What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?

[Da Orky Man]

Ok, essentially, as I understand it, any frame-rate of about 10-20 or more is enough to provide an illusions of a moving picture.

Have you ever played any game at 20 frames? Preferably some form of FPS as I feel those suffer the most.

It's immensely unplayable, and that's not me that's non gaming friends trying to run things on their laptops.

I currently play Republic Commando on my netbook at about 15 fps with no problems. SUre, it
looks somewhat choppy, but perfectly playable.

If you played it at the full 60fps you would never want to play it at 15fps again.trust me.

I have. I currently play it on my netbook, usually getting the framerate above. However, I do on occasion play it on the family computer, which is a quad-core, 8gb RAM monster. I would guess it easily gets 60fps, and likely more.

 

[JWAN]

Depends on the game. TF2, IMHO, needs the extra frame rates and to me it is very noticeable.

 

[NinjaDuckie]

I honestly don't see any difference between the two and couldn't care less what FPS I have as long as it's a regular, unstuttering image. According to the turnout on this thread, however. I'm apparently a minority.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd say it's a question of what you want to achieve as an experience, versus what you can reach. Below thirty frames per second, there's not a single title out there that could qualify as being playable. 30 FPS is the absolute minimum to reliably enjoy anything related to games.

If you can crank your FPS count to higher and have it reach sixty, then all you're doing is getting yourself some extra comfort. Animations are going to look more fluid, movement is going to feel entirely natural. Lifelong gamers could tell you that 30 FPS still does feel a little artificial. There's an undefinable... "something" the eyes start picking up that makes the experience uncomfortable. Minuscule hiccups between frames, maybe. I've had that impression, but I can't quantify it.

Then there's the fact that nowadays, 30 FPS is borderline. The game works and doesn't chug, sure, but if it ever drops below that, all bets are off. I personally consider the sixty-plus mark to be something that's mainly there to give me some breathing room. That way I won't jump between moments where everything's smooth as silk, and other moments where my rig goes "HUUUUUUURRR, RENDERING EACH FRAME AT THE SWEAT OF MY FREAKING BROW, AAAARRRGH!"

 

[LiquidGrape]

24 frames per second is perfect for a medium such as film, where there is a fundamental disconnect between work and audience. It's an additional artifice which simply makes it easier on the eye.

In an interactive format, the difference between 30 and 60 fps is quite obvious, and often detrimental to the fluidity of the experience. In a game you are expected to navigate directly, and personally I find that a bit challenging and disconcerting with anything less than, say, 45 frames per second.

 

[bioject]

Ok, essentially, as I understand it, any frame-rate of about 10-20 or more is enough to provide an illusions of a moving picture. Indeed, movies and television have a framerate of 24 FPS, and no-one seems to find any problem with them being choppy or slow.

So why so much freakout at frame-rates being capped at 30 FPS, or this obsession with getting it up to 60? if you've surpassed the point needed to create the illusion of a fluid, moving picture, do you really need to push it even father? or is this some 'OMG GOTTA SHOW OFF MY HARDWARE POWER!' thing thats ost posing and showing off?

I don't know if you've noticed or perhaps you're a console gamer and never think about FPS, but generally achieving a solid 60fps makes the game look and feel butter smooth. I can feel and see the difference whenever I hit 30 fps. For a movie where you're just watching, I guess 24fps is fine, but for games where you're actively manipulating camera angles it's a huge difference. These days I pretty much consider anything below 30 unplayable as it is too annoying to play. Beyond 60 is just pointless though.

 

[Godhead]

It looks smoother and the higher your fps the less of a performance drop if you start chugging.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

Twenty-four frames per second is enough to provide the illusion of smooth movement on something like a movie or television. In a game, however, you're processing information in a different way and at you rely on every fraction of a second of reaction time you can get. If you have sixty fps you can react to changes in game better than you could at thirty fps because the information you're receiving new information more frequently. After sixty though you start receiving less benefits, and about seventy-five is the most fps you can actually use (anything above that and you're not actually processing all the frames being presented, due to cognitive limitiations).

That IS stupid. A lot of people can't even tell the difference above 40-45 fps (age related mostly). Above 60 almost nobody can. Above 80 it's just technical masturbation.

I agree that people don't need to PLAY at 80+ fps, but having the ability to do so isn't exactly a bad idea. For instance, I play TF2 at 250 fps, but because of that I can record gameplay at 60fps with no framerate drop. Beyond that, some games that people play around in for the sake of doing something grandiose with the engine (Skyrim, Garry's Mod, etc) would take a framerate drop if you didn't have the ability to handle the game at 250fps or so.

 

[Fredvdp]

Indeed, movies and television have a framerate of 24 FPS, and no-one seems to find any problem with them being choppy or slow.

Actually TV has a framerate of 25 fps. A cinematic release that is broadcast on television is sped up by one frame per second, and some gifted people can actually see that difference.

Originally movies ran at 18 fps, but this was increased to 24 when they made talkies, because the audio quality was too low when played at 18 fps.

I personally made the switch to PC gaming sometime this generation. At first I didn't care much about the framerate, but I've gotten used to 60 fps now and it's a huge difference. I was playing some Mass Efefct 3 multiplayer shortly after it came out and decided to record some footage using Fraps. Even when the framerate dropped to 45, I had trouble playing it.

The obsession with framerates is there because it makes you a better player. With movies you have a natural motion blur to bridge the frames and you're a passive viewer rather than an active participant. That's why it's more important in games. I personally would prefer higher framerates in action movies, and Peter Jackson is also working on that.

Why are ppl talking about 60FPS as a PC only thing? Don't many Wii games run at 60FPS?

Yes, Mario Kart comes to mind.

Here's a side by side comparison: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

 

[Naeras]

60 FPS looks a lot better than 30 FPS. I'm fairly certain there's no reason to go above 60, though.

 

[Fredvdp]

60 FPS looks a lot better than 30 FPS. I'm fairly certain there's no reason to go above 60, though.

That's because most monitors only have a refresh rate of 60hz at high resolutions. Professional gamers can see the difference between 60 and 120 fps, but I haven't had a chance to check it out myself.

 

[NLS]

I actually can't see the difference past 20 or so FPS.

There is a huge difference in the looks and smoothness of a game. If you don't think you can see a difference look at this: http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

From your sauce:

Let's start with 15 FPS. Kinda choppy...






Now, let's move onto 30 FPS. Much smoother...






Now 60 FPS.



I can easily detect a more life-like fluidity in the 60 FPS example.

I saw nothing but blank white space between the words. Anyone else?

This tool is the best comparison of frame rates I've come across, as it allows you to change the frame rates of different objects (and add more objects) within the same image, giving an unrivalled comparison:

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com

Using that app, comparing 60 FPS and 30 FPS, both without motion blur, the soccer ball on bottom looks blurrier, but not any more or less choppy, than the one on top.

If you turn off the motion blur option, you'll see the lower FPS is more choppy. Motion blur is just a nifty invention to mask away the choppyness.

 

[Davey Woo]

I don't think i can tell the difference between 24 or 30. I certainly can't tell the difference between 30 and 60, but strangely I notice a massive difference if my framerate ever drops down to 20.

However, looking at some of the example things people have posted, when put next to each other I can tell the difference between 24/30, but still not between 30 and 60.

 

[Shilo Zaba]

What a lot of people might not realise, is for some of us, 60fps isnt just a preference but a need. Take me for example.. I am running an Epson Powerlite Homecinema 3010 3D Projector, and as great as it is (especially for movies!) it Only runs in 60hz, no 24 or 30. So if you know what a game looks like in 30hz running on a constant 60hz display at 720p and 1080p on a 130inch throw.... Then you will see why some of us hope and pray that our favorite games release with a native 60hz framerate (and native 1080p, which looks like what we have to look forward to with ps4 and xbox 720).

And if you don't know what that looks like let me tell you.
When I finally got my new projector set up and got rid of my last one cuz it looked fantastic on movies.
When i put my copy of the Amazing Spiderman in my 360, i almost got sick to the point of vomit.
Not the cheapest machine but unless I play games that are 60hz I find as a gamer some games unplayable. But all of my 60hz games (ps3 and 360), well the quality is just indescribable!

So try not to hate on all us 60fps lovers!

And if anyone knows of a conversion solution or something that could bring up my 24 and 30 hz gameplay on this type of display I would definitally appreciate it! Hate having to leave the mancave to game out in the livingroom!