What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?

[More Fun To Compute]

That's not how it works in terms of the whole system. A very finely tuned 60fps game has around 66ms of input latency while solid 30fps has twice that although it often goes up to over 200ms if the engine is not tuned and the hdtv is laggy or whatever.

And also in fighting games losing every other frame of animation is losing a lot of data about what is happening. Is this move x or move y, how obvious is the difference and so on. With 60fps developers can convey the same amount of visual information to the player in a shorter amount of time making action games feel a lot faster.

On your first point, you're arguing on an individual basis, which is hardly an objective point of reference. Of course a well tuned machine is going to function better than one that isn't. However, if both a 30 FPS system and a 60 FPS system are well tuned, the difference is negligible at best.

On your second point, like I mentioned before, .0167 seconds is not enough for the human brain to work with. By the time the information has been processed and reacted upon, 6 or more frames have already passed by, and that's at the very best speed humanity can offer (a trait that exists in less than .1% of the population). To say that a single frame lends so much information to a game is arguing against a fundamental physical limit of the human body. There is no one on Earth, past or present, who could properly use such a miniscule difference to any significant result.

And besides, if a game (ostensibly a form of entertainment) requires that players be the pinnacle of human mental capability to to be able to play properly, I'd chalk that up more to unfeasible game design rather than a lack of information.

So let me say again, no one needs faster than 40 frames per second for their games. 60 FPS does add to the visual smoothness, but in terms of actual actions and reaction, no one is going to be able to use what little is gained from the increase in FPS.

I don't think you understand what I wrote but I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

Just to restate it though, the times we are talking about between pushing a button and seeing the results on screen are not .0167 seconds but .066 seconds. Double that to .132 and we are not talking about something that can only throw "super humans" off their game if the playing field is not level although maybe someone just mashing buttons because it's fun wouldn't care or notice. But in reality that .132 second delay is the absolute best case for a 30fps game. Some titles that are ostensibly "30fps" games can have more than .2 seconds of input lag which puts them well in the category of any casual player with average human wiring knowing that something is off.

And please don't start with 40fps. What consumer hardware do you know that has a refresh rate of 40hz or even 20 or 80?

Edit: I just want to restate this to make it even more clear. The timing number you have, you have to multiply it by a factor of minimum 3 (very rare), normal 4 (regular which is the factor I used) or more than 5 (depressingly common). This is because it takes a game multiple frames to process your input then display and image. Games are a feedback loop which is half shitty game engines and hardware that adds lag and half our slow meat brains processing what is happening and reacting.

 

[The Heik]

Yeah, some of the combos are insanely tight in that game, you'd never pull them off at 30FPS.

I call bullshit on this statement.

At 30 FPS, there is .03 seconds between each frame. At 60 FPS there are .0167 seconds between frames. That's already a pretty miniscule difference, but it's made all the more irrelevant mechanically by the fact that the world's fastest human reaction times are .100 seconds, 6 times slower than the frametime at 60 FPS. If the the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is a workable amount for you, then congratulations you're officially superhuman, but no regular member of the homo sapiens species could actually utilize such a meager amount of time with any significant measurable difference in player capability.

Which would be a valid criticism if combos were down to individual frames, which they're not.

Actually they are, as ultimately all interactions are based upon the frames (which are each continuations of the game). Can't pull off a combo if there are no frames to progress the action.

My point though is that having 60 FPS over 30FPS does not add enough additional data data for even the fastest human brains to actually use. Knowing that a hadouken fireball is coming .0167 seconds faster is not going to measurably help in combat, because it still takes your brain at least .1 seconds (though on average it's more like .2) to be able to recognize it and react to it. Ergo, a higher frame rate does not mechanically change the game after 30-40 FPS. If it does for you, then it's probably just a mental placebo, not an actual tactical advantage.

There are places in maps you can only get to in CoD 2 if your fps is 333 or above so yes in games higher FPS does make a difference.

What are you on about?

First, what the heck does a certain level of frame rate suddenly make it so a player can access new parts of the map? Does going that fast suddenly make the player character be able to phase through walls or something? Seriously, you are being incredibly vague with what is happening and how.

Second, I think you're pulling a strawman argument here. My post was about how 60 FPS doesn't increase one's capability to react properly, due to the human best of a .1 second reaction time putting a base limit on the player's ability to respond to new threats, so an additional .0167 seconds would not noticeably increase combat capability. You seem to be arguing about somehow a higher frame rate suddenly gives access to previously inaccessible parts of the game.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post.

 

[The Heik]

I don't think you understand what I wrote but I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

Just to restate it though, the times we are talking about between pushing a button and seeing the results on screen are not .0167 seconds but .066 seconds. Double that to .132 and we are not talking about something that can only throw "super humans" off their game if the playing field is not level although maybe someone just mashing buttons because it's fun wouldn't care or notice. But in reality that .132 second delay is the absolute best case for a 30fps game. Some titles that are ostensibly "30fps" games can have more than .2 seconds of input lag which puts them well in the category of any casual player with average human wiring knowing that something is off.

And please don't start with 40fps. What consumer hardware do you know that has a refresh rate of 40hz or even 20 or 80?

Edit: I just want to restate this to make it even more clear. The timing number you have, you have to multiply it by a factor of minimum 3 (very rare), normal 4 (regular which is the factor I used) or more than 5 (depressingly common). This is because it takes a game multiple frames to process your input then display and image. Games are a feedback loop which is half shitty game engines and hardware that adds lag and half our slow meat brains processing what is happening and reacting.

*sigh*

Ok, let me make it clear for you. I am not talking about the technology here. I am not talking about the individual systems characteristics, or about how shitty certain technology is.

I am talking about how the human brain simply can't compute fast enough for a 60 FPS system to make any personally noticeable difference in combat capability over the basic 30 FPS model, if all other parameters are equal. It doesn't matter if it's 60 FPS or 60,000 FPS, there will always be at least a .1 second lag for the signals to reach the brain, for the brain to process the information, and then send a signal out to appropriately react. Remember, we human see the world at the speed of light, and yet enough slow motion capture shows how long it takes us to react to something in comparison to when it happens.

Once the FPS exceed the brain ability to properly process and respond to something, it honestly doesn't matter how fast the frames go by. You'll still react with the same speed. All a high frame rate does it make the picture look smoother. That's it. There is no mechanical difference, and you will still play with the same effective level of combat capability.

So please, stop harping on about specific tech platforms. It has nothing to do with what I am arguing, ergo it is completely and totally irrelevant to my original point.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yeah, some of the combos are insanely tight in that game, you'd never pull them off at 30FPS.

I call bullshit on this statement.

At 30 FPS, there is .03 seconds between each frame. At 60 FPS there are .0167 seconds between frames. That's already a pretty miniscule difference, but it's made all the more irrelevant mechanically by the fact that the world's fastest human reaction times are .100 seconds, 6 times slower than the frametime at 60 FPS. If the the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is a workable amount for you, then congratulations you're officially superhuman, but no regular member of the homo sapiens species could actually utilize such a meager amount of time with any significant measurable difference in player capability.

Which would be a valid criticism if combos were down to individual frames, which they're not.

Actually they are, as ultimately all interactions are based upon the frames (which are each continuations of the game). Can't pull off a combo if there are no frames to progress the action.

My point though is that having 60 FPS over 30FPS does not add enough additional data data for even the fastest human brains to actually use. Knowing that a hadouken fireball is coming .0167 seconds faster is not going to measurably help in combat, because it still takes your brain at least .1 seconds (though on average it's more like .2) to be able to recognize it and react to it. Ergo, a higher frame rate does not mechanically change the game after 30-40 FPS. If it does for you, then it's probably just a mental placebo, not an actual tactical advantage.

There are places in maps you can only get to in CoD 2 if your fps is 333 or above so yes in games higher FPS does make a difference.

What are you on about?

First, what the heck does a certain level of frame rate suddenly make it so a player can access new parts of the map? Does going that fast suddenly make the player character be able to phase through walls or something? Seriously, you are being incredibly vague with what is happening and how.

Second, I think you're pulling a strawman argument here. My post was about how 60 FPS doesn't increase one's capability to react properly, due to the human best of a .1 second reaction time putting a base limit on the player's ability to respond to new threats, so an additional .0167 seconds would not noticeably increase combat capability. You seem to be arguing about somehow a higher frame rate suddenly gives access to previously inaccessible parts of the game.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post.

You're saying FPS does not measurably change gameplay. That is not a straw man. I am saying that is does and the reason it does it that it affects your jump mechanics in the game as with the higher fps you can fit your jump frame on to areas you normally can't get to. Also you you can see a big difference between someone using a semi auto weapon at 30 60 and the usual server limit of 125 especially if people can roll their mouse properly.

So no it is not a straw man and source I've played a lot of scrims with my old clans and zombie maps.

EDIT: Also automatic weapons shoot faster with higher frames.

 

[Twilight_guy]

From what I've heard in order top create the illusion of motion you need around 24 FPS. I suppose the human brain might be able to precieve a difference from 30 to 60 FPS, maybe smoother animation like going from purple to fuschia. At some point though changes in FPS become imperceivable, like going from 0x2299FF to 0x2299FE. People talking about FPS in the hundreds are probably arguing over something they physically cannot see.

As for me, I've played console and PC games all my life and I've never seen anything different enough for me to consciously go 'Yep, that's different'. I only notice when it drops below 24 FPS and I have a slide show. Of course then again I can barely notice the difference between SD and HD so maybe I'm just a weirdo. It means I can buy cheap stuff and be just as happy though!

 

[Poetic Nova]

I don't see much of a diffirence, but you hear this from a guy who used to play games at 15 fps

 

[The Heik]

Yeah, some of the combos are insanely tight in that game, you'd never pull them off at 30FPS.

I call bullshit on this statement.

At 30 FPS, there is .03 seconds between each frame. At 60 FPS there are .0167 seconds between frames. That's already a pretty miniscule difference, but it's made all the more irrelevant mechanically by the fact that the world's fastest human reaction times are .100 seconds, 6 times slower than the frametime at 60 FPS. If the the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is a workable amount for you, then congratulations you're officially superhuman, but no regular member of the homo sapiens species could actually utilize such a meager amount of time with any significant measurable difference in player capability.

Which would be a valid criticism if combos were down to individual frames, which they're not.

Actually they are, as ultimately all interactions are based upon the frames (which are each continuations of the game). Can't pull off a combo if there are no frames to progress the action.

My point though is that having 60 FPS over 30FPS does not add enough additional data data for even the fastest human brains to actually use. Knowing that a hadouken fireball is coming .0167 seconds faster is not going to measurably help in combat, because it still takes your brain at least .1 seconds (though on average it's more like .2) to be able to recognize it and react to it. Ergo, a higher frame rate does not mechanically change the game after 30-40 FPS. If it does for you, then it's probably just a mental placebo, not an actual tactical advantage.

There are places in maps you can only get to in CoD 2 if your fps is 333 or above so yes in games higher FPS does make a difference.

What are you on about?

First, what the heck does a certain level of frame rate suddenly make it so a player can access new parts of the map? Does going that fast suddenly make the player character be able to phase through walls or something? Seriously, you are being incredibly vague with what is happening and how.

Second, I think you're pulling a strawman argument here. My post was about how 60 FPS doesn't increase one's capability to react properly, due to the human best of a .1 second reaction time putting a base limit on the player's ability to respond to new threats, so an additional .0167 seconds would not noticeably increase combat capability. You seem to be arguing about somehow a higher frame rate suddenly gives access to previously inaccessible parts of the game.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post.

You're saying FPS does not measurably change gameplay. That is not a straw man. I am saying that is does and the reason it does it that it affects your jump mechanics in the game as with the higher fps you can fit your jump frame on to areas you normally can't get to. Also you you can see a big difference between someone using a semi auto weapon at 30 60 and the usual server limit of 125 especially if people can roll their mouse properly.

So no it is not a straw man and source I've played a lot of scrims with my old clans and zombie maps.

Ok you seem to misunderstand the term gameplay here. Gameplay is how someone interacts with a game world. My argument is not about that. It is about how after 30 FPS (approximately after the point where a individual would interpret a bunch of frames as a single continuous image), any additional FPS wouldn't add to reactionary capability. This is a principle equally applicable to film or even real life. In fact real life is probably the best example of what I'm arguing, as the human eye sees things at the speed of light (which is for all intents and purposes infinite FPS in this case) and yet there are still things in this universe that can occur faster than out minds can actively register all in one go. Reaction time is a fundamental limit of the human brain, and once what is happening exceeds that limit, it doesn't really matter how much it exceeds by.

And now that you've given me a bit more information on the CoD 2 FPS issue you've mentioned, I can now figure out what it actually is. The situation you speak of is most definitely a glitch caused by the higher frame rate creating a more definitive path for the computer to calculate where the player could land. CoD 2 was never meant to run at 333+ FPS, so the game's design didn't account for that in the level design. It's a technological quirk, not proper game mechanics, so it is hardly relevant to any part of this thread's discussion on the 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

*sigh*

Ok, let me make it clear for you. I am not talking about the technology here. I am not talking about the individual systems characteristics, or about how shitty certain technology is.

I am talking about how the human brain simply can't compute fast enough for a 60 FPS system to make any personally noticeable difference in combat capability over the basic 30 FPS model, if all other parameters are equal. It doesn't matter if it's 60 FPS or 60,000 FPS, there will always be at least a .1 second lag for the signals to reach the brain, for the brain to process the information, and then send a signal out to appropriately react. Remember, we human see the world at the speed of light, and yet enough slow motion capture shows how long it takes us to react to something in comparison to when it happens.

Once the FPS exceed the brain ability to properly process and respond to something, it honestly doesn't matter how fast the frames go by. You'll still react with the same speed. All a high frame rate does it make the picture look smoother. That's it. There is no mechanical difference, and you will still play with the same effective level of combat capability.

So please, stop harping on about specific tech platforms. It has nothing to do with what I am arguing, ergo it is completely and totally irrelevant to my original point.

You are just wilfully trying to misunderstand now.

There is a limit to how fast the nervous system can process information. There is a limit to how fast the technology can process information. In a game they work together in a feedback loop. When people make games they have some control over how fast the game code can process information and one of the best and most reliable ways to do that is to switch from 30fps to 60fps.

Let's say I take on average .11 s to respond and I'm playing spot the sausage at 120fps which adds a further 0.025ms to the time it takes to react because I believe that higher frame rates are gud.

You are playing against me with your average .1 s reaction time but you are running at an unstable 30fps because you have science on your side and know that a mere raise in framerate adds no difference but in reality it adds .15 s to your time to react.

My average time to spot the sausage is .135 and yours is .25 so I win the sausage spotting tournament despite having worse reactions.

 

[Noswad]

It's because all PC gamer's are secretly pigeons and therefore need the extra FPS so the games do not look like slide shows.

No but in all seriousness the difference it makes does not even register on my buy it on console or buy steroids for my PC argument.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yeah, some of the combos are insanely tight in that game, you'd never pull them off at 30FPS.

I call bullshit on this statement.

At 30 FPS, there is .03 seconds between each frame. At 60 FPS there are .0167 seconds between frames. That's already a pretty miniscule difference, but it's made all the more irrelevant mechanically by the fact that the world's fastest human reaction times are .100 seconds, 6 times slower than the frametime at 60 FPS. If the the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is a workable amount for you, then congratulations you're officially superhuman, but no regular member of the homo sapiens species could actually utilize such a meager amount of time with any significant measurable difference in player capability.

Which would be a valid criticism if combos were down to individual frames, which they're not.

Actually they are, as ultimately all interactions are based upon the frames (which are each continuations of the game). Can't pull off a combo if there are no frames to progress the action.

My point though is that having 60 FPS over 30FPS does not add enough additional data data for even the fastest human brains to actually use. Knowing that a hadouken fireball is coming .0167 seconds faster is not going to measurably help in combat, because it still takes your brain at least .1 seconds (though on average it's more like .2) to be able to recognize it and react to it. Ergo, a higher frame rate does not mechanically change the game after 30-40 FPS. If it does for you, then it's probably just a mental placebo, not an actual tactical advantage.

There are places in maps you can only get to in CoD 2 if your fps is 333 or above so yes in games higher FPS does make a difference.

What are you on about?

First, what the heck does a certain level of frame rate suddenly make it so a player can access new parts of the map? Does going that fast suddenly make the player character be able to phase through walls or something? Seriously, you are being incredibly vague with what is happening and how.

Second, I think you're pulling a strawman argument here. My post was about how 60 FPS doesn't increase one's capability to react properly, due to the human best of a .1 second reaction time putting a base limit on the player's ability to respond to new threats, so an additional .0167 seconds would not noticeably increase combat capability. You seem to be arguing about somehow a higher frame rate suddenly gives access to previously inaccessible parts of the game.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post.

You're saying FPS does not measurably change gameplay. That is not a straw man. I am saying that is does and the reason it does it that it affects your jump mechanics in the game as with the higher fps you can fit your jump frame on to areas you normally can't get to. Also you you can see a big difference between someone using a semi auto weapon at 30 60 and the usual server limit of 125 especially if people can roll their mouse properly.

So no it is not a straw man and source I've played a lot of scrims with my old clans and zombie maps.

Ok you seem to misunderstand the term gameplay here. Gameplay is how someone interacts with a game world. My argument is not about that. It is about how after 30 FPS (approximately after the point where a individual would interpret a bunch of frames as a single continuous image), any additional FPS wouldn't add to reactionary capability. This is a principle equally applicable to film or even real life. In fact real life is probably the best example of what I'm arguing, as the human eye sees things at the speed of light (which is for all intents and purposes infinite FPS in this case) and yet there are still things in this universe that can occur faster than out minds can actively register all in one go. Reaction time is a fundamental limit of the human brain, and once what is happening exceeds that limit, it doesn't really matter how much it exceeds by.

And now that you've given me a bit more information on the CoD 2 FPS issue you've mentioned, I can now figure out what it actually is. The situation you speak of is most definitely a glitch caused by the higher frame rate creating a more definitive path for the computer to calculate where the player could land. CoD 2 was never meant to run at 333+ FPS, so the game's design didn't account for that in the level design. It's a technological quirk, not proper game mechanics, so it is hardly relevant to any part of this thread's discussion on the 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS.

Ok I'm going to give this one more whack. The FPS in CoD directly changes how you affect the game world by being able to shoot faster and have a more accurate and higher jump height glitch or not. Personally, it is hard to notice a change in FPS when I go up. So if I was playing at 30 fps for awhile and then it went up to 60 fps I would not notice as much as I haven't watch various FPS animations online. The reverse is not true. 60 FPS is a lot more fluid and gives you a clearer representation of the game world allowing and the game to react more quickly to each other.

So yes frames does affect how accurately gameplay is portrayed in relation to how quick it related my input to the world although online ping affects this too. So given that this does affect the accuracy of how things occur in the game I would say yes it does affect a person's reaction time relative to the game world regardless of the individual's perception of the fluidity of the frame difference.

The more often there is sharp and quick movement the bigger FPS makes a difference. More importantly in fast paced games it feels a hell of a lot different and more smooth.

 

[The Almighty Narf]

The human brain only operates at about 10Hz, plus or minus 5. Over 20fps is plenty to make sure that there will never be the same frame for more than one cycle in a row. You are biologically incapably of noticing the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I expect any difference you think you see is just placebo effect.

 

[G32420NL]

The human brain only operates at about 10Hz, plus or minus 5. Over 20fps is plenty to make sure that there will never be the same frame for more than one cycle in a row. You are biologically incapably of noticing the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I expect any difference you think you see is just placebo effect.

Two people already posted a link to a site with proof of difference between different framerates, it has nothing to do with placebo effect. and i whould like a source for your info because talking about the brain in framerate is a bit strange.

 

[Navvan]

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?

As I'm sure many people have pointed out many can tell the differance between 15 and 30 FPS and some people can even see the differance between 30-60 FPS. Just because you see 10-15 FPS is "Fluid" does not mean everyone else does. Depending on the movements and such of things on screen the differances can become very noticeable. In the case of gaming a higher frame rate is actually needed to achieve the same fluidity of movies/tv because they have no motion blur.

Link [http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm]

 

[dimensional]

For me, certain games just need to be 60 FPS to feel precise.


In something like Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, every frame counts. Devil May Cry is another one, so it seems strange that a game series so obsessed with fluent and over the top combat would drop its FPS in the newest title.

Yeah it makes the game look a lot smoother which is important in 2d fighters as 2d games tend to look shiiter (than 3d) with a low tick count or whatever you want to call it than 3d games combat wise though I would argue that while important UMVC3 is actually pretty leniant with its combos seeing as it utilises chain combos meaning moves cancel into each other rather than SF4 which heavily utilises Link combos instead where you have to press the follow up at the right time i.e after your last recovery frame for the move and before they recover from the hitstun that move inflicted to guarantee a combo which is a lot harder (and borderline impossible in some cases i.e 1 frame links do exist and can be done but not really on reaction its on reflex, well and they do pianoing and other shit to maximise their chances of hitting them, some can also be buffered as well like most fighting games specials seem to usually allow for buffering normals dont in my experience).

With DMC I would say frames are less important sure 60 ticks would be nice but the combat dosent need it as its not that precise and isnt supposed to be it will just make it look smoother which is a good thing but not essential.

Really how many frames per second your game needs depends on whats happening if your playing oil tanker simulation ver 2012 (making stuff up here) you wont need to have things run at 60 ticks as it will be fine much much lower if you are playing sonics speed adventure (yeah dosent exist) you will need a lot more ticks to make it look good and play smooth.

 

[bobajob]

I built my current computer specifically to play any game at 60fps maxed-out(with a dash of antialiasing) on a 1080p monitor.
There is a world of difference between 30 & 60 fps. Anybody who says different obviously does not have access to a computer capable of such feats. 60 > 30, right?
I also own a PS3 I had since launch(well, the 60GB model had to go back to Sony, yellow light of death. Even I couldn't fix that)
It really bothers me when fps lags in a game, it signifies something ain't quite right on a technical level.
So go suck it, all of ya!

 

[The Heik]

You are just wilfully trying to misunderstand now.

There is a limit to how fast the nervous system can process information. There is a limit to how fast the technology can process information. In a game they work together in a feedback loop. When people make games they have some control over how fast the game code can process information and one of the best and most reliable ways to do that is to switch from 30fps to 60fps.

Let's say I take on average .11 s to respond and I'm playing spot the sausage at 120fps which adds a further 0.025ms to the time it takes to react because I believe that higher frame rates are gud.

You are playing against me with your average .1 s reaction time but you are running at an unstable 30fps because you have science on your side and know that a mere raise in framerate adds no difference but in reality it adds .15 s to your time to react.

My average time to spot the sausage is .135 and yours is .25 so I win the sausage spotting tournament despite having worse reactions.

There are so many factors at play here that you aren't considering, it's quite laughable.
Also there's added framebuffer/display/net connection etc. latency that come in to play and can be quite high at times.

Ok I'm quoting you both here because you both need to read this.

I specifically am trying to eliminate as many factors as possible because it ensures the the important parameters here (ie the 30/60 FPS benchmarks and the human mind and it's ability to process information under pressure) are the ones that get proper attention. If we add too many factors in such as specific machine tuning, internet connections, and potential move sets available, we'll literally be here for years calculating all the possible permutations. Not only that but it would also skew the end results because there are so many potential factors at honestly stand under random chance. By ensuring that we look at only the relevant parameters we ensure that we get the most relevant result for the topic at hand.

So stop with the accusations of me simply ignoring things. I'm fully aware that they exist, I simply am not factoring them in for sake of simplicity and clarity.

You're not making much sense, regarding your 0.1 second measurement.
That's largely the amount of time a green light can go off till someone reacts, but doesn't say anything about perceptual differences or cognitive dissonance that has an effect on said reaction time and general perception.

Very true, though in this case it kinda back fires for you here, as that number was the one for the fastest possible reactioners, ergo the ones with the least perceptual issues. So if we were to include the possible dissonances, it would be far more appropriate to use the true average which is .2 seconds

You're also missing the point that moving around in a 3D space and making it look natural is quite different from waiting for a light to go on.

Very true, but again this backfires for you. In a 3D interactive environment the reactioner isn't just looking for one specific pre-told thing, they are analyzing a whole environment for all potential situations. That means the brain is in a form of standby, not prepared for anything specific as otherwise they could make the wrong decision and have to re-evaluate, costing more time. That means that there's another level of brain that a thought has to go through to become an action. That adds another fraction of a second to the count. So a true average reaction would be far worse than the one I used (which was for the "best possible scenario")

If your number had any meaning, you would think that 10FPS for a game are quite enough, right, after all noone could react faster than that? Yet you wouldn't be able to react at all at that frame rate, since your eyes and brain wouldn't even perceive it as fluid motion and wouldn't know how to properly react...

There is a difference between passive and active analysis. the human eye whilst open is always being fed information from light sources, so it passively processes that information into the basic visual web we see. However, in order to react properly to something the brain must activate the full analysis part of itself, more commonly known as "focusing". When it does this, it looks at a situation more closely and if appropriate, issues a set of commands for the body to carry out. It really can only do one of these sets of commands at a time uninterrupted. So if something unexpected were to happen in the middle of a set of commands, the brain would effectively have to re-set and do it all over again.

So in the context of the quote, while human brain does receive information constantly, it really can only send out one command string a a time before re-evaluating. Though it is worth stating that even at .225 seconds for the average gamer playing in a non-predetermined game, they will be able to get at least 4 command sets out per second, which is not a small number all things considered. (though this is not factoring in the amount of time needed to complete the action in game)

read my Post further above, along with some of the links and educate yourself on the matter, again there are people that can clearly recognize a single frame from 220 in a second and react to it.

I read it, but while it is impressive that is only a single action. I'm sure if you were to ask that same individual to look at two images and contrast and compare them at a glance they would noticeably slow down because suddenly they have to do more analysis and consider multiple factors. Identification is easy, planning is a more difficult process, and planning is something that is required in video games far more than simple identification.

And I can assure you that there is quite a clear and noticeable difference between even 60FPS and 120FPS (on 120Hz displays), if you want to believe it or not. I have been playing fast-paced PC shooters on a CRT with above 120FPS/Hz for years and my performance was always noticeably improved in comparison to a slow LCD or lower frame rate.

Yes there is a clear and noticeable visual difference between 30, 60, and 120 FPS, but that exists in only one regard: smoothness. You see, I'm a game artist, and as a result I've had solid experience with animating 3D models. And the one thing that's consistent with any FPS is that any part of an animation will always be in the same location relative to the whole animation. If you make a gun discharge animation start at frame 10 of 120 at 30FPS, but later double to 240 frames 60 FPS for higher smoothness, the start of the animation will still go off at the same time, though it is now labeled as frame 20. So as long as the temporal length of the animation isn't messed with, the FPS can be changed to something as insanely high as 1 million FPS and the discharge would still happen at the same time. So in truth, increasing FPS does diddly squat in terms of increasing the time for reaction. It'll still take the exact same amount of time for the animation to play out. The only difference is that you'll have more indication of it as a slug plows through your player character's skull, which is small consolation.

So like I've said before, a higher FPS does not help with capability. All it does is help with the visual look of the game. It's still nice but for interaction it is not a necessity.

 

[The Heik]

Ok I'm going to give this one more whack. The FPS in CoD directly changes how you affect the game world by being able to shoot faster and have a more accurate and higher jump height glitch or not. Personally, it is hard to notice a change in FPS when I go up. So if I was playing at 30 fps for awhile and then it went up to 60 fps I would not notice as much as I haven't watch various FPS animations online. The reverse is not true. 60 FPS is a lot more fluid and gives you a clearer representation of the game world allowing and the game to react more quickly to each other.

So yes frames does affect how accurately gameplay is portrayed in relation to how quick it related my input to the world although online ping affects this too. So given that this does affect the accuracy of how things occur in the game I would say yes it does affect a person's reaction time relative to the game world regardless of the individual's perception of the fluidity of the frame difference.

The more often there is sharp and quick movement the bigger FPS makes a difference. More importantly in fast paced games it feels a hell of a lot different and more smooth.

Ok I'm gonna quote a post of myself here because I just completed a post that pretty much explained to another person the same thing I would explain to you.

Yes there is a clear and noticeable visual difference between 30, 60, and 120 FPS, but that exists in only one regard: smoothness. You see, I'm a game artist, and as a result I've had solid experience with animating 3D models. And the one thing that's consistent with any FPS is that any part of an animation will always be in the same location relative to the whole animation. If you make a gun discharge animation start at frame 10 of 120 at 30FPS, but later double to 240 frames 60 FPS for higher smoothness, the start of the animation will still go off at the same time, though it is now labeled as frame 20. So as long as the temporal length of the animation isn't messed with, the FPS can be changed to something as insanely high as 1 million FPS and the discharge would still happen at the same time. So in truth, increasing FPS does diddly squat in terms of increasing the time for reaction. It'll still take the exact same amount of time for the animation to play out. The only difference is that you'll have more indication of it as a slug plows through your player character's skull, which is small consolation.

So like I've said before, a higher FPS does not help with capability. All it does is help with the visual look of the game. It's still nice but for interaction it is not a necessity.

This is ultimately what I mean when I say 30 and 60 FPS have not reactionary difference. While you do get a better indication of what's going on, you do not get any better capability to avoid it unless your enemy is a complete pillock with no combat skills to speak of. Against any half decent foe the few hundredths of a second you'd gain from such will not mean anything because the fastest human beings on earth are still several times slower to react that the amount given per frame (though it would probably bee a moot point anyway considering your enemy most likely has the same frame rate advantage).

So once you get past the continuous image threshold, there's just not enough leeway for the human brain to find an advantage.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Ok I'm quoting you both here because you both need to read this.

I specifically am trying to eliminate as many factors as possible because it ensures the the important parameters here (ie the 30/60 FPS benchmarks and the human mind and it's ability to process information under pressure) are the ones that get proper attention. If we add too many factors in such as specific machine tuning, internet connections, and potential move sets available, we'll literally be here for years calculating all the possible permutations. Not only that but it would also skew the end results because there are so many potential factors at honestly stand under random chance. By ensuring that we look at only the relevant parameters we ensure that we get the most relevant result for the topic at hand.

So stop with the accusations of me simply ignoring things. I'm fully aware that they exist, I simply am not factoring them in for sake of simplicity and clarity.

No, no, you still don't understand. You think I'm trying to over complicate things or something when all I'm doing is explaining that you saying that 1/60 is quite a small number is a naive over simplification. It almost works as a theory if you don't understand what is going on but in practice and in the reality of how games work it is wrong. Just wrong. Not useful in any way.

 

[Sande45]

I think the biggest benefit of 60fps is that you have room for the framerate to drop. It can decrease by 50% and it's still going to be relatively smooth. With 30fps, framerate pretty much has to be locked because basically anything below that is a slide show.

Other than that I can't see much of difference between the two, but I feel a slight difference in controls. Cod, Rage and Goldeneye have smoother and better controls than their 30fps brethren.

 

[chadachada123]

Have you actually played games that ran between 30-60fps? I only ask because while the difference between 30 and 60 may not be as noticeable as say the difference between 10 and 30 (by simple virtue of the fact that the latter is the difference between seeing individual frames and not), it is absolutely quite noticeable none the less. 60fps is much smoother, results in fewer dropped frames, and things like screen tearing from fast movement become less of an issue, if not disappear completely, at fps higher than 30.

Honestly, it's nice that most companies at least focus on a bare minimum playable goal of 30fps and all. But I'd like to see the standard bumped up to 60. On the PC it doesn't matter as much since settings are adjustable. But on console it'd be a nice touch, and yes, it really is so noticeable that I'd like to see every game run at that speed.

I haven't had the ability to really compare, since my laptop is shit and most Xbox games run at around 30fps.

I do have one way of comparing on 360, though, with Call of Duty, which basically always runs at 60fps, and Battlefield 3, which runs normally around 30 but can dip semi-frequently. Dips are far, far more noticeable in Battlefield, definitely.

I notice a difference between the two speeds, but I don't have a preference when both are running at full speed. Personally. Part of it may be that I'm weirded out by movies that run at 50fps since I spent most of my life watching them at 24, and see Call of Duty as similarly unsettling.