What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?

[Something Amyss]

because we are filthy filthy Graphics whores

and as we all know it is the biggest sin

Every night, when I go to sleep, thinking about all the atrocities I committed that day, all the screams that haunt me, all the cries for mercy, I think, "at least I'm not a filthy filthy graphics whore."

 

[Aprilgold]

Generally, when it's an action game, more frames means the action moves faster without anything chugging.

It also means that the action is smoother because everything is being elaborated on more.

Movies and TV are different from video games. Your comparison is invalid.

/thread

I want to adopt children with you so hard right now....... Butt buddies?

Jokes aside, Smash always /threads the best way possible.

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!

Well when you spend that much money and time to build and purchase things for your PC to play the best-of-the-best with no lag you deserve to have the 60 frames.

Also, yes, 60>30. Math agrees with this as well.

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

Do you remember the days of 2 frames.... I don't because I wasn't alive, but still, dat frame-rate.

_______________________________

In a game, where timing is key and certain things need to be dodged 60 frames is crucial. Its smoother and allows for a much easier time. The action also goes faster and smoothier with it so what is there to not like?

Also, games are not movies or TV, STOP COMPARING THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!

Finally, people have higher standards then others, so just because your ok with it doesn't mean others are.

 

[sanquin]

There's this still prevailing idea that the human eye can't perceive a difference between 24 fps and higher, but that's wrong. I'm not sure about the number, but the human eye can still see a difference up to 60 fps I believe. Could even be higher, but I don't think so. So yes, up until 60 fps you can still see a difference. Anything higher than that and you won't perceive difference. Then again, your brain might still 'feel' a difference between 60 and 120 fps. I'm not sure about that.

So games capped at 30 fps really do have a disadvantage over games that can go higher in that aspect.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

30 fps is pathetically slow. On a PC with mouse you frequently get ghosting and I among many others can see it judder. It simply cannot keep up with a a PC shooter. It takes 60fps really before it's a fully smooth, ghost free experience.

Console owners have been given gruel for so long they cannot appreciate a proper meal anymore.

 

[The Heik]

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.

Oh really, well here's a question. What can you do in 1/60 of a second?

Let me tell you. No conscious action. And that is what is unfortunately needed to play a game.

I know that time is a relative thing, and that human can get very fast once our bodies have received and executed the the command, but one just can't get past the .1 seconds needed to consciously form and send those thoughts. Unless you get insanely lucky, if you're behind an equally matched opponent's reaction time you're pretty much guaranteed defeated. and no amount of frames per second will change that.

I'm sorry if you disagree with me if you will but you are arguing against fundamental facts of life. If you can find someway to significantly break the .1 second reactionary barrier, then I might agree with you, but until that time I'm gonna trust the data.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Oh really, well here's a question. What can you do in 1/60 of a second?

Let me tell you. No conscious action. And that is what is unfortunately needed to play a game.

I know that time is a relative thing, and that human can get very fast once our bodies have received and executed the the command, but one just can't get past the .1 seconds needed to consciously form and send those thoughts. Unless you get insanely lucky, if you're behind an equally matched opponent's reaction time you're pretty much guaranteed defeated. and no amount of frames per second will change that.

I'm sorry if you disagree with me if you will but you are arguing against fundamental facts of life. If you can find someway to significantly break the .1 second reactionary barrier, then I might agree with you, but until that time I'm gonna trust the data.

I've already explained several times why it isn't a case of 1/60th of a second reaction time. Wanting a game to be 60 frames a second does not mean that you think you can react to what is happening 60 times a second. You have some very strange and limited idea about what reaction time means in a game, presumably all games are about one test where you push a button when something pops up on screen and the screen does not need to be updated again.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

The best example I can give of why 60 FPS matters is this: Go play Call of Duty. Now go play Halo. See the difference? 30 FPS looks like slow motion compared to 60 FPS. It's sluggish, choppy, and not smooth at all. 60 FPS is like butter.

 

[omega 616]

I have to say, I consider myself luckier than most here.

I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60, so my experience of games wont be ruined. I have watched some of the "here are the examples of 30 and of 60" and they both look exactly the same.

Yippie for me I guess.

 

[The Heik]

Oh really, well here's a question. What can you do in 1/60 of a second?

Let me tell you. No conscious action. And that is what is unfortunately needed to play a game.

I know that time is a relative thing, and that human can get very fast once our bodies have received and executed the the command, but one just can't get past the .1 seconds needed to consciously form and send those thoughts. Unless you get insanely lucky, if you're behind an equally matched opponent's reaction time you're pretty much guaranteed defeated. and no amount of frames per second will change that.

I'm sorry if you disagree with me if you will but you are arguing against fundamental facts of life. If you can find someway to significantly break the .1 second reactionary barrier, then I might agree with you, but until that time I'm gonna trust the data.

I've already explained several times why it isn't a case of 1/60th of a second reaction time. Wanting a game to be 60 frames a second does not mean that you think you can react to what is happening 60 times a second. You have some very strange and limited idea about what reaction time means in a game, presumably all games are about one test where you push a button when something pops up on screen and the screen does not need to be updated again.

And you have a very strange and limited understanding of what reaction time means at all. It's definition is not something up for debate. Reaction time is and has always been defined along of the lines of "the time elapsed between identification of stimuli and an appropriate response."

Also you seem to have completely ignored my post where I explained why I used the .1 second threshold (which not only were you were quoted in, but quoted me from, so it mystifies as to how you missed it). But I suppose I'll have to explain it again. I use that benchmark because it is literally the fastest reaction time known to man. That was the only reason I used that number, as I was using the parameters for the best possible situation. My results were optimistic, so in truth the realistic RTs would be far worse off than stated, thereby making any bout between two foes matter more on basic reaction time as the difference in frame rate between 30 and 60 is even less of a percentage of the amount.

Now if you like games to be 60 FPS, that's perfectly fine. It does add to the visual polish of the game, and there are certainly games where it is most appreciated (Skyrim with all the mods and 60 FPS is gorgeous). But that doesn't ignore the fact that my original point of 60 FPS not making any useable difference in terms of player capability still holds up.

 

[o_O]

Feh, I'll post this now despite only reading through the first page. Knowing my luck, someone has already brought up all of this.


People obsessing over 60fps makes sense at least. It's the maximum amount of frames most monitors output. You're trying to get all you can out of your monitor. It's people who obsess over 100+fps who you can guarantee don't have 120hz monitors who are stupid. Any frame above 60 on a 60hz monitor is useless, and most people sure as shit don't make sure to buy a monitor with an abnormally high refresh rate.

Now, concerning 30fps in film... You have to consider motion blurring. Each frame captures a bit of blur to smooth over the transition in film. For computer graphics, you never really have that. Every frame is rendered sharp, like it was recorded at 5000fps. So in actuality, higher framerates *are* more noticeable, since all these extra frames help sell the "blur" effect.

 

[Bitcoon]

Watch a Blue Ray some time. If you're used to DVDs, the difference is insane, to the point where it feels like you're not even watching the same thing anymore. It looks almost TOO fluid. The action seems to happen significantly FASTER somehow, even though it's the same animation happening at the same pace. It's hard to even describe, but I've been watching at the usual DVD framerate for so long that the additional FPS that Blue Rays play at is just surreal. (the HD is nice, too, but I'm pretty sure that's not a big factor here)

 

[NeutralDrow]

The only time the frame difference between 30 and 60 has ever mattered to me was when I tried to play Samurai Warriors 3 on the Wii. I couldn't do it. It just felt too jarring, considering how every single Koei hack'n'slash I'd played before (including SW2 on the PS2) was at 60 frames and looked spectacular.

Also, the fact that Sengoku Basara 3 for the Wii ran at 60 made the contrast feel all the worse.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

There is a noticeable difference. Although I find both acceptable 60 is smoother and flows better. Even if a games framerate tanks and you go down to 45-40FPS after being at 60 you'll notice some difference. And besides things can always get better, little by little so we might as well push for smoother experiences.

 

[DRes82]

Yeah, I'm pretty spoiled. Anything below 50 fps is unplayable for me. I enjoy a fairly constant frame rate of 60 or so in Skyrim on Ultra settings. I haven't encountered anything that uses all the resources on my machine yet.

Its not a gimmick or a sales tactic or a phallic metaphor. Frame rate is very important and the lower it is, the less immersive a game becomes, and that's the whole point isn't it? Immersion?

 

[Risingblade]

fps=game's penis size?


Or I could just help games stay looking pretty when the frame rate drops due to too much on screen action?

 

[vashthblackseed]

simple, when lag spikes can eat 5-15 frame rates, you want above the 30 frame rate the human eye sees with.

 

[madster11]

60hz needs 60FPS to be truly fluid.
30FPS is effectively half the refresh rate, and the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is very easy to see. 30FPS is easily playable, but 60FPS is just better.

To have your mind truly blown, go check out a 120hz monitor and look at the difference between 30FPS, 60FPS and 120FPS. 120FPS is noticeably smoother than 60FPS, just the same as 60FPS is noticeably smoother than 30. It's weird because 60FPS is already very smooth.

 

[ResonanceSD]

because we are filthy filthy Graphics whores

and as we all know it is the biggest sin

I believe the term is "graphical bling pimp"

And if it isn't, it bloody well should be.

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

If you have a slower game it doesn't matter as much, but in fast paced action games it makes a world of difference. Especially when you have timing involved, more frames gives the developer more control over the timing involved in attacks/dodges/stuff.

I found the 15 fps example to be rather smooth, with no difference other than in speed for the 30 and 60 fps examples...I think I may be broken.

What is your monitor refresh rate?

 

[Pyro Paul]

simplest answer:
Although the human brain stops really telling the diffrence between frame rate after 30 fps, for games and computers, it is more then just the fps...

The framerate denotes the ease the computer has at crunching and processing the numbers and commands that are given to it. The diffrence between 30 fps and 60 fps isn't the visual diffrence we see, but rather how fast the world is built infront of us when we interact or transition from area to area.

For instance, in skyrim at 30fps you can see the visual transition of objects between the 'far away' low poly place holder of world items to their 'close' high poly counter parts as you travel towards a town. where as at 60fps this transition occurs at a much further distance, or so fast that it is much harder to notice.

 

[sethisjimmy]

60 FPS looks so much smoother. It is a very noticeable difference between 30 and 60 fps. No seriously, people are pretending to not be able to see the difference? Come on, 60 fps always looks better.
It's not a deal breaker by any means, but a game designed at 60 FPS is always going to look better than the same game at 30 FPS.