What is this obsession with framerates over 30FPS?

[DoPo]

-snip-

While this may be true, I still think Smash is correct. OP showed arrogance, so it's fair to shut him off. And OP showed lack of knowledge of the matter, so shutting him off with that might just prompt him to do a tiny research next time. Finally, since the thread feels like a flamebait (even an unintentional one) Smash's response is appropriate enough.

Personally I don't read much arrogance in OP's post. Ignorance, yes, but that's why people ask questions. The Escapist forums are as good a place as any, as far as I'm concerned.

You think differently, fine. I suppose we must agree to disagree on this then.

I wouldn't mind arrogance if it was arrogance only, however, coupled with ignorance it really drives me up the wall. Not to mention flamebaiting.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

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.

Holy Run On Sentence Batman! May I ask what laptop you're getting?

I'll post the link, but I'll be looking into adding some extra memory. Compared to this POS, it's leagues above. From what I looked into, it's pretty much the best I can get for under a grand for a laptop.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215410

The Geforce 650M in particular, I heard, is pretty much the best graphics card that a sub-1000-dollar laptop can get. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I know it's not the greatest card ever but every PC gamer I've talked to in person is pretty impressed with it for the price.

There is a difference between something being playable and something being enjoyable though. I can't stand playing anything that chugs below 50-60 FPS. I keep my system always up to date because of it and I will lower settings to achieve that. I don't think it makes me elitist. I just flat out do not enjoy the choppiness and ragged animation that comes with a lower framerate.
An occasional stutter isn't such a big deal, but to be locked at a constant lower rate would drive me insane.

I truly mean no offense, but since I've become accustomed to playing at low frame rates and with low graphics, it's hard to not see your reply as not a 'first world problem'-type reply. Maybe I truly am just accustomed to poor quality, in the way that an immigrant from a third-world country would complain about elitism from average middle-class Americans.

I'll try to be more understanding, it's just literally hard for me to comprehend your position since I'm so used to shitty gaming conditions.

Haha, well yeah. Of course it is a first world problem. Obviously low framerates are better than not having a computer at all.
I work for my money though, and I like to have a high framerate. I really don't care much for the term "First world problem". Like I am supposed to not buy things I enjoy because people are starving somewhere? I work hard and I plan on enjoying myself. And to be fair, I am quite generous with my money.

 

[SeeIn2D]

Well the 60 FPS games I have are noticeably different visually than the 30 FPS games I have. Now what I don't get is justifying why to get a gaming PC with the ability to play games at 250 FPS. That's just shocking.

 

[yuval152]

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.

It gave me Nausea.(or however you call the urge to puke)

OT: Console player here, So I don't mind but it looks alot smoother in the link TehCookie gave.

captcha: cabbage borsht, how do you know what I like to eat? HOLY SHIT IT'S SKYNET!!

 

[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)

Interesting, but not accurate. I'm not sure why you're perceiving BluRay to be smoother than DVD, but they both run at the same frame rate -- 30 FPS for video transfers[footnote]at least in NTSC territory -- PAL territory at least used to be 25, I'm not sure what the standard is for European HD[/footnote], and 24 FPS for progressive scan film transfers. Now a lot of HDTVs have processing modes that will artificially increase the frame rate by generating intermediary frames between the existing ones, but that's dependent on the TV, not the media player hooked up to it.

Whoa, mind blow right there. It must be the HD and the intermediate frames thing, since I've never had a TV that can do those before.
That could explain why it looked a bit... off, in its fluidity. The motion was great but it still felt strangely... twitchy? It's hard to describe.

Though, it still stands that there's a major difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I made that change in a game I was working on, and when I went from 30 to 60 the upgrade made the 30 FPS version feel choppy and slow, while the 60 FPS one felt smooth and flowed well. Those extra frames really make a game more responsive and they're quite noticeable on a deeper level.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Its pretty much what you're used to, When oblivion came out I wanted to play it so badly on my crack pc that I played it with something like an average of 10 frames per second. because I played it like that for a long time I barely noticed it anymore. when a friend of mine visited he was like "OMG WTF WHY YOU PLAY UNPLAYABLES BLAH BLAH" or something like that.

so it pretty much depends on what you're used to.

also played counterstrike source, always put everything on minimum to max out Fps, made the game way easier for me probably because of the twitchie game play, but I'm sure somewhere there is a guy/girl in some attic that completely owns with 10 fps in counterstrike. on the other hand she/he would probably be a god with 30 fps and would destabilize the universe and creation itself when playing at 60 fps.

also PC's are not better than consoles but are more for people who like to fiddle with their setup while consoles are more for the plug and play crowd, the one isn't better or worse then the other so (I say this in the utmost confidence that it will resolve nothing...) stop the moaning about pc/console already and play a game or something!

Yours Fractionally,

LP

EDIT: PS: I still smoked weed at the time of playing oblivion at 10 fps, that might have
helped to make it playable...

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

Besides the mention of more fluid movements, faster framerates make the game feel far more responsive, as there's more frames for the game to respond to the input.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I play online with shitey internet, so I get by on framerates of about 20-25 per second. It only begins to become a large problem if it drops to about 16.

 

[VladG]

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?

Because 30 fps is still noticeably segmented. In a fast paced game it does make a difference.

Stop motion plasticine clips create the illusion of motion, that doesn't mean I want my games to move like that.

Also movies use 24 fps as a reasonable compromise between creating the illusion of motion and cost. Film is actually quite expensive and the massive amounts needed for movies used to make it a real cost problem. It was never considered anything more than a reasonable compromise and digital media is moving to change things.

 

[VladG]

Now what I don't get is justifying why to get a gaming PC with the ability to play games at 250 FPS. That's just shocking.

That IS stupid. A lot of people can't even tell the difference above 40-45 fps (age related mostly). Above 60 almost nobody can. Above 80 it's just technical masturbation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well the 60 FPS games I have are noticeably different visually than the 30 FPS games I have. Now what I don't get is justifying why to get a gaming PC with the ability to play games at 250 FPS. That's just shocking.

ANY technical element will get obsessives who want to push it well beyond the logical boundaries.

Somewhere out there, someone is running a rig with an 8 core processor, a 500 dollar graphics card and 64 GB RAM to play Pong.

And he will swear he can notice the difference.

 

[VladG]

My understanding is that the human eye runs at around 72fps, so anything higher than that is a bit of a waste. 24fps is most likely just a holdover from the days of analog film, with 24fps being enough to create fluid movement without the cost of more film becoming overwhelming. Now we've gone almost all digital, we could conceivably upgrade everything to a faster frame-rate, I suppose it just takes more processing power. So yeah, theoretically the faster the better, but after about 72 there's not much point because you physically can't see faster than that.

Processing power and space is an issue. As far as I know, no 1080 blu-rays use more than 29 FPS. Getting to 60 would double the storage need. 50 fps blu-rays are actually using 720 resolution

As for 72, that's pretty much the absolute best a human can perceive. Age and other factors generally mean it's much lower than that.

 

[iDoom46]

OK, everybody and there mother has already made the point that 60 frames per second is smoother and generally better than 30 frames.

But can we please have some distinction between FPS and FPS? It's not that hard to type out, you guys.

 

[Rath709]

Personally, having bought a monitor capable of 120hz I kinda want to see a visual return on it.

 

[Ljs1121]

I'm not a PC gamer, but I'm pretty sure that the higher the FPS, the smoother the game runs. Is that right?

In that case, it's perfectly understandable for someone to want the highest FPS possible so that their game can run smoother and look prettier.

 

[Dahemo]

It's because there is a time and a place for slide shows and while I'm trying to put the hurting on some AI noobs is not one of them...

In all seriousness it's an e-peen issue, on PC it's a hardware dependent measurable so people attempt to maximise it to ensure their L337 status, why else would you even need to bring up an f.p.s. counter on your HUD otherwise? Yeah, immersion is SO OVERRATED these days.

As someone who has never been interested in questing for the bleeding edge of PC performance, I really don't see the point in this current era, my humble laptop runs any PC specific games, my console handles the legion of higher end titles which are now all cross platform without fail...