Giant Panda
Member
20 FPS was noticeably jerky, but I couldn't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS until he put the video in slow-mo which wouldn't happen in game at all.
60FPS vs. 30FPS vs. 20FPS difference shown w/ the help of F1 2013(pcgameshardware.de)
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
ashecitism
Member
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
Buy a PC then?
Go look at some other threads on this very forum, Forza is being torn to shreds because it looks barely next gen but runs at 1080p60.
PS4 has low to mid range PC specs and PCs cost double to get decent graphics at 1080p60.
Imp the Dimp
Member
is it as cinematic tho?
famousmortimer
Banned
Came away from this video thinking what I always thought.
20 = not fine
30 = fine
60 = better
I'm ok with fine though I'm always up for better as well.
20 = not fine
30 = fine
60 = better
I'm ok with fine though I'm always up for better as well.
Great comparison. The downgrade from 60 to 30 in the video is very significant.
Most of this thread is mocking people who can't tell the difference.
Most of this thread is mocking people who can't tell the difference.
It's good then that the human eyes doesn't work on a frame basis
What I tried to say is, that it boggles my mind how so many people still think that stuff is true.you must have bad eyes, seriously
Not giving crap about FPS is not the same as not acknowledging there is vast, very noticeable difference between 30/60fps. Depending on the genre, I prefer 30fps + better visuals to 60fps+lesser visuals. It just makes my blood boil when I read stuff like "there isn't much difference anyway" or "humans can't see more than 30fps". And sadly, I read thay way too often.
titusandronicus
Member
Look at when the Pirelli banner overhead comes in. If you can't see the difference, I suggest going to an optometrist.
Just tells that cinema, and everything else for that matter, should move to 60fps minimum.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
I think this video missing the whole point of higher framerate's been better response times.
Why should I not complain about developers making a bad choice in my stead? I can't play every game on the PC, since many racing games are exclusives. All I want is for them to start caring about the player and at least offer a "60fps lower graphics detail" mode or something. I wouldn't mind that.
And no, a PC doesn't cost double to get 1080p60fps. Look at the "build your own PC thread"
Even if you don't see a dramatic difference when watching footage, you'd still feel it in the game's responsiveness if you were to play the same section at both 30 and 60 frames per second.
It's one of those "You didn't notice it... But your brain did." kind of deals.
For some games (like Sonic Generations) that is very true; but I think my main draw to 60 fps is just how much better it looks.
60fps should be the bottom line for time-sensitive input games (shooters, racers, fighting games, action RPGs, platformers etc.). Here, 30fps is a handicap and while the frame rate doesn't render a game unplayable, it certainly makes sure I'll never want to play it.
EDIT:
EDIT:
That's actually what it's trying to address. He talks about that.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
They won't listen to you, they care about the lowest common denominator which thinks pretty graphics are nice.
People whining about 60fps are in the minority.
If you can build a PC that can play graphics at 1080p60 at PS4 detail level for $400 you are doing well. The "best value" PC in that thread is $800 and that doesn't include $100+ Windows 8 licence.
titusandronicus
Member
People whining about Nintendo not having a proper account system are in the minority, does that make them wrong/their points not valid?
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
A racing game doesn't need 60fps.
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
Will Nintendo change account system because of the minority? No.
EventHorizon
Member
Well I'm one of them. I can tell when I look for it, but in the normal context of a game it is a non-issue. Even in the video they had to show a 20 FPS and a slowmo version to highlight the difference.
If it were that obvious then why not simply show one 60 FPS version and one 30 FPS version side by side for an extended period of time. That is what I wanted to see. The quick cuts didn't give me enough time to get a feel of one version then compare to the other.
24FPS or lower looks "Cinematic" because thats what has been used for film, not because it was an aesthetic choice but rather a limitation of the medium back then. The blur effect of 24FPs is there because things usually happen faster than that. Had film used 48FPS from the start no one would like 24FPS and 48FPS would be "cinematic".
I much rather have the sharpness and turn off motion blur on games, too distracting for me.
I much rather have the sharpness and turn off motion blur on games, too distracting for me.
Well this is bollocks lol. The arcade racers such as PGR, Grid, NFS, Shift etc have a far greater sense of speed than the 60fps sim racers, and these arcade racers all run at 30fps. Sense of speed is just as much by design as it is by frame rate.
Ludicrous Speed
Banned
Judging by your avatar I'm going to guess that the consensus has been that PS4 games will NOT routinely be 60 fps?
Ouch if true!
eot
Banned
That's not entirely true. Using this formula,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 was expecting a time dilation joke :|
GameAddict411
Member
Until you feel the input lag it becomes a nightmare.
Netherscourge
Banned
Maybe I'm going blind, but the one running at 60FPS didn't look like 60FPS. The one running at 30FPS looked more like 25FPS and the last one looked like it was in slow-motion.
I thought all 3 looked lousy to be honest.
BTW - what's the framerate for the video hosting site itself?
I thought all 3 looked lousy to be honest.
BTW - what's the framerate for the video hosting site itself?
TheLegendOfMart
Banned
Can I not like something without being accused of bias or being on a defence force?
I have a PC for 60FPS gaming if I want it but it doesn't matter to me, I'd rather have nice graphics at solid 30FPS.
They have too be. Especially at 10 fps. A game running at 10fps feels very unresponsive ask anyone who's played a N64 game.
Giant Panda
Member
Well obviously I wasn't saying I wouldn't feel a difference since I wasn't actually playing it, I was just commenting that at full speed I didn't see a difference.
You had it at fullscreen? Maybe try it in Chrome and watch closely the movement of the advertising panels.
Why would it be ouch? I'd imagine most people would prefer the extra eye candy. I know in the majority of circumstances I would.
i clearly see a difference, weird!
titusandronicus
Member
Could easily be changed in the future. Nintendo got rid of game specific friend codes this gen. And even if they don't make a proper account system, it doesn't mean that complaints about their current system are voided.
Likewise, just because 30fps is the norm on consoles and this probably won't change, due to the majority preferring better graphics at the expense of the frame rate, doesn't mean that any argument for 60fps on consoles is voided. It is one thing to debate over which is better, but it is stupid to completely disregard a point simply because it goes against the norm.
Reading the thread I suppose you're serious there? If ever you are not then please pardon me.
First of all, our eyes don't work by "frame" and if you want a game to look smooth like real life, you need AT LEAST 60fps per second. Soap opera doesn't look like 60fps because soap opera is 30fps.
velociraptor
Junior Member
60fps is ideal
30fps is playable provided there are no framedrops
25fps can go fuck itself
30fps is playable provided there are no framedrops
25fps can go fuck itself
weekend_warrior
Banned
I couldn't tell the difference until they slowed it down.
The ability to distinguish 30 fps from 60 has more to do with how quickly someone's brain processes information, rather than how well their eyes are functioning.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I guess my brain only operates at 20 fps
Are you serious? It's like saying you only saw a difference between gray and black after white was put between them.
I'm beginning to think there's some kind of dimorphism behind this all.
We've really taken such a step back in regards to framerate over the years.
The 60 fps we all experienced back in arcades on high quality CRT monitors simply cannot be match by modern displays even when running at 120 fps (which is a piece of cake for CRTs as well, of course).
These days, I can stomach 30 fps provided it's consistent and uses quality motion blur though, for racing games, it's a huge turn-off. In something like Motorstorm, I could put up with it, but console versions of games like NFS-HP running at 30 fps just don't feel right and it's a damn shame.
The 60 fps we all experienced back in arcades on high quality CRT monitors simply cannot be match by modern displays even when running at 120 fps (which is a piece of cake for CRTs as well, of course).
These days, I can stomach 30 fps provided it's consistent and uses quality motion blur though, for racing games, it's a huge turn-off. In something like Motorstorm, I could put up with it, but console versions of games like NFS-HP running at 30 fps just don't feel right and it's a damn shame.
Meh, I've been disappointed with my 120Hz monitor(S23A700D). My plasma and CRT still have a noticeable advantage with motion resolution. I hear the 120Hz monitors with lightboost are better; I want to get the VG248QE.
Ludicrous Speed
Banned
I dunno, your posts have seemed pretty defensive, saying 60 fps is not a big deal, no one cares, buy a pc if you want more than 30 fps, etc.
The video, to me, showed a pretty big difference. The fact that the next gen consoles will not be able to hit 60 fps is a huge disappointment. Before the specs of either console were announced, many people were saying that they were going to be a lot more powerful than PCs, as this is how it's always been when new consoles launched. But these consoles can't do 60 fps, something that pc games have done for years?! Come on!
Lightboost is very cool, I have to admit, but its use cases are more difficult in my experience. If you can't hold a steady 120 fps the effect starts to break a little bit. It's the closest thing I've seen to CRT-like motion but I dislike that it basically relies on trickery rather than native performance characteristics of the display. If the display itself could produce such results independent of the source I would be sold (ie - I feed it 60 fps and the results are as crystal clear). Temporal motion on flat panels still sucks without this sort of trick.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
There was not too much difference between 30fps and 20fps in the video. I thought while playing TLOU that there was a huge difference. I guess it just seems like a huge difference when actually playing a game.
Fixed
The feel of next gen.
Fixed