PC LA Noire locked to 30 fps, WTF

[Weaver]

To me the difference between 30fps and 60fps is night and day.

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

yes but the frame is displayed twice, making the actual perceived framerate 48 FPS.

 

[Joby Baumann]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

 

[ph0b0s123]

.....Who cares about framerate? Yeah, games sometimes look better at 60 FPS, but honestly if that's all you're complaining about when it comes to a game I think you need to have priorities shifted. 30 FPS looks perfectly fine and sometimes even has a more cinematic feel to it

Although I somewhat agree with you, I can still understand what he's coming from. It's just a matter of "my machine should be able to run at 60fps, so it should be running at 60fps".

I mean, I sure as hell prefer 60fps. But I'm not about to complain if something it locked at a certain amount, as long as it isn't under 30.

"my machine should be able to run at 60fps, so it should be running at 60fps"

Not what I was saying at all. I just listed that I have two cards and one is only being half used to stop posts stating the reason for the frame rate was 'your machine is not fast enough'.

The problem with setting the limit to 30 is that it means sometimes it dips under 30 since that is where the limit is for some nice stutter, even nicer in the driving or chasing down bad guy on foot sections.

The whole point of the post was to say that the game is good, but due to being the type of console port it is, it is not really worth full price...

 

[MrTub]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

Like I said its not completely true. Did you even cheak the link that was linked?

Cause I can clearly see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 since everything is smoother.
And if you really do not think people can notice fps over 24 then why arent all console games fixed to 24-25fps? if there was no differnce they would do it since its huge performance save. And why is people buying 120hz screens?

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isn't really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it lagging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

I'm sorry but that seem rather ridiculous. Most people see an average of what? About 25fps. Even if you had amazingly fast receptors, you're still looking at about 35fps. A game running at 60 or above is really just for smoothing and so they don't have to use blurring techniques to help fool you. There's going to be no lag at around 30fps or above.

And anything about 60 is just posturing.

So you are saying for me there is no way to notice the difference between 24fps and 60fps?

Then why arent all consoles games fixed to 24-30fps? They would be able to put in a lot of more stuff then.

 

[MrTub]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

Well I guess that you either have bad eyesight or you are simply used to playing with 30fps

 

[Weaver]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

I do LPs and I record at 60 then convert the video to 30 in post processing since it makes the file about half as big and youtube has a 30fps limit.

 

[Weaver]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

Maybe some people just legitimately can't tell the difference.
They look incredibly different to me.

edit: though your computer could be so slow it's running the 60fps flash video at a lower framerate.

 

[Silas13013]

I distinctly remember John Carmack saying that they did some testing with people with Rage running at 30 and 60 fps. He said that people saw a significant difference between the two. Whether you think it's "just fine" is simply your opinion and many of use would rather have it at 60. There's no reason to lock it on PC anyway.

^^This
I don't get why people are 'wrong' for having an issue with the frame rate being locked. There is a significant difference when the frame rate is cut in half, both values of which (60 vs 30) are able to be displayed on a monitor. That argument that it is 'just fine' might be a valid argument if the frame rates were 120 and 60, both of which are identical on a monitor with a refresh rate of 60FPS.
Anyway, the game is a pile of garbage on my monitor. 30 FPS is nowhere near high enough to look good when you are used to 75FPS (refresh rate of my monitor). It's just clunky and doesn't look as good as it could.

 

[MrTub]

So what's the problem?
The human eye is fooled into seeing motion at a mere 25 fps, 30 does the trick just fine.
And even if it doesn't for your pan-dimensional optics, so what? It's a videogame, play it!

That is not completely true, otherwise nobody would be buying 120hz screens.

People can see difference between 24fps and 60 and even 120 since the pictures is more fluid or whatever you call it, perfect example is this link that Thecookie provided:
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

30 and 60 looked the same.

Maybe some people just legitimately can't tell the difference.
They look incredibly different to me.

I guess it mostly depends on what you are used to, I used to have a shit ass computer and then I could play at 20fps and not really see the lag. But after I bought a new one I could really see the difference. Same with a dude that used to be in our guild, he played at around 12-14fps and he didnt really think it lagged

 

[Joby Baumann]

I distinctly remember John Carmack saying that they did some testing with people with Rage running at 30 and 60 fps. He said that people saw a significant difference between the two. Whether you think it's "just fine" is simply your opinion and many of use would rather have it at 60. There's no reason to lock it on PC anyway.

^^This
I don't get why people are 'wrong' for having an issue with the frame rate being locked. There is a significant difference when the frame rate is cut in half, both values of which (60 vs 30) are able to be displayed on a monitor. That argument that it is 'just fine' might be a valid argument if the frame rates were 120 and 60, both of which are identical on a monitor with a refresh rate of 60FPS.
Anyway, the game is a pile of garbage on my monitor. 30 FPS is nowhere near high enough to look good when you are used to 75FPS (refresh rate of my monitor). It's just clunky and doesn't look as good as it could.

While I have no issue with people who want 60 fps, I feel that if that is the only thing you can complain about, somebody is going out of your way just to complain

 

[Mitchell Osborn]

need at least 40FPS myself. 30 does seem abit sluggish.

 

[MrTub]

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isnt really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it laging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

You are aware that movies and TV are filmed at 24 fps right? You sound like Activision's marketing department.

Like I said its not completely true. Did you even cheak the link that was linked?

Cause I can clearly see the difference between the 30 fps and 60 since everything is smoother.
And if you really do not think people can notice fps over 24 then why arent all console games fixed to 24-25fps? if there was no differnce they would do it since its huge performance save. And why is people buying 120hz screens?

You really don't need above 30fps for a game like LA. I don't even see why that's an issue. It's not a game that requires insane reflexes, you don't need to see every nanosecond of the bloody thing. 30fps is more than adequate.

That isn't really the problem, it just that anything below 60fps for me feels like it lagging like hell and then I will be annoyed all the time while playing the game cause its locked at freaking 30 fps which will make it so I do not enjoy the game

I'm sorry but that seem rather ridiculous. Most people see an average of what? About 25fps. Even if you had amazingly fast receptors, you're still looking at about 35fps. A game running at 60 or above is really just for smoothing and so they don't have to use blurring techniques to help fool you. There's going to be no lag at around 30fps or above.

And anything about 60 is just posturing.

So you are saying for me there is no way to notice the difference between 24fps and 60fps?

Then why arent all consoles games fixed to 24-30fps? They would be able to put in a lot of more stuff then.

Yes, I saw the link. And it's a bit difficult to accurately judge anything when all the examples aren't lined up next to each other and moving at the same time.

Because the fps your eyes capture and the fps something as precise as PC outputs are two very different beasts. But as a rule of thumb. 30fps is more than adequate for any game that doesn't require you move angles at insane speeds. Like a twitch fps.

The difference between a game in 30fps and 60fps is the removal of blurring techniques used to fool you.

There is no lag detectable with our eyes at 30fps. There simply isn't. But what it sometimes does is show blurring and the occasional jitter. Because what you're seeing are actual frames. Not the weird mocap thing our retinas do.

There is 100%, no need to go about 60fps. That's probably a few more than we need in all honesty. Even with the harsh actual frames of digital media. And for non-twitch games. 30fps is more than fine.

As for why people buying TV's their eyes can't really appreciate? Marketing my dear Watson, marketing. If you market it, they will come.

I can only speak for personal experience so I really do not give a shit what Im suppose to see, but I and several of my friends can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. And when I play a game at 30 fps it feels like its laging, non responsive, the aim is fucked up. So I guess I either got some super eyes or its down to what you are used too.

And btw may I ask if you are playing on console/bad computer or with a good computer?

And game studios know this otherwise every single game for consoles would be capped at 24 fps since that gives them a lot more room for other stuff.

 

[Waaghpowa]

While I have no issue with people who want 60 fps, I feel that if that is the only thing you can complain about, somebody is going out of your way just to complain

As I stated in my original post, though not in detail, there's no good reason to cap the FPS unless the reason really is because of the facial system they're using for the game. Now if you wanted to cap the FPS for consoles in order to create consistency across a unified platform, then that's fine. But considering that PC has numerous hardware configurations and combinations, no two people will ever have the same experience, all you can hope for is that the devs do proper QA and optimize the game. Even Valve, masters of QA testing, can't make their games run on everything.

There's nothing more annoying than playing a game where the devs deliberately limit the games options, capping the fps is exactly that. I personally prefer to have all my games running at a steady 60 fps at all times, and it drives me crazy when I can't change that.

 

[Sleekgiant]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

 

[Sleekgiant]

I do LPs and I record at 60 then convert the video to 30 in post processing since it makes the file about half as big and youtube has a 30fps limit.

I know that, I also know a lot of people who do LPs that record at 30FPS with no issue.

TO me this whole thread is about as relevant as gaming on a Mac

 

[MrTub]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

Well then I guess I got superhuman sight. Freaking cool to have it!

So then I must ask the question, why is not all console games capped at 24fps? it would give them a lot of room to add other stuff? Instead they are reducing fov and such so they can stay at 60 fps...

Seems a bit odd.. I would thought that a huge gaming corporation would know that no human can see the difference between 30-60fps.. But I guess that they also got Super human sight?

 

[Sleekgiant]

30 FPS is perfectly fine for gaming, so what you don't get to use both of your GPUs and run the game at 300 FPS, that's just unnecessary.

300 fps is stupid as it is just rendering frames you do not see. 40 FPS would have been nice though as 35 is where things start to feel laggy to me. If I had to use two high end gpu's to get over 30 fps in a DX 9 game then things would be really wrong.

30 FPS isn't laggy at all to me, I play with a ton of games set to max at 30 FPS as anything over is not needed.

This is just my opinion though so yeah

Actually on a monitor 30FPS is a VERY noticeable stutter to most PC gamers including myself. When you are on a couch with a big TV you are not putting the game under as much scrutiny as you are sat 2ft away from a high refresh-rate monitor.

This is not a movie, games don't have prefect motion blur and other assets movies have to be able to run at 24FPS. Consequently you are going to see the stuttering. Its not really a matter of opinion, on a decent monitor 30FPS is going to look like a low framerate or at LEAST be visible.

I'm playing on PC.....also if that was true then how come so many people can record with FRAPs at 30FPS and play smoothly.....

Cause they expect it to lag when they limit the fps?

The frame will not lag for the viewer but the feeling you get when you are playing is that its laging.

So those 8 straight hours I played Portal 2 smoohtly at 30FPS was just an illusion, wow I'm so glad you could show me the light....

Except that I clearly stated if you are used to 60 fps then you will notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps, so I guess you are either playing on console or playing on a computer that isnt good enough for to have stable 60+ fps in all games.

I play games all the way from 30 FPS to 200+FPS

I never notice a difference so yeah

So are you saying that Im wrong in that people do not notice the difference between 60fps and 30fps or are you saying that last part of my post was correct?

Unless you have superhuman sight, I don't see how you notice a difference.

Well then I guess I got superhuman sight. Freaking cool to have it!

So then I must ask the question, why is not all console games capped at 24fps? it would give them a lot of room to add other stuff? Instead they are reducing fov and such so they can stay at 60 fps...

Seems a bit odd.. I would thought that a huge gaming corporation would know that no human can see the difference between 30-60fps.. But I guess that they also got Super human sight?

Your post makes no sense. Since when does FOV have to do with a capped framerate?

Also I have yet to see a console game run at 60(hell Mass Effect dipped to teens when I played it)

Console is usually 30-40 fps

http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-national/battlefield-3-30fps-on-consoles-not-possible-to-fit-everything-otherwise

No we always do 30 fps on consoles, not possible to fit in vehicles, fx, scale and all players otherwise.

Oh look, I have an article....