Why only 60 FPS?

[Alpha Male Dwarf Station]

Just why?

[Khaziir Everflight]

Originally posted by rat:

some of the best games ive ever played have crusty graphics. space beast terror fright. scavenger sv-4. star explorers. system shock 2. environmental station alpha. paradox vector. outer wilds.

'To add to that list, Cosmodread VR (one of the best horror games i have played... basically event horizon vr, except not "what if the ship returns from hell" but "what if you get stuck IN the hell dimension", and that game has cartoonish as ♥♥♥♥ graphics.

[AutumnWolf]

Theres absolutely zero need for more frames than 60 for a low pixalated game.

[Heavy Blues]

Mid-functioning autism at its finest.

[Idlemind]

What if it was 120 FPS.. what would that achieve?

[Batman]

++ for more fps support

[Khaziir Everflight]

Originally posted by AutumnWolf:

Theres absolutely zero need for more frames than 60 for a low pixalated game.

false. if your fps matches your displays Hz, you have the least imput lag (given no hardware defects are present), which in any game is important. 60fps should be the minimum nowadays, not the maximum, no matter the artstyle. more frames means more fluidity and less input lag. 60 is okay, but it can be much better.

[DaxiraxJr]

lmao you sound so spoiled.

[Khaziir Everflight]

Originally posted by Idlemind:

What if it was 120 FPS.. what would that achieve?

as little input latency as possible, and as fluid animations and "game flow feel" (no idea how todescribe it otherwise) as possible. Maybe having it capped at 60 is okay and good enough for you, but there are a bunch of people that notice it being under display refreshrate, and see how much better it could be, and thankfully will be, seeing how the devs confirmed high framerate support down the line. Some people are just more sensitive to that kind of thing, some are less sensitive. neither side is wrong.

No idea how well i am able to bring my point across... rather terrible at explaining this kind of subjective thing in a way that isnt prone to be misunderstood or plainly badly explained by me.

[zero254]

chad devs said more fps might be coming, topic is basically over / jester farming from here on out

[Khaziir Everflight]

Originally posted by zero254:

chad devs said more fps might be coming, topic is basically over / jester farming from here on out

precicely.

[StrikerTheHedgefox]

It's all about fluidity of motion/scrolling and latency. Being able to run at your monitor's native refresh rate is always going to be a smoother, less stutter-prone experience, especially if the game's locked FPS isn't a multiple of the monitor's refresh. 60fps looks terrible on 144hz monitors, because you end up with sporadic double frames, resulting in frame pacing issues.

It's not about being "lel pro twitch gamer", or some PCMR jackoff. It's about being able to support hardware that's only becoming more commonplace without giving the player a headache.

[Castor Troy]

Originally posted by AutumnWolf:

Theres absolutely zero need for more frames than 60 for a low pixalated game.

Not sure if you saw my post above, but the game is choppy for me when scrolling. It doesn't look super smooth. If it's something other than framerate, then that's fine, I hope they fix it. But it seems like a framerate issue. I have a 4090 so I don't think my pc is the problem.

[Khaziir Everflight]

Originally posted by StrikerTheHedgefox:

It's all about fluidity of motion and latency. Being able to run at your monitor's native refresh rate is always going to be a smoother, less stutter-prone experience, especially if the game's locked FPS isn't a multiple of the monitor's refresh. 60fps looks terrible on 144hz monitors, because you end up with sporadic double frames, resulting in frame pacing issues.

precicely.

[emi]

Originally posted by Tsuki Zero:

Originally posted by 3735943886:

Just why?

More important question: Why bother with >60 FPS? Anything above 60 offers no functional advantage, and don't go bringing up "faster response time", because someone skilled can anticipate things even at freaking 30 and react accordingly. In short: it's about skill.

That said my stance is:
> 60 FPS = unnecessary
> 30 & < 60 FPS = not very good (exceptions: certain PAL system games of the past)
< 30 FPS = Please no.
Small frame dips (up to 5 or 10 frames, depending on default framerate) = OK, if it is necessary for something (loading, for example)

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot to say, intuition is also a good skill to have if your eye-hand coordination isn't good, but not everyone can have it to a functional degree. It's the difference between. "30 milliseconds late" and "on the dot"

You're objectively, factually wrong. There is plenty of subject matter out there for you to smash your cognitive dissonance against, but I'll just explain here for you to deny away anyways... First, though, I sort of agree when it comes to games like this, in this 2d pixel game it matters so much less to performance, but it would improve the smoothness of the actual application which would FEEL nice. You can absolutely feel the difference between 60 and 144hz or 240hz even on basic ass windows usage and your cursor movement, you can see it too! It's quite a stark contrast between the different refresh rates. That's why when I booted up the game I could immediately tell it was a little "choppy" and FELT that the cap was at 60 before even checking the fps. After checking I went looking for solutions which brought me here.

The thing is, I feel like you're saying your stance applies to all gaming, and you'd be wrong when it comes to more reaction/accuracy intensive games like shooters, which is such a wild assertion. So to address only shooters: there is, again, plenty of subject matter out there that will show that it objectively improves things like reaction times and accuracy of cursor placement and adjustments.. all micro aspects of skill that when put together yield a decent improvement to performance. Can you be a very high skill level and still use 60hz? Yes, obviously. But as soon as you use 144hz or 240hz you **will** be better, and I'd argue you would have difficulty performing at a professional level without having comparable equipment to all the professionals which includes high refresh rate monitors for a reason. At the lower levels, it doesn't matter as much, strategy and game sense are going to be more impactful to output performance, but even at lower skill level it still does impact the raw skills. Plenty of low ranks in games get a better monitor and their performance in all these small skills add up to a rank or two increase even when they haven't really improved any other aspect of their gameplay. So, in short, no matter your level of skill, a better refresh rate **will** improve your performance, full stop.

All of this is verifiable with data. That used to not be the case, but over the years of adamantly skeptical people who refuse to listen to others experiences, all the stuff you claim doesn't make a difference has been pretty thoroughly tested and shown that it does! It's a google search away :)

[ET_the_E_Thot]

doesn't need it. simple as