masked by the good eye making up (this is what caused my brother's problem to go undetected for so long).
Edit: I guess people with very minor nearsightedness might not realize something is wrong until they reach certain situations, but again, I believe motion blindness generally presents itself more extreme than that.
I wanted at least a link to a study, which thanks again for providing.
While I'll admit that differences exist so that the 60 FPS looks smoother when put side-by-side (or if a major switch is made), they look marginally smoother, and the 30 FPS one still looks smooth enough for an enjoyable experience. But without a point of comparison, I'm not sure such a marginal difference is as easy to discern as you're making it out to be.
I mean, have you ever picked up that a game was running 30 FPS instead of 60 FPS without knowing beforehand what it was running at, either through word-of-mouth, announcements from the developer, or a framerate counter?
I have. I played both Dark Souls on PC and the first one ran at 30fps with heavy motion blur. I played it just fine and thought that DS2 would be 30fps too. Little did I know that DS2: Scholar of the First Sin ran at 60fps. My mind was blown away when I moved the camera in the starting area. The game felt so much better. The difference is HUGE and you can feel it right away.MysticSlayer said:
Other example is Tales of Zestiria. Graces and Xillias ran, or at least tried to, at 60fps in battles. Zestiria doesn't. It's locked 30fps and I noticed that right away too. The game feels clunky because of this.
Third example is FF13 for PC. The game runs at 60fps most of the time but drops to 30 fairly often. It's noticeable.
And no, I don't need frame counters for that.
Why 60fps feels better is that there is only 16,7ms of delay between frames opposed to 33,3ms. So if you input a command, you will see the result much faster. That's why it feels more responsive.
As I've already mentioned, I understand seeing a difference on the same game when it fluctuates between the two and/or when you play it once at one framerate and another at a different one. At that point, a change would be noticeable because it goes against what you normally have been seeing/feeling.SquallTheBlade said:
My point is with regards to games running at 30 FPS and the user experiences that game at approximately 30 FPS the whole time. At the very least, this definitely removes FF13 from the games you've cited, and my experience with at least the Tales games is that they change very little visually or in handling from game-to-game, to the point where you might as well be playing the same game at different framerates. And while I haven't played Scholar of the First Sin myself, from what I've seen of it, it looks to be in the same situation.
Showing a 16.7ms delay vs. a 33.3ms delay doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. If the average person can't discern input delay at 33.3ms, then the only difference between 16.7ms and 33.3ms is how much padding there is between the input delay and the threshold of where you start feeling it.
In other words, your numbers don't mean anything. You'll also have to show that humans are capable of perceiving the higher input delay.
You claimed that you couldnt see beyond 30 fps and that everyone that claimed they could suffered from placebo effect. thats pretty much claiming that humans cannot see beyond 30 fps. And no, had you read my link you would realize that the tests done at 210 fps still showed effects and the only reason they didnt test higher is because they didnt have the tech to project at shorter timeframes.MysticSlayer said:
No, you cannot have smooth and responsive experience at 30 frames per second because having still images for 33.3ms and input lag increased by the same amount is by definition not smooth or responsive. Im not saying you cannot still enjoy the game in this case, you can. Its just that its mot being enjoyed for being smooth because thats not what it is. Since you find both experiences as enjoyable then responsiveness and smoothness are not what you measure the games with.
i guess we will just have to disagree here on what severity Akinetopsia can take then.
Yes, i run fraps for screenshots and it has a frame counter. since im using fraps for over 10 years now usually my mind just filters out the frame counter, but when i find something fishy with how the game looks i glance at it and like clockwork fishy is always when the game is limited to lower framerate for whatever reason.
Here is a study that goes even further - it blind tests people with 60fps versus 120 fps (supposedly the difference is even smaller)
http://techreport.com/news/25051/blind-test-suggests-gamers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates
"The results were pretty conclusive: 86% preferred the 120Hz setup. Impressively, 88% of the subjects were able to correctly identify whether the monitor was refreshing at 60 or 120Hz." So assuming the difference between 30 and 60 is even larger, then yes, people can blindly identify the framerate without any information about it beforehand.
People who read and debated the topic for 4 pages? people who care about thier gaming experience?SycoMantis91 said:
I don't care. As long as there's no comparison for me in a short amount of time (like playing Battlefield on Xbox then PC or having a 60FPS game dropping to 30FPS), I won't even notice a game running at 30.
So what exactly would you want that proved that people can see that a game runs at 30 or 60 fps? A game series that the player has never played before and has no earlier experience with it so there is nothing he can compare it to? You asked if someone has noticed that the game runs at specific framerates without any information of it except just experiencing it. And yes, that's exactly what I did.MysticSlayer said:
I'm not sure what you mean. That the different fps doesn't make a difference in how the games handle? I disagree. 60fps feels better and makes the experience better.
So how do you explain the fact that people can FEEL the difference? You can even try it yourself in some fast paced games. Like Osu! a rythm game which becomes impossible if the framerate isn't 60fps. You will perform worse at 30fps.
As I've stated in an attempt to clarify a couple times already, I find 30 FPS and 60 FPS equally enjoyable when the game remains consistent. I've even brought up a couple cases where I do find a difference, just not enough to indicate that 30 FPS is objectively bad.Strazdas said:
Comments about placebos were with regards to you assertions that 30 FPS can't offer a smooth or responsive experience. If it came across as anything else, I'm sorry for the confusion (and for typing a lot of these while tired).
As I've already mentioned to someone else, you'll need to show that 33.3ms is above the threshold of what humans can perceive before that becomes a relevant number to this discussion.
If you knew me, you wouldn't come to that conclusion.
Fair enough, but that still doesn't indicate that 30 FPS isn't smooth or is unresponsive.
I was in the middle of typing my response when you posted, but I think Starzdas's latest link was good enough to indicate people can pass blind tests.SquallTheBlade said:
I'm not fully versed on game programming, but there are games (especially older ones from what I've heard) where actions, speed, and other factors are tied very heavily to each frame. This can cause some very odd behavior as you increase or decrease the framerate, and it may even be possible some games lock the framerate to mask this. I forget the game, but I know TotalBiscuit has put this on display at least once when he unlocked a game that was locked at 30 FPS. The game became unplayable at the 120 FPS he let it go to, as the game speed was directly tied to the number of frames being run at.
In these situations, yes, you could experience a major difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. The problem, though, is that, from everything I've heard, this is a horrible practice.
But as for this discussion, it is hard to tell exactly how a game is programmed (since most games are proprietary and don't make the source code available), but I would say any game that becomes unplayable to the degree you're claiming probably partook of this practice in some degree. It's not a case of 33.3ms being too much delay. It's the fact that the game is horribly programmed.