For some stuff it's like putting someones glasses on when you're not supposed to wear glasses, but worse. Seriously, play an xbox 360 game in non HD, then play it in HD. Washed out colours, very blurry viewing, mini maps are unreadable, so is text, pin point accuracy is out the window. I have to really strain my eyes to see what I'm doing if I have to play a game on a non HD TV, which leads to eyes hurting.
Aside from the text issue, not really. It may look better, but in going beyond that you've reached into levels of hyperbole usually reserved for reporting about the President's secret Muslim strategy to forcibly gay marry everyone.
For me, that's my experience. Or I can only assume that my mothers non-HD TV was really bad then, (which isn't the case, because it used to be mine before I upgraded)because that was the case for me, my girlfriend and my mum when we had to use the non-hd. It looked awfull. Nowhere near as vibrant or defined. My vision is excellent, yet even I had to sit on the floor when trying to read stuff or look at my mini map properly, not the case with our HD tv at home. And they're both the same size.
Because most don't know better, and even when they do, most console games and their controls are so slow that having a consistent frame rate above 30 doesn't really affect the gameplay enough for them to realize how awful 30 is.
So my question to the console gamers of the Escapist is this - how are you happy with playing games at 30fps? Is there really no difference playing at 60, or is that difference really so negligible that you would prefer better resolution/visuals?
My new favorite game is EDF 2025 and that game looks like a goddamned Xbox 180 game. There's more to a game than graphics and I always find it hilarious that PC gamers stress a relatively trivial aspect of the experience as the be all end all, the apotheosis, of gaming.
Uh, because its a luxury? Spoiler: I have a 144Hz monitor. It cost me nearly $300. I have a job now that pays twice as much as my last one, and I've decided to throw it into my hobby. Others don't. They want a $400, small rectangle that plays their gams real good, I'm going to buy an expensive computer. Even in a recent pc building thread JET1971 points out that stable framerates are usually nicer than simply high framerates, which is why my current laptop can't touch my ps3 because games simply run better on it. Hell, if it matters so much, a dev will choose to run a game 60fps like Revengence. If it mattered and they chose otherwise it would be a flaw. I don't think an Ass Creed game about stealth fits that mold.
I grew up playing on a Sega Genesis, a ps1, an N64, and a Gamecube. All the games I played didn't become retroactively shitty once games started coming out in higher resolutions and framerates. Once again, why do pc gamers care so much? Pc gaming gives you the option to choose if things matter so much to you. That's why it exists
I have watched movies my entire life at 24 frames per second. When the Hobbit came out at 48 frames per second I hated it. I am not a twitch gamer. 30fps is fine with me.
It's all about the fun factor for me. Smash for the 3DS apparently runs at 60FPS (when it comes to the characters you control anyway) and that game is fun. The myriad shooters, brawlers, JRPGs, etc that I've played and, loved from the NES onwards have not. I don't see why frame-rate is the big thing this console generation...I was hoping it would be something like real-time weather (I mean, if we have to have our systems online all the time, might as well keep games plugged into a weather app) or, making every structure in every game destructible. No, instead this gen the big thing is frame rate...F-Zero on the Nintendo 64 ran at 60FPS and I don't think anybody remembers or even cared at the time aside from the more tech-oriented.
So my question to the console gamers of the Escapist is this - how are you happy with playing games at 30fps? Is there really no difference playing at 60, or is that difference really so negligible that you would prefer better resolution/visuals?
You know, the only thing[footnote]In relation to this discussion.[/footnote] as ridiculous as the OPs question is those who are saying, "Who cares what the framerate is, as long as the game is fun?"
You should. We all should. At certain framerates you will notice a difference and you will have your gameplay impacted. And more than this, the framerate of the game can (and usually does) have an effect on the more technical aspects of the game; and I don't mean just in how pretty it looks.
It's okay to be fine with 30fps rather than 60fps. It really is. But don't pretend to not care at all about what framerate your game is running at. Just because you don't quite understand how certain framerates can have a dramatic effect on the performance (and thus, gameplay) of the game does not negate the fact that they do.
Try playing your favorite game at 5fps. I guarantee that it won't be fun at all.
I don't think they are satisfied, I think they are making the best out of a bad situation. What are they going to do, sit there deploring their lack of sixty fps smooth gameplay, or just tell themselves "30 fps is OK".
Objectively there is no comparison, sixty+ fps gives a much smoother experience, but thirty is still playable, so people just say it is fine because they have no control over it anyway.
I felt/do feel still uncomfortable playing games on my PC and newer titles going at 60FPS. The motions feel unnatural, like an uncanny valley effect.
There's also a fact of, never noticed it before, so there's really no comparison. Frankly all this graphics jargon bullshit is so insignificant to the gaming experience overall that I just don't bother caring about this sorta news, also I don't play Assassins Creed. A high fidelity video of a piece of shit is still a piece of shit, it's not like watching Two Girls One Cup makes the experience any better with more frames per second.
These feel like hot button issues because there is absolutely nothing else of value to market. What next, 'the game developers ate all American cheese burgers while making this game, go buy it!' yeurrrh 'Murica.
Movies have been 24 fps for forever and that's been good enough for me. Art direction and storytelling are way more important (also lighting. It's nice to be able to see things, developers).
Yes, this is what I've been wondering too. Aren't all movies at 24fps? Or is this only from the NTSC/PAL days? Now it depends on the refresh rate of the TV doesn't it?
It has to do with the way that the human eye and camera lenses register light and motion, or FPS.
The average human eye is able to register about the equivalent of 24 FPS of movement. Our brain then automatically smoothes out the image to adjust for any "missing frames". This is why we experience motion blur when things move faster than what we can register at 24 FPS. Try frantically waving your hand back and forth in front of your face, most of you should see blurred fingers rather than a super smooth and easily distinguishable motion.
The average camera works very similar to that, it records 24 still frames every second, anything moving too fast becomes a blur. Now of course, there are cameras capable of recording images at a much higher framerate to get really smooth super slowmotion shots, but the motion recorded by the average camera is still adjusted, and motion blur is interpreted by the brain as smooth motion, making FPS less significant in recorded films.
3D animation is not a recorded image though, and therefore not subject to the 24 FPS limitation and motion blur. The reason we can tell the difference in FPS in games is because there is no actual motion going on, the images on the screen are produced by light being projected straight at our eyes rather than light reflecting off a moving physical object.
Detecting differences up to and beyond the 60 FPS mark probably has a lot to do with adaptation though, explaining why some just don't see the difference and some do.
Pidgeons are able to register the equivalent of about 224 frames per second, causing them to experience their visual perception in a state of slow motion compared to humans. This is also why they don't usually move untill the last moment, in their minds they still have plenty of time to get away. They would probably also be bored out of their minds if they watched a 24 fps movie.
As for me, there's no denying that I'm definitely more pleased with a higher framerate and resolution, but it's not much worth if the game is still a shitty game. I also have no problem coping with low FPS, but too low does become a bother eventually.
Wow thanks for that info! That also explains why some developers think motion blur is cool and 'realistic' in games, and why I just find it super annoying. Also explains why super smooth 60+fps video footage has that surreal feel about it, but it looks awesome either way. Didn't expect to learn that much when I woke up this morning (in my timezone anyways) big cheers for that, chief.
You know, the only thing[footnote]In relation to this discussion.[/footnote] as ridiculous as the OPs question is those who are saying, "Who cares what the framerate is, as long as the game is fun?"
You should. We all should. At certain framerates you will notice a difference and you will have your gameplay impacted. And more than this, the framerate of the game can (and usually does) have an effect on the more technical aspects of the game; and I don't mean just in how pretty it looks.
It's okay to be fine with 30fps rather than 60fps. It really is. But don't pretend to not care at all about what framerate your game is running at. Just because you don't quite understand how certain framerates can have a dramatic effect on the performance (and thus, gameplay) of the game does not negate the fact that they do.
Try playing your favorite game at 5fps. I guarantee that it won't be fun at all.
That's just being really pedantic, when people say they don't care about FPS, they are implicitly talking about the 30 vs. 60 argument.
Nobody is pretending they wouldn't care if a game was 5 FPS, the low end is excluded from the conversation by common sense, the people saying that are assuming the person reading their statement is well versed enough in the English language not to take their post to completely ridiculous extremes.
I can sense whenever a game dips below 600fps. I immediately lapse into a painful seizure and vomit. It's made life very difficult for me. I have to take special drugs to slow down my saccadic eye movements just so the frame rate of real life is tolerable.
That's just being really pedantic, when people say they don't care about FPS, they are implicitly talking about the 30 vs. 60 argument.
Nobody is pretending they wouldn't care if a game was 5 FPS, the low end is excluded from the conversation by common sense, the people saying that are assuming the person reading their statement is well versed enough in the English language not to take their post to completely ridiculous extremes.
And no, not everyone is referencing the 30 v 60 debate when they say that. Not even close. I know quite a few who have implicitly stated they don't care what frame rate the game runs at; 30, 60, or otherwise.
So please don't pretend that everyone thinks exactly like you when discussing a hotly debated topic. It just comes off as condescending.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
