[Update 2] How/why are console gamers satisfied with 30 fps?

[Morgoth780]

So, on one hand, we have actual scientific evidence that you're wrong, on the other we have your word for it. It's hard but I think I won't take your word for it unless you provide a citation, as requested.

How about the pages and pages of people in this very thread saying they can't tell the difference?

What about the many, many PC gamers who say there's a huge difference between 60 and 30?

 

[Danny Dowling]

So, on one hand, we have actual scientific evidence that you're wrong, on the other we have your word for it. It's hard but I think I won't take your word for it unless you provide a citation, as requested.

How about the pages and pages of people in this very thread saying they can't tell the difference?

What about the many, many PC gamers who say there's a huge difference between 60 and 30?

well then they're on PC aren't they.

the one that bugged me the most was a YT comment where someone said games in 30 fps just hurt their eyes now... wow, guess they've waited a long time to watch TV etc if it just hurt their eyes.

 

[EXos]

As I said in a previous post in this thread; you've trained yourself to see it. By default a person's senses aren't that...fine tuned. Not to lavish you with undo praise, but the comparison is somewhat like basing the average person's running speed solely on Olympic gold medalists. Simple fact is that there is a range for this, a certain tolerance for error. No two people are exactly alike, but there is a minimum and maximum sensitively, and those of us on the low end of the spectrum who haven't spent years obsessing over pixels are already reaching our limit. Yours is a bit higher, good for you, won't be too long before your limit is reached too. The actual average gamer is already about at their limit.

Here
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/
Proof that you are wrong. It only took me a minute on google. ^^

In the last one it's even said that you'll notice FPS even more on a bigger screen.

24~30 are fine to make something look continuous and not like a slide slow but everything above 30 does add to the experience. Sure the Hobbit has been brought up several time but the main reason for that is because people are used to 24 for their movies.
For games more is better and PC gamers have been getting 60 Fps for years now and while this Console Gen should have been able to do 1080/60 they can barely do 1080/30 but I would bet that if there was a console gen that did run 60fps for the entire duration everybody would get pissed if they changed it back to 30.

Also, the hypocrisy of some as when the consoles were announced they sang praises for 60fps but now that it's not achievable it suddenly doesn't matter, just like resolution.

 

[Irick]

I'd like to ask a question to those who know more of these fps things. In a multiplayer game my ping is almost always above 17 meaning it takes more than a 60th of a second between me pressing a button and the server knowing I did. Much of the time it is above 33 ping turning that to a 30th of a second. Does it then still matter whether the FPS is 60 or 30? If the server doesn't yet know that something happened 2 frames after it happened then for gameplay-purposes those frames can hardly have mattered, right? Or does it work in another way?

Well sure!
So, when you are looking at a video game for things like timing in games there are a few concepts that you need to be aware of. First is the concept of ticks. In most video games, when things happen either on screen or off it is based on a tick rate. This is actually mostly true of most computer operations. Pretty much everything that happens in your computer happens at the beat of a clock. Now, in a game there can be several tick rates for different game elements. For instance, you can have a tick rate for pawn movement in multiplayer or a rick rate for physics engine updates. In the instance of multiplayer, the latency of your connection may make high tick rates more or less redundant, but on a LAN situation you'd want those high tick rates because of the low latency connection. However, no mater the speed of your connection the physics tick rate still needs to be up there. Even with only occasional updates the game engine can predict the motions of a pawn or physics object for a short time, but the ticks for the physics objects need to be consistent. This was actually a problem a while back with one of the big FPS titles: they basicly capped their physics tick at something like 10 FPS in multiplayer, which caused noticeable stuttering.

Now, another thing that can be based on ticks is animation. So, if you are running a physics simulation at ~30 FPS, have your pawn updating at ~15FPS and have your animation timed for 60FPS, you are for the most part going to feel as if you are playing a 60 FPS game even though some elements do not update their real values in that timeframe. Especially with games where you turn a lot, as the movement of the camera is always smooth. But even when games need to guess at data, such as likely player position between those updates, the intermediate data is still displayed.

This is of course, to say nothing of single player games, where you can have every timer just tick away in sync and get a blissfully consistent and smooth gameplay experience.

 

[DoPo]

Our eyes can't detect greater than 60.

Why in Hastur's name is this getting perpetuated? No, eyes DO NOT FUCKING SEE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FRAMES.

As a matter of fact, I had my first ever "greater than 60 FPS" experience ever, just two days ago. See, it's true you may need to adjust to a higher framerate, but when my housemate got a 144Hz monitor and showed it to me, it was immediately obvious. For reference, he showed me a fast dragging dragging of a bright window on a dark background - both on a 60 Hz and on the 144 Hz monitor, and the smoothness was immediately obvious. Anecdotal, but it's just another disproval of the ridiculous "eye framerate cap" bullshit. Can we please, for the love of the gods, stop with this?

 

[DoPo]

As I said in a previous post in this thread; you've trained yourself to see it. By default a person's senses aren't that...fine tuned. Not to lavish you with undo praise, but the comparison is somewhat like basing the average person's running speed solely on Olympic gold medalists. Simple fact is that there is a range for this, a certain tolerance for error. No two people are exactly alike, but there is a minimum and maximum sensitively, and those of us on the low end of the spectrum who haven't spent years obsessing over pixels are already reaching our limit. Yours is a bit higher, good for you, won't be too long before your limit is reached too. The actual average gamer is already about at their limit.

Here
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/
Proof that you are wrong. It only took me a minute on google. ^^

In the last one it's even said that you'll notice FPS even more on a bigger screen.

24~30 are fine to make something look continuous and not like a slide slow but everything above 30 does add to the experience. Sure the Hobbit has been brought up several time but the main reason for that is because people are used to 24 for their movies.
For games more is better and PC gamers have been getting 60 Fps for years now and while this Console Gen should have been able to do 1080/60 they can barely do 1080/30 but I would bet that if there was a console gen that did run 60fps for the entire duration everybody would get pissed if they changed it back to 30.

Also, the hypocrisy of some as when the consoles were announced they sang praises for 60fps but now that it's not achievable it suddenly doesn't matter, just like resolution.

Again I think my Olympic running analogy is apt. Yes it is technically possibly for a person to move so fast, but few of us actually can. And nobody can without years of intense training. As I said I personally can't tell the difference, and there are many others in this boat as well, possibly even the majority. Likewise I can throw your "used to it" argument back at you, as you and others in your camp are simply "used to" looking for those differences that others would simply overlook. Again; you've trained yourself to see it. As for me I've been both a console and a PC gamer, I've played games 30, 60, 90, even at times as much as 120fps, and they add nothing to the experience. After 30 I simply can't see a difference.

I'm confused, are people able or not able to perceive more than 30 frames per second? Because so far you've said both and get all defensive and shit when called out. So would you mind sticking with one?

 

[VincentX3]

Try this then.
http://30vs60.com/formula1.php
Or this
http://www.30vs60fps.com/
Or this
http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

It should be easy to see how framerate effects gameplay with these sources.

... I couldn't tell a difference between the videos in any of those links. The 30 and 60 consistently looked identical.

Just sayin'.

OT: Why don't I care? Because I don't play games that require reaction times equal to 1/60th of a second. The most recent game I played (on a console or otherwise) was Child of Light. Which is TURN BASED.

I also play a lot of games on PC. Turn based or "real time with pause for commands" RPGs.

Thus I am perfectly happy with 30fps.

Wow.. Im surprised you cant notice that HUGE difference.

The second link alone (http://www.30vs60fps.com/) shows how choppy 30fps is compared to 60fps alone.

On topic:

I'd rather have my games at 60fps. Playing a game like DMC Devil May Cry or Skyrim with 30vs60 fps is a world of difference.

But again if there's people like the person above who cant see the obvious difference, then it's no wonder that people either don't care or never notice how much the experience could change at 60fps.

 

[EXos]

Again I think my Olympic running analogy is apt. Yes it is technically possibly for a person to move so fast, but few of us actually can. And nobody can without years of intense training. As I said I personally can't tell the difference, and there are many others in this boat as well, possibly even the majority. Likewise I can throw your "used to it" argument back at you, as you and others in your camp are simply "used to" looking for those differences that others would simply overlook. Again; you've trained yourself to see it. As for me I've been both a console and a PC gamer, I've played games 30, 60, 90, even at times as much as 120fps, and they add nothing to the experience. After 30 I simply can't see a difference.

Cop out!!!

Did my references scare you?
So the people that noticed something weird about The Hobbit were all 14th Dan Resolution watchers? Having returned from their secluded training monastery where they spend four decades of staring at high fps screens. I'll cut out the sarcasm.

Saying that 30 Fps is enough, fine but there are levels above that are beneficial to gaming.

 

[EXos]

Not if you can't see them. And you misunderstand what I mean by training. Take the average person's idea of entertainment for example. TV, netflix, surfing the web, maybe occasionally playing a game on their console. For them just being exposed to 60fps or higher is a rare thing, and their eyes are not used to seeing it. So either they just don't, or you end up with people getting motion sickness watching the Hobbit because of it.

Now take the typical hardcore PC gamer. These guys can spend dozens of hours a week staring at a screen displaying images at frame rates and resolutions well above what the average person is ever exposed to. As such they get used to that, but become less accustomed to the lower FPS the rest of us use in our daily lives. This is training your eyes and your brain to process that higher degree of information, and the result is that when you turn off the PC and turn on the console, you see a huge negative difference. But that isn't because 30 fps is bad; its because you're used to working at a much higher one. Your mind can't slow back down to keep up. You've trained yourself to cope with something beyond the default.

Okay then give me a link to a study saying so.

 

[DoPo]

I'm saying that there is a range that people can see without specifically training themselves to go beyond.

First, you claimed nobody can see it, as the brain couldn't able to handle it. Second, bullshit. There is no "special training" or "technique" or anything involved.

There are men in this world who can bench-press over a ton, but only a lunatic would hold the average person to that same standard of strength.

Your comparison falls flat based on its ridiculousness. Being able to differentiate between framerates doesn't require years of meticulous studying of ancient secrets or whatever. Heck, it may not even require any training - some people are more sensitive, some are less, that's true, but sayingit takes Olympic level training and effort is so stupid it makes the little sense this claim makes even less.

You you mind providing ANY evidence AT ALL to your claims or shall I take it you don't even know what you're talking about?

 

[EXos]

I don't need a study; its commons sense and you experience yourself every god damned day. You want a study? This thread is my study; console gamers say they can't see a significant difference, PC gamers say they can. They each primarily play their games of a difference platform with different display standards. That is as scientific a study as you'll find elsewhere. Comparing a sample of gamers who game primarily on control to those who primarily play on PC an getting their input on the difference between frame rates. The only difference is that actually studies don't (usually) have stubborn assholes demanding links to other studies as they participate. So yeah; you are the study. You're part of sample group A. Now sit down, shut up, and lets compile the results.

Again with a weak cop-out.

Console gamers not seeing 60fps is easy as the consoles can't achieve that. XD J/K (for the most part)
And if I'm part of the study at least have the decency to pay the test subjects you hack.

Further more, your study would have been thrown out of the window by peer review.What is your hypothesis and what are the ground rules you are basing this experiment on? What is your base reference material, what angle are you looking at Biological, Mechanical, Physchological? And where/what is your control group?

Clearly just an Ill-informed person that can't stand being questioned. Poking you will be so much fun! ^^ -glee-

PS. other people are waiting for an answer too don't forget them or I'll start reminding you with every post.

 

[baconmaster]

I honestly don't care all that much. I understand that 60 is better, but it's a non-issue in the vast majority of games. When a game requires fast reflexes I'd prefer them to prioritize framerate, but otherwise I'll just take the best possible visuals at 30 fps.

Of course, though, if I can max out a game's graphics on PC and still get 60, that's an added bonus. Locking PC games at 30 is a terrible idea which tells me instantly not to buy that game for PC because it's probably a bad port all around

 

[EXos]

BLah blah blah blah. I think I'm a philosopher.

Sure people that have quick reaction times do see more fps. I read about fighter pilots being able to determine an aircrafts make and model from one slide... At 200FPS. You can be trained to go higher than normal humans but like I said. The Resolution monks that went to see the hobbit at 48 fps must have timed their movie trip just at the precise point in time after their 40 year training.

I agree you should use it. Deadpool!!! <3


And as for your weeping; go cry me a river.
Here is something I use when I debate religious people (Seeing as you understand things better with pictures):

So I'm the bad guy for demanding evidence in an anonymous forum squabble. How insecure are you about your own concepts of reality honestly.

PS. you're still not answering the other people... Very rude.

 

[DoPo]

I weep for a generation so ashamed of its own intelligence that it refuses to even think for itself.

Says the person who thinks being perceptive is some sort of rare superpower, and when proven wrong, claims anybody saying the opposite must be not as smart as him or they would have seen that the objective proof is not needed when you have bullshit on your side and stick to it.

Thank you for providing my entertainment tonight.