What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?

[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.

 

[Pyro Paul]

You are completely wrong on all counts xD ...

am i?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,76,77&tid=2

http://www.geeks3d.com/20110331/crysis-2-43-graphics-cards-compared/

Then why does every one Benchmark things like CPUs and GPUs using the FPS of a high stress game?

 

[Lee Quitt]

My current PC runs Minecraft at between 10 and 20 FPS, and I've been pretty good with that for, well, years, so anytime people complain about a 'mere' 30 FPS, I usually facepalm. First-world problems.

As long as it's over 30fps, it's perfectly acceptable, in my eyes. When I get my new laptop next week, with an awesome graphics card and plenty of memory, then I'll come back and say whether or not 30fps vs 60fps is objectively a big deal, or only an issue for videophiles that are just obsessing over getting things to look 1% better.

So to sum up, from my personal experience so far:

Going from sub-20fps to 24fps: pretty big difference.
Going from 24fps to 30fps: a big difference.
Going from 30fps to 40fps: not a big difference.
Going from 40fps to 60fps: barely noticeable difference, and nothing to ***** about.

You are completely wrong. Completely.
Most Pro FPS players wouldn't even consider looking at a screen not out putting at least 60 fps.
Any shooter under 30 is basically unplayable.
going form 40 to 60 makes a huge difference in most games, and given you dont even have a real PC capable of giving you 60 fps your little table is based of magic and fairy tails.

 

[Lee Quitt]

You are completely wrong on all counts xD ...

am i?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,76,77&tid=2

http://www.geeks3d.com/20110331/crysis-2-43-graphics-cards-compared/

Then why does every one Benchmark things like CPUs and GPUs using the FPS of a high stress game?

The idea that the human brain cannot see more then 24 - 30 fps is actually a very bad, yet kinda common mistake. Its actually well over 100, and there is still debate about when you start to get diminishing returns.

 

[Lee Quitt]

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.

Apparently the hardcore fpsers use 120 hz monitors so that 120 fps can actually be rendered at the same time, or something to that effect. According to some of them it makes a world of difference.

 

[BirdKiller]

I was impressed with this thread going through the first 3 pages without any mention of the "your eyes can't see more than 30 fps" BS I've read through the years, but then users like lukey94, Absolutionis, Pyro Paul made the thread typical like any other FPS threads. Well done you guys, at least the rest of the thread is generally not making a raging debate out of it.

Also, huge LOL at Pyro Paul for someone deducing that the use of benchmarks of FPS vs. Hardware implies we're ONLY using it for hardware and hardware only.

 

[BirdKiller]

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.

Apparently the hardcore fpsers use 120 hz monitors so that 120 fps can actually be rendered at the same time, or something to that effect. According to some of them it makes a world of difference.

If the FPS of a game is less than or equal to the refresh rate of monitors, then you don't see your screen being "teared" into two when there's a lot of movement/action going on. That effect is very distracting and extremely detrimental in competitive gaming. Such is the purpose of having the Vsync option in many games which many ignore due to the input lag that follows with it.