I don't really care how many frames a game makes as long as it is a minimum of 30. Though I really like 3D so I guess I'll go with 30 w/ 3D.
Like at @kittenkoder said our eyes don't really notice the individual frames being produced at 30 plus frames. Though, if you play, for example, Mario Kart 7(which runs at 60fps) then later play Animal Crossing New Leaf(which runs at 30fps) you do see the difference. But, it doesn't matter to 99.99% of gamers anyway (the other 0.01% are insane OCD gamers).
I wouldn't call them "insane OCD," though it can be fitting of how they act about it. More "excessively competitive," to them it's more about having/being the "best" at something, to the point where they project that onto the products they purchase as well. Competitiveness isn't bad though, unlike OCD, it is what drives us, as a species, to constantly improve ourselves in some way.
Right now I am just a bit argumentative myself though, headache from the stupid sports dorks honking their horns up and down the streets because of some inconsequential "win" ... headaches suck.
Yeah I find (american) football to be such a dull sport. I don't understand all the hubbub about it.
TheBluestJay
Switch Friend Code: SW-6655-6652-4893 | My Nintendo: BluestJay
According to what I've been able to assemble from assorted websites, it seems that people mostly infer human limitations as a result of misappropriating the term frame rate - as if there is a comparable image capture mechanism in the human eye.
So the more apt comparison stems from an exploration of "frames per second" and its origins in classic cinematography. For some time 24 FPS was the industry standard, as a sort of compromise between image fidelity and budgetary constraints. Eventually the standard moved to something commonly accepted as "smooth" where locked in at 30 FPS the average person would not experience any stuttering or visual distraction.
Over time, with the advent of the PC and its ability to push frames to 30 FPS, 60 FPS, and far beyond, only then did our ability to perceive become a relevant question. It seems that the same 30 FPS which could sustain an enjoyable visual experience on the big screen, would not translate to this new realm. Motion blur eases the transition between frames in cinema, whereas computers are capable of displaying a high quality image at virtually any frame rate, provided sufficient hardware.
As I pointed out, there is much more going on, the eye sees the image simultaneously, the limitations are in how the brain processes that information, not how it is collected. Also, as I pointed out previously, there is a range of "noticeable" points in the life span of a person, sure, if you sit there and try to notice each individual frame you can possibly see the difference, but when you are not concentrating on the visual information, you will not notice the difference because of the processing and data compression method. The way the brain allows us to record memories through and entire life is by not recording everything, only recording the most varied moments in time. This compression is both micro and macro managed, filtering information stored on the macro level can have us forgetting entire days, at the micro level we call it "de ja vu," the brain just replays a past moment instead of recording the current one, basically. At the base point of data collection the brain will filter out moments based on the situation and variation of each particular "slice," or "frame." This means if two moments are not varied enough, say the difference between 30 and 60 video fps, it will "drop" moments between the two most different ones.
It is actually this very fact that allows for moving images at all, if the brain recorded every microsecond then no video display in the modern age would be fast enough. Of course that would also be impossible, the brain takes about 3 milliseconds to collect all the information before it processes anything, for humans, other species differ.
Friend list is full, I will be clearing room for Bravely Default soon though. Colors! 3D Gallery, My Blog
NNID: KittenKoder ..... what else would it be?
At the end of the day I can tell the difference between the two. One only has to look at how A Link between worlds plays and how Donkey Kong Country Returns plays to see the difference in smoothness or play any fast moving game on PC and hard limit your FPS to see the difference.
Game Industry News; Discussed and Debated - Pauseyourgame.com
if the framerate is constant I'm fine with either 30 or 60 FPS
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
playing a game in 30 frames is like driving a Nissan micra
Playing a game in 60 frames is like driving a Lamborghini
there is a HUGE difference between 30/60 frames. I bought a gaming PC back in 2011 and i could not believe it when i saw Battlefield 3 running at ultra settings at 60FPS it was amazing
Disclaimer: "All opinions are my own, please do not get offended by what i have to say"
High action games like fighters, shooters etc. deserve 60fps. But 30fps is just about perfect for everything else in my opinion. That being said, I would prefer 60fps in every game as its silky smooth, but 30fps is perfect.
Sheesh guys......does it really matter if the game runs 30 or 60 FPS? What about the good ol times where none of that stuff matters. Even the games that run at 60 FPS will have their slowdowns if there's too much happening on the screen!
@CaviarMeths and @Super_Gravy .... actually, the difference is in the aliasing. The old CRT television has an aliased layout for each pixel, every odd row is offset from the previous, this is what causes it to look smoother, it's a trick of the eye actually. The newer ones don't, thus why they NEED high definition, or, as you pointed out, it looks blocky.
As for fps .... 30 is really good enough, due to a flaw in our visual nerves, we can't really see the difference after 30 fps, though we can think we see a difference. It's much the same as those people who think organic foods taste better, also known as the placebo effect. As for the stereoscopic effect, I must have it for any games with a first or second person perspective, or I cannot play them for more than a few minutes. Also any fast rotating cameras will cause vertigo without the stereoscopic effect. I can't even watch movies with "shaky" cameras because of it.
Doesn't matter about whether it can be seen or not the fact is the games play better at 60fps. You are never second guessing the controls.
It is immediately obvious to me anyway. (Castle of Illusion which increased it from 30 to 60 and I was pretty sure before I looked at the update log that had happened).
My brother has an xbox 360 connected to a 1080i HD CRT and it brilliant. (I think it is preferable to my 30ms over HDMI Plasma certainly for playing games).
You cannot tell from youtube videos because flash won't go above 30fps but the HTML5 player will.
Everything has to be either done slowly (Which is boring) or thinking about the controls which you never have to do at 60fps.
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
I know this isn't specifically about 60fps or 3D, but it does mention both. Ideally, everything would have 3D(at least as an option), and would have a higher framerate.
It doesn't matter whether you like 3D or want a higher framerate. It's better to have it there regardless.
Forums
Topic: 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS
Posts 41 to 56 of 56
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.