Hardware 2 WiiU Gamepads = 60/2 FPS

[Alexrose]

Go run a game at 24fps, it will be unplayably bad.

Over-exaggeration at its finest.

You can technically play a game at any fps, it just won't be nice. Probably from around 8fps you could run a game such that you're actually controlling your character properly. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be the shoddiest game experience in the world. 24 FPS looks noticeably awful, and in 2012 it would prevent me from playing a game.

 

[HiroshiYamauchi]

Indeed. Majora's Mask run at 17 FPS on the Nintendo 64 and it's acceptable, so 30 FPS should do the trick.

 

[machomuu]

Go run a game at 24fps, it will be unplayably bad.

Over-exaggeration at its finest.

You can technically play a game at any fps, it just won't be nice. Probably from around 8fps you could run a game such that you're actually controlling your character properly. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be the shoddiest game experience in the world. 24 FPS looks noticeably awful, and in 2012 it would prevent me from playing a game.

Well now we're diving into subjectivity. He's just saying that 24 FPS wouldn't be that much worse than 30 FPS that the game would be unplayable for most people (maybe some, but I doubt there are many people who would care so much that they'd stop playing), not nearly as bad as 8 FPS, where most people would stop playing.

 

[Taleweaver]

Go run a game at 24fps, it will be unplayably bad.

If it's a constant, steady 24FPS, it won't be unplayably bad. It won't be the greatest, but certainly playable. Also consider...
1. we're talking about 30FPS here. And the scaling on that is pretty exponential. The difference between 30 and 60 is still greater, but by far not 5 times more visible than the difference between 24 and 30.
2. the screen is smaller. That by itself is an effect that makes the difference harder to notice.
3. FPS only really affect gameplay of 3D games. You're not telling me that scribblenauts or Mario U will be unplayable at 30FPS.

 

[qlum]

I asume its a simple matter of bandwith of the video stream between the controller and the console, while a refresh rate of 60 is better than one of 30 its better than not having the possibility at all, really a constant stream like that even at this ress is quite heavy bandwith wise so I think they solved it quite well.



Again like posted before we are talking about refresh rate of the screen, not framerate in the game, two different things.

 

[Alexrose]

I think 30FPS is completely fine. I'm not disappointed about this news at all, but 24FPS is getting into the realms of ridiculousness. Nowadays if your optimised game only ran at 24FPS on a console it wouldn't get a seal of approval.

 

[Rydian]

And here comes my copy-paste on the subject.

The thing is which FPS speed is visible depends on what's being displayed. For example most people don't know that most movies run at 24FPS because they use post-processing like motion-blur and such to hide it... and whether a slow framerate is noticeable or not often depends on how much of the visual scene changes at once. For an RTS or something like that where much of the visible scene is unchanged (or changed little) between various frames a low framerate has a minimal impact... whereas with an FPS where the entire contents of the screen can change at once very quickly (the player turning around quickly and such like that) a lower framerate is more noticeable. Some info and examples are here.

The 60FPS number that's most often tossed around is because that's around the limit of human perception when it comes to the types of media most commonly displayed on screens, but most importantly most screens sync at that speed anyways so any framerate above that is not physically displayed.

 

[Alexrose]

The 60FPS number that's most often tossed around is because that's around the limit of human perception when it comes to the types of media most commonly displayed on screens, but most importantly most screens sync at that speed anyways so any framerate above that is not physically displayed.

Not really; RAF officers have to be able to identify objects that are flashed for 1/220th of a second. Identify as well, not just realise that something flashed, be able to tell you what it was. Humans can feasibly see light change up to 1/500ths of a second (although humans are very bad at noticing when things become dark. If you had a lightbox and turned it off for 1/220th of a second you probably wouldn't notice it).

The main thing is that most screens have a refresh rate of 60Hz.

 

[Rydian]

identify objects that are flashed for 1/220th of a second.

Because there's a hell of a lot of contrast.

 

[Alexrose]

identify objects that are flashed for 1/220th of a second.

Because there's a hell of a lot of contrast.

Ah, yep, I reread the full line, you're quite correct. My bad

 

[Midna]

This is completely expected. In fact, I've been saying it since E3 2011.