# Why do people like 60fps so much?



## Deleted User (Jan 31, 2018)

Some years ago when Tales of Symphonia got released on Steam people were bitching because the game was locked at 30fps like the PS3 version and that the best way to play the game is to emulate the Gamecube game at 60fps.

Some older games feel uncomfortable to play because of the lower framerate (Assassin's Creed 3 on the PS3 and a number of N64 games come to mind here) but I personally can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.

I hear all kinds of different arguments about the human eye. Some say we see at 24fps. Others say we can see at almost 300fps. Some people claim they can notice a frame being displayed twice when playing the 59fps Wii U version of Mario Kart 8.

If that's the case does that mean if I spend a shitload on an amazing PC my games will look smooth as fuck at 120fps?


----------



## netovsk (Jan 31, 2018)

My screen is 1080p/60 Hz I don't want to feel like I'm wasting frames or pixels.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Jan 31, 2018)

Yes your eyes can see much more than 60 FPS LOL. People like 60fps for exactly what it is. Twice as smooth as 30fps. It seems quite slow and choppy in comparison. Try it out for an extended period and I'm sure you'll see.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jan 31, 2018)

Half of it is propped up on memes, the other is propped up on fact.
Memes are memes, and I'm dropping the meme explanation there.

Nearly everybody can tell the difference between 30 and 60 when they are side by side.  The big issue is when a game drops a frame.  A game at 30 dropping a frame to 29 fps is a lot more noticeable than a game dropping a frame from 60 to 59.  This also comes into play with frame timing, where some frames can be on the screen for longer than others.  Finally the last part is the same reason why people want better graphics.  One portion of delivering video is how good it looks, the other is how smooth it is.  They are both aesthetically important.

One important thing most people forget to mention when the human eye argument comes up is that eyes are good at distinguishing contrast in movement.  This is why we have all the optical illusions based around black and white contrast, or the green/blue/white spinning circles.  In bright and colorful games, you will notice the improvement far more appreciably than in games where it's all a similar color with low contrast.

With the increase in color reproduction and higher contrast displays, the difference between the 30/60 frame rate is only going to become more and more apparent.


----------



## jDSX (Jan 31, 2018)

Reaction time is better 
Feels smoother 
No wait time for next input almost seemless


----------



## Coolsonickirby (Jan 31, 2018)

I honestly don't care about 60 or 30 or even 15 fps. I had a weak pc until 2 years ago. I'm just thankful I could play the game.


----------



## fadx (Jan 31, 2018)

Yes it will feel very smooth. 60Hz to 144Hz is a very big transition and you'll notice it very easily (even desktop interactions are obviously smoother). I prefer higher framerate over resolution so I don't play on 1440p or anything like that.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 31, 2018)

The age old question that has an infinite amount of answers and opinions. 

I own a 144hz monitor so now I expect that. /s

60+ is definitely a more enjoyable experience for me, but I don't complain about 30 where it can't be helped. Framerate locking on PC kind of defeats the purpose of owning a PC... Comparing it to the "PS3 version" is a clear sign you don't know much about this.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Jan 31, 2018)

Coolsonickirby said:


> I honestly don't care about 60 or 30 or even 15 fps. I had a weak pc until 2 years ago. I'm just thankful I could play the game.


You're a very, very, very tolerable guy if you think 15fps is a "playable" experience. I had a weak PC until the Summer and if I couldn't get at least 30 FPS on a game whether it "runs" or not, screw that.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 31, 2018)

TheVinAnator said:


> You're a very, very, very tolerable guy if you think 15fps is a "playable" experience. I had a weak PC until the Summer and if I couldn't get at least 30 FPS on a game whether it "runs" or not, screw that.



The n64 era thooooooooo


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jan 31, 2018)

Most people like higher framerates cause it makes games look better, smooth and consistent, is a very noticeable thing when viewing. The video below helps to explain I suppose.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 31, 2018)

The "24 fps is the limit"-thing stems from the fact that movies used to run at that framerate. And it was fine because at those rates, your eye perceives what is basically a bunch of still images projected in quick succession as one stream of motion. Games are different in two ways:
1) it requires a higher focus because you're not passively absorbing what's being displayed but have to react to it as well.
2) games are rendered rather than pre-rendered: the display might increase and lower, depending on what has to be translated to the screen (blank wall obviously easier than a widely detailed landscape)

...and perhaps also 3) you're much closer to your monitor than your television, but I don't know the impact on that one. But the whole "smoother" thing may be described as cosmetic, but it's not really. The main difference between 30 and 60 (or higher) FPS is subconscious. Many have reported getting more headaches and it being less pleasant. In my personal experience, I find some 3D engines to cause motion sickness at lower FPS (note: this was of older games...nowadays I barely play the kind of games that my average PC can't handle at max settings). Also worth mentioning: a sudden drop in FPS is far more noticeably than it being consistent, even if that consistency is at a lower pace. It's hard to say to what degree, but back when I played UT2004 on a crappy PC, I would've chosen a steady 30 FPS over one fluctuating wildly between 35 and 45 any day.


On the other hand, the argument is overblown quite a bit (except maybe on VR...can't speak on that behalf). I know it's hard arguing in favor of something you can't see, but some push some weird arguments to back up their stance. "Wasting frames or pixels"...seriously?
It's also pretty overlooked that this only affects 3D games, and non-turn based ones at that. Turn-based games have no real need for it, and some pretend that games are HORRIBLE at lower framerates (or even suggest that they are _because_ they have low framerates, rather than the game just not being very good).





leafeon34 said:


> Some years ago when Tales of Symphonia got released on Steam people were bitching because the game was locked at 30fps like the PS3 version and that the best way to play the game is to emulate the Gamecube game at 60fps.


This is actually a different discussion. It's not that hard for developers to remove a 30 FPS lock, so these kinds of sour comments are more aimed at developers deliberately hampering their games so the (usually original) console versions don't seem inferior.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 31, 2018)

Forget 60, some people swear by 144 FPS.  I prefer all the flashy effects and stuff turned up high and a solid 60 FPS lock.  It is noticeably smoother than 30 or even 45, especially when turning in an FPS game.  Motion blurs at lower framerates, and that definitely includes movies, which is how they get away with so many VFX tricks.  I have seen games designed well for 30 FPS, the timing of them and all, but it's not common.  Dark Souls became a lot easier going from 30 to 60 FPS, XB360 to PC.


----------



## Edgarska (Jan 31, 2018)

Personally, I like 60fps because I have working eyes but no funds to play at 120.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 31, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> If that's the case does that mean if I spend a shitload on an amazing PC my games will look smooth as fuck at 120fps?


Correct, you would definitely be able to tell the difference and it would look like what silk feels like in comparison


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jan 31, 2018)

Coolsonickirby said:


> I honestly don't care about 60 or 30 or even 15 fps. I had a weak pc until 2 years ago. I'm just thankful I could play the game.



You will enjoy a happy life most likely as you seem to be content with the simple pleasures in life. Good for you.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jan 31, 2018)

I like 60 fps, 120 fps looks too weird to me.


----------



## ThoD (Jan 31, 2018)

60 is the best to be honest. You aren't overworking your system, is easier to maintain (no framedrops) and hardly has any motion blur. I personally only play on either 60 or 75 depending on the game (my GPU can go up to 100 without framedrops) and with an average resolution of 1360x800/1360x768 (depending on ratio, prefer 16:10), as it makes the games enjoyable, without stressing the PC too much, making any occurrence of framedrop nonexistent. I don't mind something things being in 30 (eg: some console games), but 60+ is more comfortable.

As for what the eye can perceive, the eye perceives light, then proteins charged with static electricity transfer the signals, so theoretically, max possible is actually 150K frames per second. However, in reality, the most frames you can actually perceive top up at about 2000 frames per second with the average being around 80 (from a study couple years back). Military pilots for example are required to be able to tell apart 1 frame from 200-300 in most countries, so it's certainly not 24


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 31, 2018)

Because of masterrace


----------



## ertaboy356b (Jan 31, 2018)

World of Final Fantasy is 30FPS and I feel like it's 60FPS lol.


----------



## goldensun87 (Jan 31, 2018)

The first time I ran Skyrim, was with *gasp* integrated Intel graphics.  My framerate was 15 fps, and none of the spells rendered completely onscreen.  60 fps is much smoother than 30 fps, and once you get used to 60 fps, 30 fps looks slow and choppy.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 31, 2018)

ThoD said:


> However, in reality, the most frames you can actually perceive top up at about 2000 frames per second with the average being around 80 (from a study couple years back). Military pilots for example are required to be able to tell apart 1 frame from 200-300 in most countries, so it's certainly not 24


Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 31, 2018)

ThoD said:


> 60 is the best to be honest. You aren't overworking your system, is easier to maintain (no framedrops) and hardly has any motion blur. I personally only play on either 60 or 75 depending on the game (my GPU can go up to 100 without framedrops) and with an average resolution of 1360x800/1360x768 (depending on ratio, prefer 16:10), as it makes the games enjoyable, without stressing the PC too much, making any occurrence of framedrop nonexistent. I don't mind something things being in 30 (eg: some console games), but 60+ is more comfortable.


Just because your PC is sub-par (seriously, 1360x768 resolution?) that doesn't mean 60 FPS is "best." What is "best" depends on your definition of "best." Obviously if you're a competitive Overwatch player, the higher the framerate the better. If you play turn-based games you don't _need_ 144 FPS but it certainly looks better. Some people are willing to lower the quality (like you) to get higher framerates and others are perfectly fine raising the quality as high as possible, regardless of the resulting framerate. I recently got a 144Hz monitor and the difference is night and day between 60 and 144 FPS. Naturally, the difference between the OP's beloved 30FPS and 144FPS would be an even bigger difference. 


WiiUBricker said:


> Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?


You heard wrong, friend.


----------



## choupette (Jan 31, 2018)

I don't like 60 fps, I bought a 144Hz g-sync monitor to avoid 60 fps.


----------



## ThoD (Jan 31, 2018)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Just because your PC is sub-par (seriously, 1360x768 resolution?) that doesn't mean 60 FPS is "best." What is "best" depends on your definition of "best." Obviously if you're a competitive Overwatch player, the higher the framerate the better. If you play turn-based games you don't _need_ 144 FPS but it certainly looks better. Some people are willing to lower the quality (like you) to get higher framerates and others are perfectly fine raising the quality as high as possible, regardless of the resulting framerate. I recently got a 144Hz monitor and the difference is night and day between 60 and 144 FPS. Naturally, the difference between the OP's beloved 30FPS and 144FPS would be an even bigger difference.
> 
> You heard wrong, friend.


What does resolution and quality have to do with one another? Unless you are standing like 5cm from the screen or if you are playing on a 70 inch monitor, you don't need high resolutions. The only thing resolution changes is the density of the pixels, meaning that as long as you don't see them separately (eg: like when on a handheld system), it's good already. Turning the resolution all the way up to 1080 on any monitor bellow 30 inches is overkill. I never said 144 was bad, but 60 is optimal for not ultra-spec PCs. As for the "competitive Overwatch player", overwatch doesn't need that many frames anyway, especially how it uses a fill-in method of raising the rate past 75, where it doesn't matter anymore. You seem to think that frames make you move faster or lower your response time, they don't, frames are just what's shown, not what's happening. If you wanted no input lag, you would be playing using a HD CRT monitor.



WiiUBricker said:


> Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?


There's an airbase where they train pilots just 15 minutes away on foot from here, so we get to meet some (fellow uni students, only they go to military uni) and they've said that it's true. For Greece though it's 1/200-235 frames and anything above is not needed as there's no war or anything going on.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 31, 2018)

What's wrong with liking 60FPS?
Or going to the point, higher FPS, say 200FPS?

I mean, sure it will always be smoother, the human eye can even get small reactions/hints up to 500FPS (like a short flashing frame), so what is wrong about longing for that?

It is the same as saying "why do people want more polycount in their game models?", you know (given the model is well made) more polycount means more detail, the same as "why do people want a bigger screen resolution?" or "why do people want higher quality textures?". This also makes the visual quality better (in a independent direction from FPS).

So then comes the obvious problem here, you could say the visual quality of moving pictures is composed of _fluidity _(FPS) and _picture quality_ (depending on resolution, polycount, shaders, etc).

Both fluidity and picture quality compete for limited resources, so you have to make a tradeoff. If your reactions and inputs influence the outcome of what is being shown (as in eg. a video game) fluidity would be way more important than in something which outcome doesn't depend on your reactions (say a film). If you improve fluidity you reduce your own lag and you improve the gaming experience.

Out of my preferences I would say you have to go for the required acceptable FPS for the type of game, and only then improve the picture quality as much as you can, if you then can get extra FPS then that is a big plus.

Anyone that tells you the human eye can only see 24FPS, or 60FPS, or 200FPS, well, this person is lying. Those FPS were set due to technological restrictions, it was a tradeoff, and the human eyes and brain are good at adapting to them and filling the blanks, but humans can see and react to way shorter stimuli, even short enough that your brain is not able to process them completely but your "reflexes" can react to them.

That said, of course you can go out of your way and drop resources like crazy to, let's say, make your daily conmute on an F-22, sure that would go fast, but is it worth it? Sometimes it is better to just take your standard cheap domestic flight service, it is good enough and it will not drain your pocket. The same thing applies to the diminishing returns of improving an old game engine or buying additional hardware.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Jan 31, 2018)

ThoD said:


> What does resolution and quality have to do with one another?


Everything. You don't need to have your face next to a monitor to see the difference between 720p and 1080p. A stretched 720p image can look similar to a 1080p image with low quality settings. Blurriness can be a big problem when dealing with text-heavy games.


> overwatch doesn't need that many frames anyway, especially how it uses a fill-in method of raising the rate past 75,


Can't seem to find that information anywhere. Link?


> You seem to think that frames make you move faster or lower your response time, they don't, frames are just what's shown, not what's happening.


The higher your framerate the more likely you are to have the most recent/accurate frame. I'd say that's rather important in competitive environments (but also rather helpful in general).


----------



## 330 (Jan 31, 2018)

I don't care, unless I'm playing on my 98-inch display. I can assure you that 30fps on that thing is awful.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 31, 2018)

I still maintain that when people stop being tarts and instead do proper motion blur that things will get better. Motion blur presently looks like arse because it is not relative in most things and turns things into a uniform mush. Higher FPS is a "cheap" way of working around that.
You can play with motion blur in a video camera via the shutter speed and such but you still have some and that is part of what videos can get away with a lot less (17fps, like some old war films, is generally considered about the limit, why also lazy TV producers just speed it up. 24 then got used for film, 25frames/50fields for PAL regions, 30frames/60 fields for NTSC and as Japan and the US both use NTSC and yeah).

As far as human eyes go and differences perceived then your eyes don't take many pictures per second... it is a lot odder. Focal points, peripheral vision, psychological effects and more all come into play, and in ways people don't immediately expect.

"more reaction time" is something of a fallacy for if you are not predicting ahead you have likely already lost.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 31, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> "more reaction time" is something of a fallacy for if you are not predicting ahead you have likely already lost.


Proper motion blur sure improves apparent visual quality and is very well suited for films, but it will not improve your stimuli-reflex reaction time, and regarding the "fallacy" well, tell that to a F1 pilot avoiding an accident or to anybody that avoids a punch or a ball coming to their face without even thinking about it.


----------



## DBlaze (Jan 31, 2018)

I don't have much of a problem with playing either on 30 or 60 fps (or higher)
What I have a problem with, is when something can't maintain the framerate and dips all over the place. That's when it gets annoying.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 31, 2018)

DBlaze said:


> I don't have much of a problem with playing either on 30 or 60 fps (or higher)
> What I have a problem with, is when something can't maintain the framerate and dips all over the place. That's when it gets annoying.


Yeah, uniform frame pacing is way more important than raw FPS, but people normally only do the FPS talk for some reason.


----------



## Stellar (Jan 31, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> but I personally can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps



The reason people like 60 fps so much is because we _*can *_see the difference, and if you can't, no answer can satisfy you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 31, 2018)

If you are this guy

Then sure.
Most of us are not that guy though.

To then burn resources on doubling or even worse frame rates when it could be spent on something to make it look shinier, display more things, draw further... or any one of a myriad things.

Equally with latencies climbing back up again most of this seems academic as more frames in that case does not make a whole lot of odds.

To come slightly the other way it also could be either written off with notions of does it matter? I am not going to dodge a bullet. Also could this not be a thing gameplay design takes care of? We already do loads of it for ping negation and games have long telegraphed things about to happen, cinema is also replete with examples (the 180 degree rule and all that is covered in this being a good start).

It all reminds me of "super tasters" and "golden ear" types, even if you get rid of the people that just want to have a rare skill I am usually content to write it off with "sucks to be you then".


----------



## ThoD (Jan 31, 2018)

Stellar Bull said:


> The reason people like 60 fps so much is because we _*can *_see the difference, and if you can't, no answer can satisfy you.


It has to do with what you are used to too. If you have been using a screen with 30 FPS, you can't tell the difference by moving to 60 straight away, but if you are used to 60, it's glaringly obvious if you move down to 30. That's why people who play on consoles often claim they can't tell the difference. However, something like from 30 to 100+ is obvious for everyone with eyes.


----------



## Ritsuki (Jan 31, 2018)

WiiUBricker said:


> Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?



Most of the people here are actually partially wrong, we can perceive way more than 24 FPS, but the problem is not with perception. One of the problems is how and at what speed the brain can process the information. Technically you will "see" the image, but your brain will have a hard time telling you that you saw it. That's one of the way subliminal messages works : the information will be in your brain, but you won't be aware of it. And fluidity ≠ higher fps. For example, in movies, you can use blur to create fluidity. With that, even something animated in 17-18 fps will look fluid. Without it, you would need at least 50 fps in game for the animation to look fluid.

But trying to determine a fps limit for the eye is actually not very pertinent, because we don't see things as a succession of images, but as a continuous flow of information. So basically it has more to do with the brain than the eye itself. The fps is important on screens, and the refresh rate will also affect the fluidity. The minimum fps has more to do with performance, costs, the type of screen used, refresh rate, and blur than with perception.

Here's an illustration of what I tried to explain :


----------



## ThoD (Jan 31, 2018)

Ritsuki said:


> The fps is important on screens, and the refresh rate will also affect the fluidity. The minimum fps has more to do with performance, costs, the type of screen used, refresh rate, and blur than with perception.
> 
> Here's an illustration of what I tried to explain :


A little correction, refresh rate and FPS are basically the exact same thing, only difference is that refresh rate has to do with the frequency crystal used for the screens, so while refresh rate is in Hz, it's the same as FPS (eg: rf of 60Hz is 60FPS). No need to separate those two. Also, while the picture supposedly shows the "difference", it's not really accurate. You can't compare 60 and 24FPS on the same screen all the time, as one of the two will actually get chopped because of round ups/downs. So you can only compare things like 30 and 60 on a 60Hz monitor (basically it needs to be dividable by the same number for both, so something like 30 and 60 in a 75Hz monitor aren't displayed properly and same goes if you are on 144 where everything needs to be at least slightly chopped distorted unless you resort to fill-ins).


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jan 31, 2018)

ThoD said:


> A little correction, refresh rate and FPS are basically the exact same thing, only difference is that refresh rate has to do with the frequency crystal used for the screens, so while refresh rate is in Hz, it's the same as FPS (eg: rf of 60Hz is 60FPS). No need to separate those two. Also, while the picture supposedly shows the "difference", it's not really accurate. You can't compare 60 and 24FPS on the same screen all the time, as one of the two will actually get chopped because of round ups/downs. So you can only compare things like 30 and 60 on a 60Hz monitor (basically it needs to be dividable by the same number for both, so something like 30 and 60 in a 75Hz monitor aren't displayed properly and same goes if you are on 144 where everything needs to be at least slightly chopped distorted unless you resort to fill-ins).


Well said, and so if your monitor had 120Hz refresh rate you could perfectly see the difference between 60FPS and 24FPS without chopping, and 120Hz is actually a quite common refresh rate.


----------



## Jayro (Jan 31, 2018)

I enjoy my 60Hz 1080p screen just fine. It keeps up with my Switch games just fine. I only struggle with screen realestate for Photoshop, but that's about it.


----------



## BvanBart (Jan 31, 2018)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Most people like higher framerates cause it makes games look better, smooth and consistent, is a very noticeable thing when viewing. The video below helps to explain I suppose.




Nice explanation. Everything above 24 fps is good for me .


----------



## Ritsuki (Jan 31, 2018)

ThoD said:


> A little correction, refresh rate and FPS are basically the exact same thing, only difference is that refresh rate has to do with the frequency crystal used for the screens, so while refresh rate is in Hz, it's the same as FPS (eg: rf of 60Hz is 60FPS). No need to separate those two. Also, while the picture supposedly shows the "difference", it's not really accurate. You can't compare 60 and 24FPS on the same screen all the time, as one of the two will actually get chopped because of round ups/downs. So you can only compare things like 30 and 60 on a 60Hz monitor (basically it needs to be dividable by the same number for both, so something like 30 and 60 in a 75Hz monitor aren't displayed properly and same goes if you are on 144 where everything needs to be at least slightly chopped distorted unless you resort to fill-ins).



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that 60Hz = 60 fps is mainly because refreshing the screen at a 120Hz rate to show a 60 fps animation would be a waste of resources  So it clearly strongly linked but not exactly  the same.

As for the image, you're right, I should have precised that it's more a simulation of what you would see (same screen, same parameters) than actually two animations with different fps.


----------



## leon315 (Jan 31, 2018)

Sorry to interrupt such technical debate about 30fps vs 60fps, me to play overwatch on my Asus Rog swift 240hz monitor is like having orgasm whole the time compared ur console peasants 30/60, just saying, no offence ofc  HAHAHAHAH


----------



## migles (Jan 31, 2018)

WiiUBricker said:


> Interesting. I heard that human eyes cannot perceive anything over 60 fps. Are you serious with your pilot statement?


that "eyes can only see 60fps\hz" is so bullshit.
from 120hz to 144 hz plenty of people don't notice a difference, but from 120hz to 240hz there is a  noticable difference..

i curently have a 60hz monitor, but i really notice a difference in smoothness when checking the monitors in stores with higher fresh rates


----------



## ThoD (Jan 31, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well said, and so if your monitor had 120Hz refresh rate you could perfectly see the difference between 60FPS and 24FPS without chopping, and 120Hz is actually a quite common refresh rate.


Exactly. Also something to note, in the case of comparison videos on youtube, it should be mentioned that most browsers limit the framerate of videos to 30 (eg: Firefox), while others to 60 (eg: Chrome) and there may be some without a cap.



Ritsuki said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that 60Hz = 60 fps is mainly because refreshing the screen at a 120Hz rate to show a 60 fps animation would be a waste of resources  So it clearly strongly linked but not exactly  the same.
> 
> As for the image, you're right, I should have precised that it's more a simulation of what you would see (same screen, same parameters) than actually two animations with different fps.


You are correct, it is not the exact same thing but it's very strongly linked to the point they are interchangable. In order to display higher/lower framerates, the frequency crystal inside gets a small over/underclock to match it. That means that while a monitor may be 120Hz, it won't really display that unless you set the FPS to that too. Refresh rate should match the FPS though to prevent distortions or other weird effects (V-sync does that exactly, making the FPS and refresh rate the exact same).



leon315 said:


> Sorry to interrupt such technical debate about 30fps vs 60fps, me to play overwatch on my Asus Rog swift 240hz monitor is like having orgasm whole the time compared ur console peasants 30/60, just saying, no offence ofc  HAHAHAHAH


No worries about the interruption And play on as high as you want, when I was using a very high-spec monitor some time back I would emulate games like G3 Extreme on 500 FPS with a x2 speed cheat, best racing in my life!


Btw, for anyone wondering about what I said with the refresh rate and crystal, it goes all the way back to TVs and signals and is the same reason TVs in the US ran at 29.97FPS.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 31, 2018)

Somewhat reminds me of arcade fighting game ports from the late 90s, especially PlayStation ports.  In addition to longer load times, the PlayStation versions of these fighting games cut frames of animation from the arcade version due to technical limitations.  As a result, many of said ports are considered as inferior to the arcade originals.  This practice pretty much faded with the Dreamcast, which could pretty much produce arcade-perfect versions of fighting games.

Of course, the FPS of a game becomes more or less important depending on the genre/type of game it is.  You wouldn't worry so much about FPS in a turn-based JRPG as you would in a fighting game or shooter, because while the latter two are more quick-reaction heavy (requiring a higher frame rate to give the player a better chance of reacting to something), the former allows you to take your time when making decisions (though this obviously becoming less and less the case).

That being said, around 15 FPS is the turning point for where the individual frames stop looking like a slide show and start looking like they're actually moving.  So, personally, I'd say around 30 FPS is fine for modern, less reaction-based titles.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 1, 2018)

ThoD said:


> It has to do with what you are used to too. If you have been using a screen with 30 FPS, you can't tell the difference by moving to 60 straight away, but if you are used to 60, it's glaringly obvious if you move down to 30. That's why people who play on consoles often claim they can't tell the difference. However, something like from 30 to 100+ is obvious for everyone with eyes.


That seemed to be the case for me.I couldn't tell exactly when moving from 30 to 60 on skyrim,but once I got used to 60 for a bit and went back down to 30 I saw the difference crystal clear.


----------



## Mikemk (Feb 1, 2018)

Personally, I can tell the difference between 55 and 60 fps.  30 feels like watching a slideshow.


----------



## bennyman123abc (Feb 1, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Some people claim they can notice a frame being displayed twice when playing the 59fps Wii U version of Mario Kart 8.


I notice it when I'm really stressed and pissed at the world. Otherwise, I don't notice it typically


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 1, 2018)

ThoD said:


> It has to do with what you are used to too. If you have been using a screen with 30 FPS, you can't tell the difference by moving to 60 straight away, but if you are used to 60, it's glaringly obvious if you move down to 30. That's why people who play on consoles often claim they can't tell the difference. However, something like from 30 to 100+ is obvious for everyone with eyes.



30 to 60 and 60 to 30 is night and day for me. On just about any display. Xx


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Feb 1, 2018)

I can easily tell the difference between 57fps and 60fps. I game at a constant 60fps, so losing anything more than 1 frame seems like huge stutter. 30fps is a slideshow to me, and anything under 45fps I consider unplayable.

Moving on from it just plain looking better, people who play at 30fps have a huge disadvantage in PC gaming. For example, when you're aiming down sights in a shooter, let's say you have X amount of milliseconds to line up your shot before the other person will shoot you and kill you. If you game at 120fps, you have 4x more frames to line up your shot and get it precisely on the target, assuming you have the reflexes and skills to back it up. Those at 30fps may find themselves shooting when they think is the right time, because you may either a little before or a little after your reticule is exactly on the target.

EDIT: Also, speaking of the MK8 frame drop, I can only notice it when bunnyhopping. I can't really see it otherwise


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 1, 2018)

60 FPS is old news. These days it's all about 120/144Hz.
I can definitely tell that a game isn't completely smooth at 30 or 40 FPS, it doesn't bother me too much, but it still makes me wish I had a better GPU.
On consoles I kind of don't mind because it's the best I'm going to get on that respective console anyway as upgrades aren't an option.


DarkFlare69 said:


> I can easily tell the difference between 57fps and 60fps. I game at a constant 60fps, so losing anything more than 1 frame seems like huge stutter. 30fps is a slideshow to me, and anything under 45fps I consider unplayable.
> 
> Moving on from it just plain looking better, people who play at 30fps have a huge disadvantage in PC gaming. For example, when you're aiming down sights in a shooter, let's say you have X amount of milliseconds to line up your shot before the other person will shoot you and kill you. If you game at 120fps, you have 4x more frames to line up your shot and get it precisely on the target, assuming you have the reflexes and skills to back it up. Those at 30fps may find themselves shooting when they think is the right time, because you may either a little before or a little after your reticule is exactly on the target.


That's different, that's more about the lag spikes/stuttering than it is about the FPS. If you were gaming at a constant 57 FPS instead, you likely would think you were gaming at 60FPS.
Stuttering and lag spikes are what kill the experience, not a slightly lower FPS.
For example, I would rather play at a constant 30 FPS than have it go between 35-50 FPS. Even though it's technically a lower FPS, it looks smoother.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Feb 1, 2018)

Anything sub-12 will be probably considered 'unplayable' because the eye can distinguish between individual frames at that point.


----------



## mbcrazed (Feb 1, 2018)

I like this topic, and how debateable it is! Honestly, it depends on the game for me. If I'm playing Dark Souls (The first one) then I want it at 30FPS. Playing it with a patch makes dodging, and other mechanics feel weird. Most of the time I prefer 60FPS, but if it's locked to 30, I'm not going to complain.


----------



## bennyman123abc (Feb 2, 2018)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> Anything sub-12 will be probably considered 'unplayable' because the eye can distinguish between individual frames at that point.


Minecraft at 10 is perfectly playable! What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## gnmmarechal (Feb 2, 2018)

The human eye doesn't see in frames. And we're capable of perceiving far more than 60FPS. Fuck, I used to game at sub 10FPS and find it enjoyable. Now I have decent hardware and anything below 60  is annoying, and below 30 is almost outright unplayable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mbcrazed said:


> I like this topic, and how debateable it is! Honestly, it depends on the game for me. If I'm playing Dark Souls (The first one) then I want it at 30FPS. Playing it with a patch makes dodging, and other mechanics feel weird. Most of the time I prefer 60FPS, but if it's locked to 30, I'm not going to complain.


Well, that's cuz DS is borked lul


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 2, 2018)

bennyman123abc said:


> Minecraft at 10 is perfectly playable! What the hell are you talking about?


I weep for you


----------



## bennyman123abc (Feb 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I weep for you


I don't play it at 10 anymore. I use to play it at sub 10 on my mom's old computer back in 2009


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Feb 2, 2018)

gnmmarechal said:


> The human eye doesn't see in frames. And we're capable of perceiving far more than 60FPS. Fuck, I used to game at sub 10FPS and find it enjoyable. Now I have decent hardware and anything below 60 is annoying, and below 30 is almost outright unplayable.


100% agreed.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Feb 2, 2018)

bennyman123abc said:


> Minecraft at 10 is perfectly playable! What the hell are you talking about?


Okay, well, it depends on the person, but anything where people can see individual frames is considered by most people as unplayable.


----------



## Hells Malice (Feb 4, 2018)

It only matters in certain games. You can't really tell in things like Tales of Symphonia, but it is noticeable if you look at it side by side.

The easiest way to see the difference is to get Dark Souls 1, and dsfix. It lets you toggle between 60 and 30 FPS with a button press, and it is night and day how absolutely massive the difference is. You'll never ask the question again.

Generally you only actively notice lower framerates if you're dipping in frames. There's really no reason for a PC game to be capped at a lower FPS in this day and age though. The higher the FPS, the smoother it is. There's no arguing with it, that's just factual. Consoles have to because of their lower specs, so it at least has a reason.


----------



## Xentenel (Feb 13, 2018)

For one, the movement's smoothness is really pleasant for my eyes.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 13, 2018)

I used to play at 10fps
but now even though I can do upto 65 I lock my stuff at 30
gives more time for the system to do math properly so I get less glitches
even though a glitch is still rare at 60fps speed running super meat boy and getting the fucking pause menu softlock is hell
you have to close and restart
but it never happens for me at 30fps


----------



## Owenge (Feb 13, 2018)

60 frames is the max a human eye can see, anything over looks, and plays like 60 frames.
30 is playable but you do notice it, so anyone that doesn't like lights flickering or something like that, wouldn't like it. But in some cases games like cup head was animated in 16 frames and used a skip frame method ( not sure the exact name) made it possible for 30-60 fps


----------



## gnmmarechal (Feb 13, 2018)

Owenge said:


> *60 frames is the max a human eye can see*, anything over looks, and plays like 60 frames.
> 30 is playable but you do notice it, so anyone that doesn't like lights flickering or something like that, wouldn't like it. But in some cases games like cup head was animated in 16 frames and used a skip frame method ( not sure the exact name) made it possible for 30-60 fps


That's complete bullshit. The eye doesn't even see in frames to begin with.


----------



## Owenge (Feb 13, 2018)

gnmmarechal said:


> That's complete bullshit. The eye doesn't even see in frames to begin with.


That's right, but people can see a period between frames... mainly a studer


----------



## gnmmarechal (Feb 13, 2018)

Owenge said:


> That's right, but people can see a period between frames... mainly a studer


dunno where you got the idea that 60 is the limit the human eye can see but there's a reason as to why high refresh rate monitors are popular lmao


----------



## Owenge (Feb 13, 2018)

gnmmarechal said:


> dunno where you got the idea that 60 is the limit the human eye can see but there's a reason as to why high refresh rate monitors are popular lmao


My bad
"60Hz monitor will always show *60 FPS*, no matter how much FPS your game is able to provide. - High refresh rates are noticeable only in dynamic scenes; in slow or static scenes you rarely will *see*any difference beyond 30"


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 13, 2018)

Jayro said:


> I enjoy my 60Hz 1080p screen just fine. It keeps up with my Switch games just fine. I only struggle with screen realestate for Photoshop, but that's about it.


But most third party switch games runs at 30 or lower...


----------



## Darkshadow1997 (Feb 13, 2018)

Personally, I don't mind if my games run at 60 or 30 fps as long as it has no frame drops then it does not matter though 30 of my games run at 60, 7 runs at 30 and oddly one game runs at 48 fps which is odd due to the fact my old dell laptop could run it at 60 while my current dell gaming laptop runs it at 48.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Feb 13, 2018)

Owenge said:


> My bad
> "60Hz monitor will always show *60 FPS*, no matter how much FPS your game is able to provide. - High refresh rates are noticeable only in dynamic scenes; in slow or static scenes you rarely will *see*any difference beyond 30"


*NO WAY IF THAT WASN'T OBVIOUS! *Lmao, slow/static scenes in 15FPS could be acceptable, hell, in static scenes even 2FPS seems acceptable, like no way dude.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Feb 13, 2018)

Owenge said:


> My bad
> "60Hz monitor will always show *60 FPS*, no matter how much FPS your game is able to provide. - High refresh rates are noticeable only in dynamic scenes; in slow or static scenes you rarely will *see*any difference beyond 30"


A scene without motion won't have smoother motion at 60FPS? Could it be because it lacks motion? /s


----------



## Kigiru (Feb 13, 2018)

Depends on the genre of the game. For something like JRPGs or less fast-paced platformers 30 fps is okay. For fighting games 60 FPS is required and online shooting games for pleasant experience need as much fps as possible.


----------



## ThoD (Feb 13, 2018)

TheVinAnator said:


> *NO WAY IF THAT WASN'T OBVIOUS! *Lmao, slow/static scenes in 15FPS could be acceptable, hell, in static scenes even 2FPS seems acceptable, like no way dude.


True, you don't see people complain that their desktop is actually running at less than 14 FPS (and most of the time at just 1-3), as there's nothing moving besides the mouse, so how do people think you have to clarify such an obvious thing?


----------



## Minox (Feb 13, 2018)

Personally I wouldn't want to go back to 60Hz monitors again. There's not as big of a gap between 120-144fps and 60fps as there is between 60fps and 30fps, but the increased framerate does help smooth out motions making for a better experience overall.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The age old question that has an infinite amount of answers and opinions.





Memoir said:


> The n64 era thooooooooo


Part of the reason I prefer the N64 Ocarina of Time over the 3DS version is because frame rate. The choppier frame rate gives it a creepier feel and atmosphere to it. Think of silent films in the early 1900's running at 16 fps and human movement looks unnatural and creepy. The dark and creepy atmosphere is one the reasons I like the N64 Ocarina of Time and Majoras Mask. I can see developers using lower frame rates as an artistic choice. You can run the game at 60fps but have an enemy run at a lower frame rate so that its movement looks creepy.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 13, 2018)

One of the things people like about more frames!!! Is that depending on how the game is made, some games use frames as well umm frames of reference lol 

I am guessing here, but I think some games do like Draw Frame > Accept user input > calculate result > Draw frame. In a loop with AI and other things thrown into that but the basic concept is like that I think... I know some games are independent of frame rate and the engine is different but I am sure there is some sort of link to performance even in those type of games.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2018)

ThoD said:


> A little correction, refresh rate and FPS are basically the exact same thing, only difference is that refresh rate has to do with the frequency crystal used for the screens, so while refresh rate is in Hz, it's the same as FPS (eg: rf of 60Hz is 60FPS). No need to separate those two. Also, while the picture supposedly shows the "difference", it's not really accurate. You can't compare 60 and 24FPS on the same screen all the time, as one of the two will actually get chopped because of round ups/downs. So you can only compare things like 30 and 60 on a 60Hz monitor (basically it needs to be dividable by the same number for both, so something like 30 and 60 in a 75Hz monitor aren't displayed properly and same goes if you are on 144 where everything needs to be at least slightly chopped distorted unless you resort to fill-ins).


On a 60hz monitor those rounding's are called 3:2 pull down when displaying 24fps content. In Movie Theaters most film is projected at 48 or 72 fps or more to reduce flicker to make it watchable. The human eye can distinguish spaces between frames if you display film at 24fps as is.


----------



## ThoD (Feb 13, 2018)

SG854 said:


> On a 60hz monitor those rounding's are called 3:2 pull down when displaying 24fps content. In Movie Theaters most film is projected at 48 or 72 fps or more to reduce flicker to make it watchable. The human eye can distinguish spaces between frames if you display film at 24fps as is.


I never said anything against that, but the fact remains that unless the monitor is displaying the same FPS or an integer multiple of it, the image shown will be at least a tiny bit distorted because of the round ups/downs. To properly compare something like 24 and 30, you need either a 120FPS monitor or two separate ones running at 24 and 30 individually.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 13, 2018)

Owenge said:


> 60 frames is the max a human eye can see, anything over looks, and plays like 60 frames.
> 30 is playable but you do notice it, so anyone that doesn't like lights flickering or something like that, wouldn't like it. But in some cases games like cup head was animated in 16 frames and used a skip frame method ( not sure the exact name) made it possible for 30-60 fps


No it doesn't. You probably don't notice that because you are using a 60hz monitor and a 60hz monitor can't show anything above 60fps anyway. Ofcourse when you use riviatuner or fraps it will show more but on a 60hz monitor you are limited to 60fps even when it is going higher. Get a 144hz or higher monitor and then see if you will still say the same


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2018)

Like 60 fps so much? That's the bare minimum in my book. 100+ fps is a must for me since counter-strike 1.6 like 15 years ago.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 13, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> Like 60 fps so much? That's the bare minimum in my book. 100+ fps is a must for me since counter-strike 1.6 like 15 years ago.


Funny thing is that 15 years ago there weren't even 120hz monitors so you couldn't even take advantage of that anyway  All you could see was 60fps anyway even when it was showing higher in an fps counter


----------



## SG854 (Feb 13, 2018)

ThoD said:


> I never said anything against that, but the fact remains that unless the monitor is displaying the same FPS or an integer multiple of it, the image shown will be at least a tiny bit distorted because of the round ups/downs. To properly compare something like 24 and 30, you need either a 120FPS monitor or two separate ones running at 24 and 30 individually.


I know just adding to the conversation. On 120hz monitors you can also do motion interpolation which doesn't work well with video games. Even movies I don't like the soap opera effect it creates. And you can also do black frame insertion on 120hz monitors to mimic the flicker of CRT's and get full 1080 resolution. Motion blur is a problem with LCD's and OLED's.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The creator of Shadow of the Colossus said he choose 30fps originally because he wanted a more cinematic experience. I can see developers using lower frame rates as an artistic approach. Faster frame rate creates smoother motion but its not what all developers want to go for. So it depends on game whether higher frame rate is better or not. Different frame rates give different perceptions, feels and atmosphere. Higher is not always best and is game dependent.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 13, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Funny thing is that 15 years ago there weren't even 120hz monitors so you couldn't even take advantage of that anyway  All you could see was 60fps anyway even when it was showing higher in an fps counter


Should probably read up on CRT monitors and what they can do.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 13, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Funny thing is that 15 years ago there weren't even 120hz monitors so you couldn't even take advantage of that anyway  All you could see was 60fps anyway even when it was showing higher in an fps counter


at least do a little research before you talk out of your butt.
https://www.cnet.com/products/sony-cpd-e540-stylepro/specs/ this is the monitor I have and even though i don't use it, it still works.
vertical refresh 170 hz. I don't use v-sync

I've been gaming longer than you've been alive.

Have a good day sir.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 14, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> vertical refresh 170 hz.


Hot damn


----------



## YugamiSekai (Feb 14, 2018)

60FPS only matters in rhythm games.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 14, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> at least do a little research before you talk out of your butt.
> https://www.cnet.com/products/sony-cpd-e540-stylepro/specs/ this is the monitor I have and even though i don't use it, it still works.
> vertical refresh 170 hz. I don't use v-sync
> 
> ...


Gaming longer that i have been alive ? Sure you do first console i gamed on was a commodore 64. And calm your tits dude, no reason to act all angry and agressive here. People can make mistakes. There is a proper way to tell someone and there is the way you are doing


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 14, 2018)

The magic about old PC CRTs is that they had no fixed refresh rate, and you could do weird things from 20Hz, 42Hz, ... up to 75Hz and beyond (actually, as much Hz as you wanted as long as you didn't go far off-specs regarding what the horizontal deflector could do).

And I guess, that is the reason people say "dosbox could never emulate DOS games correctly"... I would say, actually, current monitors could never display what the weird DOS games did correctly, even if you run them on a real DOS machine or in dosbox, not only regarding correct Hz, but also all the effects Demos did based on manipulating palettes in real time according to the position the electron beam was rastering, that shouldn't work on nowadays technology.


PS: Also, out of my own experience, when you start being an asshole to your CRT monitor and go off specs, you could very well drive both deflectors crazy, get a beautifully concentrated full-power electron beam pointing just to the middle of the screen, and get a pixel bright as a 100W bulb, that will illuminate your room for a couple seconds, afterwards turning black forever. True Story.


----------



## linuxares (Feb 14, 2018)

fkin' plebs! 144hz or nothing!

No in all seriousness. I want 60 fps because it's feels smoother.
Take this for an example:

Do you want your Coca Cola in liquid form or in sirup form? Most people would probably perfer the cola as a Liquid compare to a slow moving sirup.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 14, 2018)

linuxares said:


> Do you want your Coca Cola in liquid form or in sirup form? Most people would probably perfer the cola as a Liquid compare to a slow moving sirup.


Unless they feel their ride to diabetes is going way too slow.


----------



## linuxares (Feb 14, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Unless they feel their ride to diabetes is going way too slow.


Well you can get diabetes from a common cold so... meh! Live and let live!


----------



## leon315 (Feb 14, 2018)

Edit... Wrong post


----------



## comput3rus3r (Feb 14, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Gaming longer that i have been alive ? Sure you do first console i gamed on was a commodore 64. And calm your tits dude, no reason to act all angry and agressive here. People can make mistakes. There is a proper way to tell someone and there is the way you are doing


 You're right, I'm sorry. With that said though I have little patience for trolls and many times when i'm posting facts it seems somebody is negating what i'm saying with little knowledge of the subject.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 14, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> You're right, I'm sorry. With that said though I have little patience for trolls and many times when i'm posting facts it seems somebody is negating what i'm saying with little knowledge of the subject.


well i'm sorry 2 but it's all fine, no harm done xp


----------



## dimmidice (Feb 14, 2018)

I don't really care about FPS much as long as it's consistent. This is for RPGs or other games like that. If it's racing or such then yeah it has to be smooth but not necessarily 60 fps. It's more a meme atm than anything else.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 22, 2018)

Hells Malice said:


> The easiest way to see the difference is to get Dark Souls 1, and dsfix. It lets you toggle between 60 and 30 FPS with a button press, and it is night and day how absolutely massive the difference is. You'll never ask the question again.


I can now say that Fire Emblem Warriors feels a lot smoother playing on performance mode. The increase in framerate is a lot more noticeable than the drop in resolution.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 22, 2018)

Dragon Ball Fighterz characters run at lower frame rates. Character animations run at 8 fps, 10 fps, 12 fps. It creates the Anime look and motion, and it looks really cool. Guilty Gear runs the same way. It depends on game whether higher frame rates are better or not. Sometimes higher is better, sometimes its not. It depends on game. I like higher frame rates in Fighting games like Soul Caliber and Street Fighter. But I prefer in the lower frame rates in the 2D or 2D/3D anime style fighters like Guilty Gear and Dragon Ball Fighterz. It really depends on game and different frame rates can be used as a stylistic choice.

Heres a Digital Foundry video on Dragon Ball Fighterz frame rates.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 22, 2018)

It's mostly kiddos that brag _"haha you poor bitch my pc can run two 4k 144hz monitors no problems haha you're just butthurt that you're poor"_.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> It's mostly kiddos that brag _"haha you poor bitch my pc can run two 4k 144hz monitors no problems haha you're just butthurt that you're poor"_.


60fps though


----------



## Viri (Feb 22, 2018)

I remember thinking "Eh, 30fps is just fine, w/e" Then I seen the game in 60fps. I'm like "Holy shit! it looks so smooth! Those animations, oh my god!"


----------



## xpoverzion (Feb 22, 2018)

leafeon34 said:


> Some years ago when Tales of Symphonia got released on Steam people were bitching because the game was locked at 30fps like the PS3 version and that the best way to play the game is to emulate the Gamecube game at 60fps.
> 
> Some older games feel uncomfortable to play because of the lower framerate (Assassin's Creed 3 on the PS3 and a number of N64 games come to mind here) but I personally can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.
> 
> ...


I don't like 60fps.  I like 120+fps on the PC.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 22, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Dragon Ball Fighterz characters run at lower frame rates. Character animations run at 8 fps, 10 fps, 12 fps. It creates the Anime look and motion, and it looks really cool. Guilty Gear runs the same way. It depends on game whether higher frame rates are better or not. Sometimes higher is better, sometimes its not. It depends on game. I like higher frame rates in Fighting games like Soul Caliber and Street Fighter. But I prefer in the lower frame rates in the 2D or 2D/3D anime style fighters like Guilty Gear and Dragon Ball Fighterz. It really depends on game and different frame rates can be used as a stylistic choice.
> 
> Heres a Digital Foundry video on Dragon Ball Fighterz frame rates.


thats mainly the result of lazy animation and them trying to pump out an episode a week almost non stop for years, you can tell a huge difference between toei and companies like mad house or kyoto animation


----------



## MeAndHax (Feb 22, 2018)

Because it’s SMOOOOOTH


----------



## Taffy (Feb 23, 2018)

Its important to note there is a difference between:

- 30 FPS, being *half as fast* as 60 (slower)
- 30 FPS, same speed as *60 but essentially only rendering every other frame*. (choppier)

Cave Story would be a good example, the original PC version runs at 50 FPS and it runs slower than the 60 FPS ports it has.
As opposed to running a game in an emulator with frameskip enabled, which would mean choppier. Unless you go into the territory of a computer being slow, which is unrelated.


----------



## DarthDub (Feb 23, 2018)

1080p 60fps should be the standard.


----------



## MasterControl90 (Mar 13, 2018)

Oh the decades long question about framerates. Many already replied but I will anyway in the most simple possible way I know.

Not only a perfectly stable 60fps running game is pleasant to see because of the smoothness factor, it usually plays better because of these simple reasons:

1. More frames means more information to your brain making you realise faster what is going on in the game world:
2. More frames means more responsive controls overall because your input goes hand to hand with the framerate and so you can input twice the time per second at 60 fps, another way to explain this is that you can input a command every 16 ms instead of every 33ms;
3. Because of point 1 and 2, considering also the visual improvement, all games plays way better at 60 fps, offering to you a more enjoyable experience in every aspect.

Additionally you now know why some hardcore people wants even more fps especially for online games. Personally I will never go back to 60hz monitors and 120hz+ is the way to go for me, not only you will actually see those higher framerates if your machine is adequate but these high refreshrates hide a lot of tearing between frames... A huge plus all considered.


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Mar 18, 2018)

after playing 60 fps games alot 30 fps seems laggy and can be noticed.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Mar 18, 2018)

cause it'feels smooth as smooth pb.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 18, 2018)

Speaking of artificial framerate limits, try going back and playing some old games.
Banjo Tooie had a pretty bad framerate limit, the framerate would often be capped at 15 FPS and maybe even lower. Still completely playable, but it's really noticeable. I'm unsure if Kazooie did the same thing but there are at least a handful of games on N64 that do this.
Luckily there exist GameShark codes for some of these older games to allow them to run at 60 FPS in emulators. It makes a huge difference in Banjo Tooie, but sadly it throws off the timing of some things and makes aiming in first person mode way too sensitive, and turning when swimming is much faster than it should be, but it can be easily toggled off for those parts.

A stable 30 FPS isn't bad by comparison. It still looks relatively smooth, although 60 FPS is smoother. 100Hz++ is kind of weird, it somehow feels smoother than real life if that even makes any sense. It's unnaturally smooth. Not necessarily a bad thing but also not really anything important. I don't feel like 60Hz is impairing me at all or preventing me from enjoying a game as much. It might matter more in multiplayer shooters, which aren't a thing I normally play.


----------

