{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/5/2014 7:56:28 PM
44
Why do we care about Frames Per Second so much?
For me personally, so long as the game isn't going 1 MPH and is maintaining a nice speed with a smooth frame rate, I couldn't care less what FPS rate it actually has, but it seems the rest or a very large amount of the community wants 60 FPS or nothing at all. Why do we want this? Does it really make a difference how fast frames are going by in a game so long as it still works and plays well and isn't moving at the speed of a turtle with an anchor tied to it?
-
2 RepliesI think its hilarious when console gamers argue over graphics and power capabilities. The better question is why are they limiting themselves on a console if they care about it so much?
-
Before I paid attention to fps I noticed the difference between CoD and Halo and wondered why it felt like breaking when getting of the Interstate.
-
1 ReplyEdited by MR E0S: 2/5/2014 11:40:49 PMFind a friend with a decent 120hz tv. Throw on a blu-ray. You notice how it looks like a soap opera? How smooth it looks compared to that pos you've been watching movies on? That is what 30fps vs 60fps is like. Only worse. There have been alot of great fps that have come out and failed horribly, because it runs at 30fps, which translates directly to how the controls feel. Turok to name one.
-
30 FPS make my eyes bleed. It matters.
-
5 RepliesSome good .gifs and stuff have already been posted to illustrate the difference. [b]Yes.[/b] The difference is noticeable; especially with side by side comparisons. [b]Yes.[/b] A lot of the bickering comes from "console warz" bullshit. [b]No.[/b] The above does not invalidate the claims that 60FPS is [b]objectively better[/b] than 30FPS. [b]No.[/b] It shouldn't really affect your choice of console too much. If you like a console, get it and don't worry about what others thing. [u][i] [b]BUT[/b][/i][/u] it is reasonable for those who care about FPS to care about it because they are spending $400+ on a new games machine and they want it to run at a level of graphical, technical fidelity that they feel is up to par for this console generation.
-
I don't care about FPS in a game as long as its over 30 fps at the very least and not lagging due to limitations of hardware.
-
Because it's "next-gen". 1080p @60fps should be standard now.
-
I don't care either
-
3 RepliesI don't know, people are convinced it's invaluable to have a game running at 60 FPS. The truth is the human eye is incapable of telling the difference no matter how much people want to talk it up like it's a big difference. Your brain can sort of tell because it has to fill in the gaps between the frames, but it looks the same. Anyone that says that they can tell a huge difference is nothing but a lying prick concerned with nothing but specs.
-
3 RepliesI must be the only guy on Earth who thinks 60FPS games look ugly. I mean, sure I'll get used to them in the future but has anyone else ever thought that it looks...too smooth?
-
Edited by Toa Axis: 2/6/2014 9:48:32 PMBecause it's 2014. Most games during the PS2 days were 60 FPS. It was the rule rather than the exception, but one 7th gen started, and devs had more power than they've ever had previously, they often chose 30 FPS, which is objectively inferior (leads to less responsive input, doesn't look as good in motion, etc.) The funny thing is that most games weren't even able to even keep a steady 30 frames, and it often dipped into the mid-low 20s. But prettiness > responsive gameplay is what's on their minds. Now I'm not saying that just because a game is running at 30 means it's bad, but I'd be willing to sacrifice some fancy particle effects/high end lighting or whatever to have a more responsive game. If a game IS running at 30 however, it had better be a locked framerate. And 1080 should be the norm by now. Consoles have been at 720p for years, it's time to move on, and once again, even if it means sacrificing some visuals to do so.
-
Porn. That's why we care so much.
-
It's the new version of the bit wars.
-
it makes the game look pretty
-
30fps is acceptable, and I don't really have a problem with it, but since we should be moving into the next generation (some day...), getting 60fps should be our new standard. The gap between the two is very noticeable, but I wouldn't bother aiming for anything in between.
-
Because Far Cry 3 on consoles.
-
Smoother experience. Although, locked 30 fps isn't too bad either. 60 fps with slight dips would be preferential
-
Back in the day, I used to play Morrowind for hours on end. It was the most engaging, immersive, fantastically fun to play game I've ever experienced. However, for the year or two I consistently played it, about half of that was at 20 fps, thanks to my shitty PC at the time. It was only 2 years later, that I upgraded. I loaded up Morrowind for the first time in ages, for nostalgias sake, and my mind was quite literally put into shock for a few seconds. It was running at 60 - 90 fps, compared to 20. It makes a world of a difference.
-
Because technology is evolving and people keep wanting more better crap like fps.
-
The more the merrier.
-
2 Replies30fps looks like "a turtle with an anchor tied to it" once you get used to 60. I also decided to link a study showing that players using higher frame rates are more accurate in first person shooters.
-
I didn't care until I read all these post and articles about it. Now I do care. [spoiler]Or do I[/spoiler]
-
Because playing with a lower framerate keeps you from seeing things moving faster than what the framerate can observe. for example, imaging a sniper shoots. You better see the line that the bullet makes with 60 fps, because there are more frames showing where the bullet is exactly. With 30 for example, you only see every other frame the the 60 fps framerate shows, which could make the bullet and all other quick movement look "choppy". I personally don't worry about framerate, though it should be at least 30-45 fps for the video to not look horribly laggy.
-
Edited by PandaJerk007: 2/5/2014 9:14:46 PMI agree As long as it's a guarantee that a game will go 25+ FPS at all times then I'm very happy with it. It's a very welcomed bonus to get more FPS, but I really don't care that much.
-
I think how "good" a game looks depends on a balance of things. I've been playing lots of NFS lately, and it runs cleanly at 60+ FPS with some settings at Low or turned off altogether. But my preferred visuals are actually with everything set to High (except motion blur, ugh) even though it puts the game at around 40FPS. In this case, the advanced lighting and better details more than make up for the loss in FPS. There's no doubt that 60 > 40, but I don't think that should be *the* goal.
-
It's important. The smoother, the better. Mustard Rice... Roll out!
