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.
That's just silly. Of course they can "hit" 60 fps. It's going to vary on a game by game basis just as it always has. We will see more 60 fps titles going forward than we did this past gen, however, I'm sure of it.
The framerate must be a multiple of the refresh rate or else you end up with uneven output that results in judder. It looks awful.
Triple buffering makes this possible by allow for three buffers instead of two. It still produces image judder, however, but it allows framerates outside of refresh rate multiples.
Had it been any worse, i'd make the argument that the game was unplayable at times. Hence, why using it is a bad example since the game its self is slow paced and not fast action to begin with. It barely handles long periods of running with frequent heading changes as is.
60 FPS
1 2 3 4 5 6
30 FPS
1 1 2 2 3 3
20 FPS
1 1 1 2 2 2
[b]
45 FPS
1 2 3 3
4 5 6 6
7 8 9 9[/b]Real is like 240 fps at 32k resolution
That would be true in plenty of cases, I'm sure, but I have to wonder whether people would say the same thing if they got to try out 60fps in whatever 30fps game they were playing. I think its often a case of not realizing how good 60fps actually is in a particular game because they've just not experienced it. Its hard to really 'imagine' what a game will be like with 60fps vs 30fps. Its something you have to get hands-on with to really feel and see the difference.
I'm not an elitist gamer. The negative impact on gameplay aside, at 30fps the frames look disjointed to me, as if I was looking at the projection of a zoopraxiscope that's spinning too slowly. If other people don't suffer from this, I can understand why it doesn't bother them. It bothers me. If that means I have to avoid certain games, so be it.
