Xbox One's Frame Rate: Kid Rejected, Mother Approved

[Snotnarok]

Also on a more serious note, where did this myth come from that you can't see more than 30fps? I mean shouldn't that just not even be a thing as it's easily testable or just look at NTSC vs PAL 60vs50 it's noticeable there and that's just 10 frames.

Ehm, FPS=/=refresh rate.

Back in the old days, some developers were simply too incompetent or lazy to properly adapt their games to PAL standards. When done correctly, you won't notice a difference to the 60Hz version. I guess the best examples how to do and not do it are Sonic 1 and 2 on Mega Drive.

European consoles from that era can also run most NTSC games with no problems at all. While cartridge based consoles needed a rather extensive mod to unlock the capability to run 60Hz games properly (usually a lot of wires and levers involved), all you needed for your PSX was either a boot disc that bypasses the region check or a modchip. Add an RGB cable and a 60Hz compatible TV to the list (back in the days when TFT was nowhere in sight, european TV's were usually limited to 50Hz) and you could run US games in full speed and color. The devs could have added a 50/60Hz option back then just as well. Lots of pirated games from that time let you choose between the trusty sucks-to-be-you 50Hz mode and the original 60Hz mode while the legit versions forced you to bother with the lazy ass "PAL adaptation"...

Btw, unless you still have a CRT monitor, the one you're using right now has a fixed refresh rate of 60Hz as well.

I'm aware of all that such stuff, found out a lot back when when diving into emulators and what not. But there's no mention of the myth of how 30fps is the fps limit your eyes can see, it's not a new thing either it's been around for quite some time. I know games even had issue of music being much slower such as Sonic 1 and Phantasy Star IV.

That last part isn't true at all, they have 120hz monitors they're just less common.

 

[kannibus]

Realize of course that such issues could be avoided simply by embracing the glory that is PC Gaming.

 

[Ferisar]

Red Mystery Fluid isn't comparable to ketchup, that's like comparing apples and artificially and naturally flavored apple bars! ...:V

Also on a more serious note, where did this myth come from that you can't see more than 30fps? I mean shouldn't that just not even be a thing as it's easily testable or just look at NTSC vs PAL 60vs50 it's noticeable there and that's just 10 frames.

People are crazy.

Never underestimate the power of the fanboy to deny logic and reality.

Snipple

I think he was on your side of the argument, bud "People are crazy" with a response about "denying reality" seems to go hand-in-hand. HOLD YOUR ESSAYS, esé.

OT:
Yep. Yep... It's still really sad. :L

 

[JayRPG]

Red Mystery Fluid isn't comparable to ketchup, that's like comparing apples and artificially and naturally flavored apple bars! ...:V

Also on a more serious note, where did this myth come from that you can't see more than 30fps? I mean shouldn't that just not even be a thing as it's easily testable or just look at NTSC vs PAL 60vs50 it's noticeable there and that's just 10 frames.

People are crazy.

Never underestimate the power of the fanboy to deny logic and reality.

Snipple

I think he was on your side of the argument, bud "People are crazy" with a response about "denying reality" seems to go hand-in-hand. HOLD YOUR ESSAYS, esé.

OT:
Yep. Yep... It's still really sad. :L

My mistake >.<

I read it as "Fanboys will do anything to justify there being a difference between 30 and 60 fps".

The subject just really angers me, the whole 'our eyes can't even see 60 fps' argument is just so stupid. so, so stupid.

Of course we can see more than that, our brain uses blur, object movement anticipation, even 'doubling' up of the 'frames' we see and a whole lot of other techniques to give us our final vision, in my link in the first post it tells of an example that fighter pilots were able to identify enemy aircraft flashed at 1/220th of a second.

There is so much difference between how many frames we can see and the fluidity, detail and perceived quality of what we are looking at.

 

[gamegod25]

Except mom does it because of love and not because she is being paid to lie.

 

[Ferisar]

Red Mystery Fluid isn't comparable to ketchup, that's like comparing apples and artificially and naturally flavored apple bars! ...:V

Also on a more serious note, where did this myth come from that you can't see more than 30fps? I mean shouldn't that just not even be a thing as it's easily testable or just look at NTSC vs PAL 60vs50 it's noticeable there and that's just 10 frames.

People are crazy.

Never underestimate the power of the fanboy to deny logic and reality.

Snipple

I think he was on your side of the argument, bud "People are crazy" with a response about "denying reality" seems to go hand-in-hand. HOLD YOUR ESSAYS, esé.

OT:
Yep. Yep... It's still really sad. :L

My mistake >.<

I read it as "Fanboys will do anything to justify there being a difference between 30 and 60 fps".

The subject just really angers me, the whole 'our eyes can't even see 60 fps' argument is just so stupid. so, so stupid.

Of course we can see more than that, our brain uses blur, object movement anticipation, even 'doubling' up of the 'frames' we see and a whole lot of other techniques to give us our final vision, in my link in the first post it tells of an example that fighter pilots were able to identify enemy aircraft flashed at 1/220th of a second.

There is so much difference between how many frames we can see and the fluidity, detail and perceived quality of what we are looking at.

TO BE ENTIRELY FAIR, it becomes a lot more of a conscious effort to tell those apart the higher you climb, especially when your perception isn't being challenged constantly. That and type of monitor and yada yada yada. I agree that telling the difference between 30-60 is cake, and really can't imagine people who can't do it without just outright lying about it. If someone told me "hey can you see the difference between 200 and 150 FPS" I would probably struggle. Although, afaik, I don't think I can do that.

But yeah, your point stands. Human eyesight is complicated. More complicated than the console peasants would have us believe.

 

[Skeleon]

I used not to care about the fps too much way back in the day when all I ever knew was ~30 fps, especially before I started recording gameplay videos. When you can literally switch the fps between 60+ and ~30 on a newer computer with the press of a button (recording off/on), you really notice it and realize how sluggish 30 fps feels. It's still okay for a lot of games, but it does feel a lot less responsive. It's probably worst for first person shooters, though, where quick and precise reactions are so important.

 

[JayRPG]

TO BE ENTIRELY FAIR, it becomes a lot more of a conscious effort to tell those apart the higher you climb, especially when your perception isn't being challenged constantly. That and type of monitor and yada yada yada. I agree that telling the difference between 30-60 is cake, and really can't imagine people who can't do it without just outright lying about it. If someone told me "hey can you see the difference between 200 and 150 FPS" I would probably struggle. Although, afaik, I don't think I can do that.

But yeah, your point stands. Human eyesight is complicated. More complicated than the console peasants would have us believe.

Oh there is definitely some kind of upper limit to when we can perceive differences.

It would be much harder to see the difference between 60 and 90 and damn near (if not entirely) impossible to tell the difference between 90 and anything above 100 and so on.

I think the biggest factor is: How much is what we are looking at actually changing frame to frame?

If you were showing a video of fog slowly descending on a static background, you could play this at just about any FPS, as low as 1-5 fps, and it would look smooth because there is almost no difference frame to frame but when you are watching something, like a video game, that has fast moving objects, a whole screen full of variables, camera angle/viewing angle changes, lighting and shadow changes, depth of view changes and changes in objects in different depths of view, etc, you need a much higher frame rate to show all these changes that are happening in fractions of a second.

 

[QuadFish]

WHO THE BLOODY FLIPPIN HECK CARES!!!

This is a growing attitude I've taken a real dislike to, as someone who's done a lot of editing and design work, and this is not just targeted at you because of how common it is these days. Reducing your appraisal of a game to "is it fun?" is just straight up ignoring all the detail in the design that makes a game "just fun" and gives it that particular feel. The fact that you don't notice some design choice doesn't mean that that element of the design doesn't exist or isn't important anymore. The "smooth" feeling 60fps gives over 30fps is an insanely important choice depending on the type of game, the animations it uses, etc. It's not that 60fps is always better, more that regardless of whether you can consciously count the frames it affects the presentation of the game and hence how people will enjoy it. To dismiss that importance or straight up deny there being a difference at all, like these journalists, is to stick your head in the sand.

It's less about comparing spreadsheets and more about: if some game designer needs a console that can maintain 60fps because his game loses pace or responsiveness with only 30, and that console can't maintain 60, then that's a design issue. Some games are fine with 30, but the difference matters.

But that dismissive attitude is related to a more general ability that takes time to learn, which is the double perspective you need to be able to immerse yourself in a game and also think critically about why you're enjoying or hating it. It's much easier to stop doing the latter and just become part of the game experience, but you don't learn as much from it.

 

[QuadFish]

The subject just really angers me, the whole 'our eyes can't even see 60 fps' argument is just so stupid. so, so stupid.

Of course we can see more than that, our brain uses blur, object movement anticipation, even 'doubling' up of the 'frames' we see and a whole lot of other techniques to give us our final vision, in my link in the first post it tells of an example that fighter pilots were able to identify enemy aircraft flashed at 1/220th of a second.

There is so much difference between how many frames we can see and the fluidity, detail and perceived quality of what we are looking at.

Same here. My real beef with it is that question itself is flawed. It's often framed as "How many FPS can the eye see?" which is straight up misleading in assuming our eyes and brain work like a camera with fixed FPS. There's so many tiny intricacies to human sight that so few people understand and we throw it out the window by asking questions with assumptions like that.

 

[Bindal]

Xbox One's Frame Rate: Kid Rejected, Mother Approved

Brought to you by Critical Moss, the world's worst webcomic.

Read Full Article

To be entirely fair, 30 fps is better for some games.

But on the other hand, that list consists entirely of games whose developers, the idiots that they are, thought it was a bright idea to use the framerate as a timer.

And Tournament Fighter (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, ect.)

 

[Vault101]

*sighs* you know, I said the same thing about resolutions when people were flipping out about those earlier this year.

WHO THE BLOODY FLIPPIN HECK CARES!!!
.

resolution doesn't matter?.....of coarse it friggen matters!...whoever says it doesn't I'm not sure has actually sat down to [b/]see[/b] the difference. Of coarse my favorite movie is still going to be my favorite movie regardless of weather I watch it on Blu-ray or DVD but give me the choice I'll go for the one that looks better. Also if you went back and watched it on Video then you'd sure as hell notice the difference compared to what we have now (espeically an old worn video) even if people at the time said "well what difference is there really?" I played on a 1280x720 laptop screen and while it seemed perfectly fine to me at the time after I got a 1080p 20-something inch monitor I could definitely see the difference

the reason people got themselves over a twist in regards to resolution on consoles is 1080p is the standard, and the Xbox is behind that standard.

as for FPS there is a difference and in regards to games the smoothest you can get it the better

and more to the point WHAT game could possibly look worse in 1080p and 60FPS?

This is a growing attitude I've taken a real dislike to, .

I suspect they actually DO care....

 

[Skeleon]

Speaking of resolutions: If I have the choice between 30 fps 1080p and 60 fps 720p, I'll go with the latter, at least in first person shooters and the like, because there the game flow and feel is more important than the visual fidelity.

 

[Vigormortis]

Yes, you can tell the difference because one says 30 and one says 60.

Not that you don't *see* a difference mind you, but the way these things work as long as the two are labelled the comparison is meaningless. In a side by side comparison where you aren't *told* the difference you may not be able to see it.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they're labeled in this instance.

The link isn't some questionnaire asking the person to spot the difference. It's a demonstration of the difference. Someone's inability, or more likely refusal, to see it is beside the point.

But, if anyone is interested in a more robust demonstration, here is a better one - http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether or not someone can or can't tell the difference. Objectively speaking, there is a difference. Sixty frames per second, in terms of attempting to achieve a more fluid animation, is objectively better than thirty frames per second.

That's the point of the comic. It's the reason the claims made by Microsoft, and subsequent fans, were bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

and more to the point WHAT game could possibly look worse in 1080p and 60FPS?

while off the top of my head I can't list one that would be affected by the fps (which is to say Either/Or. not just if it was pushed to 60 or something else), I can clear up generally any questions aimed at my disdain for higher resolutions by saying that despite all the races for graphics, fps, resolution, multiplayer, and etc, I grew up loving the older generations, and still do to this day. my library of more recent games stops at the ps3 (pc games as well, but nothing super crazy, mostly indies), but goes all the way back to the snes.

so

you want a game? pick one from beween the wii and the snes. part of my ire towards resolutions isn't just to the push of hardware, but the tv manufacturers as well (okay, i guess that's hardware too...different anyway). I'll summarize it by saying, try playing even skyward sword on, not even a 1080p tv, but a 720p tv that's trying to scale itself down to display properly. you'll still see the artifacts, the various graphical glitches, and the fuzzyness. enough said. we're killing our older games by pushing them away with resolutions. maybe not in the entirety, but it sure doesn't help. hello salvation by emulators =/

 

[Vault101]

you want a game? pick one from beween the wii and the snes. part of my ire towards resolutions isn't just to the push of hardware, but the tv manufacturers as well (okay, i guess that's hardware too...different anyway). I'll summarize it by saying, try playing even skyward sword on, not even a 1080p tv, but a 720p tv that's trying to scale itself down to display properly. you'll still see the artifacts, the various graphical glitches, and the fuzzyness. enough said. we're killing our older games by pushing them away with resolutions. maybe not in the entirety, but it sure doesn't help. hello salvation by emulators =/

this whole argument is not about older games, what relevance do older games have with the Xbone or any of this? getting older games to run on modern technology can be a pain in the ass, but thats irrelevant!..I'm not gonna get a friggen 800x600 monitor just because dungeon keeper looks incomprehensible stretched out, I'll just play it windowed..its small as hell but at least its sharp

[snipe

holy shit....turn off motion blur on both moons..set one to 60 and the other to 30 and the milky way to 60 the difference is astounding..I don't believe it...

 

[Vigormortis]

holy shit....turn off motion blur on both moons..set one to 60 and the other to 30 and the milky way to 60 the difference is astounding..I don't believe it...

Oh, believe it. Without any visual effect covering it up the difference between sixty and thirty frames per second is almost jarring.

 

[Dominic Crossman]

It bares reposting because:

A: It demonstrates the difference simply and beautifully.
-and-
B: People STILL assert there's no differnce.

So here it is - https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you can honestly sit there and tell me that there's no visible difference between the fluidity of the 30 and the 60 fps samples, then I bow to you. Or I may call you a liar. Not sure.

Just looked at your link, and while I can tell the diffrence, it is so minuscule that I can't see why people get up in arms about it. If they'd been shown one by one instead of side by side then I bet I wouldn't be able tell the difference.
I think the only genre where it matters one iota is a fighting game such as Street Fighter.

It's less that there's 'no difference' or one being 'better,' I mean 60 is clearly a much different, much larger number than 30. It's more that if you played something at 30 FPS and than at 60 FPS, 9 times out of 10 you would probably have to TELL me which one is which. I would so rarely be able to legitimately tell the difference on my own that I really don't give a shit.

That's the point I'm trying to make but I fear I wasn't making clear enough.

edit: the best visually looking game on the ps4 right now is Infamous: Second Son. It runs at 25-45 fps and developers are making it so you can lock ghe fps at 30 fps in a patch. So in summarision, the best looking console game (barring XB1 which I've only played Ghosts on) doesn't go above 45 fps.
This is why this argument confuses me.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

But..but...everyone knows the human eye can't see more than 30 fps! Various console peasants have attested to this! How can they possibly be wrong?

what is it meant to be, 24fps or something like that that the average eye can register.

I always thought, whats that matter unless your monitor can sync up with your eye lol

 

[dangoball]

As someone who is used to playing games at 20 FPS because of a shit laptop I never understood this discussion. Same like I never understood why MOAR PIXLZ!!! is such a big deal. I play fun games. If they look good, all the better, but not necessary.
Some people might think I label them graphics whore out of envy, because they can enjoy Crysis 3 on max settings while my laptop would melt even looking at it. They might be partially right, but if your enjoyment of a game comes mainly from a pretty picture, you deserve that label.

Disclaimer: I mostly play RPG and strategy games, the only notable titles in my games library in need of fluidity are DMC4, Batman: AC and UT2004. As you can see, not a shooter fan.