60FPS vs. 30FPS vs. 20FPS difference shown w/ the help of F1 2013(pcgameshardware.de)

It still mindboggling to me that there are a lot of people who think there isn't much difference between (sub)30 and 60 fps. Or how the eyes can't see more than 30fps.
 
Arguing over 20 vs 30 vs 60... and here I am wanting to upgrade to a 120hz monitor...
 
I could see the difference easily.

nbnt said:
I prefer 23.94fps, way more cinematic than 30 and 60.
Click to expand...

The thing is that 24 FPS only looks so good because the frames blur into each other, thus looking more fluid than a game at that FPS.
 
Sethos said:
60FPS is a bit too soap opera, around 20 feels very cinematic.
Click to expand...

Actually, the eye can't detect anything above 31.4159 fps. Why?
Cause if you call the radius of an eye r, you have this equation:
(31.4159 / 10) * r * r * r * 4 / 3 = V
And V is then the volume of the SAME eye!

Thus, 31.4159 fps is the maximum fps the eye can see, obviously.
 
You see, games are exactly like movies so camera motions and player actions are entirely unaffected by framerate.
 
Skel1ingt0n said:
Arguing over 20 vs 30 vs 60... and here I am wanting to upgrade to a 120hz monitor...
Click to expand...

The only problem with it is, it's hard to go back to anything that isn't at least 60 FPS. Youtube videos of titles you played at 120 FPS are really bad, can barely watch CS GO stuff on youtube. But outside of that it was one of the better investments I made.

But people will still say you see now difference between 30 and 60, or that sub 30 is still fluid....
 
Goku said:
It still mindboggling to me that there are a lot of people who think there isn't much difference between (sub)30 and 60 fps. Or how the eyes can't see more than 30fps.
Click to expand...

Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.
 
Horp said:
Actually, the eye can't detect anything above 31.4159 fps. Why?
Cause if you call the radius of an eye r, you have this equation:
(31.4159 / 10) * r * r * r * 4 / 3 = V
And V is then the volume of the SAME eye!

Thus, 31.4159 fps is the maximum fps the eye can see, obviously.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. Using this formula,
uHLwGwk.png
you will find the eye actually peaks at the magical 24FPS thus making movies the perfect display of the eye's capabilities. Anything above that is really just "Hey, look at what I can do".

Human eye simply can't register above 24fps.
 
I like how the commentary guy even says that 30fps is barely playable with racing games.


TheLegendOfMart said:
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.
Click to expand...

image.php
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.
Click to expand...

Why use a slow paced stealth game as your example? The thread was based on a F1 video and that is exactly the kind of game where frame rate matters.
 
The worst thing is when a game isn't capped at a certain framerate. I can't stand fluctuating framerates that bounce wildly between 20-30fps and 60fps. If your game can't hold it consistently high, please cap it lower.
 
Sethos said:
That's not entirely true. Using this formula,
uHLwGwk.png
you will find the eye actually peaks at the magical 24FPS thus making movies the perfect display of the eye's capabilities. Anything above that is really just "Hey, look at what I can do".

Human eye simply can't register above 24fps.
Click to expand...

I think that's different for different regions. Europeans have different eyes than Americans for example. It's simply because of genetics. And THAT's why PAL and NTSC are different.
 
it blows my mind how the single most crucial element to achieve a sense of speed is a high framerate, yet it quickly goes out the window on so many racing game design documents.

no one should ever have to play a racing game at 30FPS.
 
Stallion Free said:
I can't even see a difference. What's the point?
Click to expand...

It's not that you couldn't. At 20fps there is nothing to see between the frame, so you get this tiny little jumps. However, you won't be trouble by it because your brain is doing the extra work covering the missing part for you.

If you trained your eyes enough (by watching or playing games with high FPS) then you will start to see the difference.
 
I spent quite sometime playing GTAV on my PS3.

Then i got tired of it and went back to BF3 on my PC.
Everything on ultra, 120 fos on a 120hz monitor.

Mindblown. So beautiful...
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.
Click to expand...

I know. Why would people want the best out of their games? Fuck those people.
 
Horp said:
Thus, 31.4159 fps is the maximum fps the eye can see, obviously.
Click to expand...

Sethos said:
Anything above that is really just "Hey, look at what I can do".
Human eye simply can't register above 24fps.
Click to expand...

...

Goku said:
It still mindboggling to me that there are a lot of people who think there isn't much difference between (sub)30 and 60 fps. Or how the eyes can't see more than 30fps.
Click to expand...

I can see more than 30FPS, I'm not human?
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Maybe people just don't give a shit about FPS?

While it's not ideal The Last of Us was perfectly playable at sub 30fps. People are expecting too much.

If you want 60fps buy a fucking PC.
Click to expand...
Tons of forced motion blur in TLOU, especially when running and doing 90 to 180 degree turns. There was noticeable input lag as well, which made it appear that melee always took priority over ballistics as a byproduct of this in the single player campaign. I had some stuttering as well.

I really don't get why folks praise that game so much. Sure it is decent, but it isn't what i'd throw up as a good example of things running smoothly at a good quality with no breaks in action.

matrix-cat said:
144Hz is where it's at, man. Best financially-irresponsible gaming purchase I've ever made. I'm wiggling my mouse cursor around right now just to feeeeel it.
Click to expand...
Damn you. You made me wiggle the mouse just now to see the crappy blur and skipping the cursor does day in and day out on a low end machine.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I had PS3 before it melted a few weeks ago and a PC capable of 60fps gaming.

Sick of all the whining about 30 vs 60fps, if you want 60fps spend more than $400 on the hardware.
Click to expand...

What about developers touring down certain unnecessary effects but having stable 60fps?
 
It's a shame we're still arguing about 30 vs 60 fps, I wish we could have consoles vs PC wars where PC gamers would defend 120fps and console warriors would say 60 is enough.

Not to say I can't stand 30, 30 is fine, the problem is that it's rarely 30. If a console game calls itself a 60fps game, expect 40~50, if it calls itself a 30fps game, expect 20~30. If 60 was the standard and locked 30 was worst case scenario, that would be awesome.

EDIT: Also not to say I can't stand sub 30, I'm loving GTA V and I loved The Last of Us, but it's not that irrelevant to the experience as some people like to make it seem when they say "The Last of Us was fantastic even with its framerate!"
 
Phades said:
Tons of forced motion blur in TLOU, especially when running and doing 90 to 180 degree turns. There was noticeable input lag as well, which made it appear that melee always took priority over ballistics as a byproduct of this in the single player campaign. I had some stuttering as well.

I really don't get why folks praise that game so much. Sure it is decent, but it isn't what i'd throw up as a good example of things running smoothly at a good quality with no breaks in action.
Click to expand...

That was my point, not everyone gives a crap about framerates as long as its playable, I never said it was a smooth experience.

Des0lar said:
What about developers touring down certain unnecessary effects but having stable 60fps?
Click to expand...

What about playing the game with all the effects turned on at 30fps? Pretty games sell consoles not 30 vs 60fps.
 
Reading the comments after watching the video -- people are being sarcastic when they say that they see no difference between 20/30/60, right?

...right?
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
That was my point, not everyone gives a crap about framerates as long as its playable, I never said it was a smooth experience.



What about playing the game with all the effects turned on at 30fps?
Click to expand...

Because effects don't matter in a racing game, while 60fps is preferable on every level. The same reason why fighters and Call of Duty games are in 60fps. Because these games require these framerates. Racing games do as well, but developers ignore that, to give the cars some extra shiny backplate that is not needed.

For all the people wanting better gameplay instead of better graphics, when 30 vs 60 fps comes up, they side with the worse option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
  • Poll
Tarrifs vs Wokeism
7
641
saintjules replied
  • Poll
Prince of Persia VS Assassin's Creed
Opinion 
17
214
HYDE replied
Deep depression VS Videogames
2 3
108
972
MasterDerico replied
Which of these AIO coolers? Corsair vs NZXT
2
290
LordBritish replied
Switch 2 vs 1440p - What is happening?
2
77
115
kevboard replied
Top Bottom