120 FPS and up?

[☆reshiya☆]

I was wondering if this would run at any frame rate higher than 60.

[TSVStriFe]

KTecmo is overall a horrible company though, but P4G was a fantastic port and the game does feel sooo much more fluent. Too bad that the Vita was kinda underpowered, even though it had a great screen.

[yotoprules]

Originally posted by Ender:

Originally posted by yotoprules:

Persona 5 Strikers was locked at either 30fps or 60fps, I wouldn't expect any different for this game.

Strikers is running on Koei Tecmo's woefully mediocre in-house proprietary engine, so its still remains to be seen if the PC version supports over 60fps. The Xbox version though apparently mentions VRR and over 60fps as features so we can hope for the best.

Ohh, I thought they were both on the same engine. Well finger crossed.

[Killance]

This version is the enhances royal. On ps5/Series X it probably runs at 120 fps. I doubt PC will be any different. Switch is the only one capped at 30 for obvious reasons.

[yell0wsuit]

Seems like on MS Store the game has "60fps+" tag, so I guess the game supports fps above 60.

[Gabe Newell]

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

[Kaldaien]

Originally posted by Dawkins:

Originally posted by Stoibs:

Soul Hackers 2 makes me think it'll be fine, and to the people saying YoU DoNt NeEd MoRe ThAn X please stop, this argument is old hat and has been done to death decades ago when the console crowd decided that 30 was the pinnacle of performance for some reason.

We've been gaming at 144 values on pc for well over a decade now across any genre, there's no real reason to be a shill or argue this.

You objectively need more than 60 fps on non-crt screens because of the sample and hold method they use to show the picture, it simply antagonizes with the way our eyes and brains perceive motion.

Or you can sort of compensate against S&H with screen strobing techniques but right now only the higher end $creens bother with it and not all do it right... Worse yet, screen strobing is super sensitive in a bad way to variable frame rates and bad frame pacing.

My OLEDs beg to differ. And screen strobing isn't super sensitive to, it's flatout incompatible with variable refresh rate. It needs fixed scan duration to keep constant gamma. Technically, VRR on its own has some gamma-related issues, but nowhere like they'd be if you tried to implement BFI using VRR.

[Stoibs]

Originally posted by Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

Hahaha good one.
Oh wait, you're being serious..?

I mean, all of us here can objectively as a fact tell the difference between 60 and 144 when the mouse is in our hand. I can pick up on it within the first 10 seconds or so of gameplay because the inputs and delay between what we're doing and the motion is apparent, and have even refunded games in the past because of it (Amnesia Rebirth, there's a big thread over there on it also)

I'm sorry if you personally can't tell the difference, and feel attacked by this thread? That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd write something like that

[Dawkins]

Originally posted by Stoibs:

Originally posted by Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

Hahaha good one.
Oh wait, you're being serious..?

I mean, all of us here can objectively as a fact tell the difference between 60 and 144 when the mouse is in our hand. I can pick up on it within the first 10 seconds or so of gameplay because the inputs and delay between what we're doing and the motion is apparent, and have even refunded games in the past because of it (Amnesia Rebirth, there's a big thread over there on it also)

I'm sorry if you personally can't tell the difference, and feel attacked by this thread? That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd write something like that :csd2huh:

Ignore him, he's obviously wrong. The human mind can only process 24 fps.

[☆reshiya☆]

Originally posted by Stoibs:

Originally posted by Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

Hahaha good one.
Oh wait, you're being serious..?

I mean, all of us here can objectively as a fact tell the difference between 60 and 144 when the mouse is in our hand. I can pick up on it within the first 10 seconds or so of gameplay because the inputs and delay between what we're doing and the motion is apparent, and have even refunded games in the past because of it (Amnesia Rebirth, there's a big thread over there on it also)

I'm sorry if you personally can't tell the difference, and feel attacked by this thread? That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd write something like that :csd2huh:

Humans can't see FPS, but we can tall a difference from framerates it's because our eyes just movement, if it's slow like 24 fps we can tell it's choppier than 120 fps.

[Apollyon]

wait for mod i guess

[Gabe Newell]

Originally posted by Stoibs:

Originally posted by Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

Hahaha good one.
Oh wait, you're being serious..?

I mean, all of us here can objectively as a fact tell the difference between 60 and 144 when the mouse is in our hand. I can pick up on it within the first 10 seconds or so of gameplay because the inputs and delay between what we're doing and the motion is apparent, and have even refunded games in the past because of it (Amnesia Rebirth, there's a big thread over there on it also)

I'm sorry if you personally can't tell the difference, and feel attacked by this thread? That's about the only reason I can think of as to why you'd write something like that :csd2huh:

If I was able to see over 60 fps, I would be losing frames due to how stupid I am.

[Suresha]

Originally posted by The Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

This is literally just wrong. First of all the human eye sees 75fps - source MIT, and second, you can easily see the difference between 60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz monitors which you would know very easily if you owned monitors at those refresh rates like I do... Your claim is on the level of those who say there's no point to anything above 1080p, when you don't even have a monitor above 1080p you obviously can't see how much better it looks...

[「Lukja」]

Originally posted by The Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

console kiddy cope

[Gaben]

> necroing the thread with 15 years old bait
Epic

[DaBa]

Originally posted by Keyair:

Originally posted by The Formal Skeleton:

It's kind of funny on how you all act like we can see higher than 60 fps. when it has been proven that the human mind can only process 60 frames per second

This is literally just wrong. First of all the human eye sees 75fps - source MIT, and second, you can easily see the difference between 60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz monitors which you would know very easily if you owned monitors at those refresh rates like I do... Your claim is on the level of those who say there's no point to anything above 1080p, when you don't even have a monitor above 1080p you obviously can't see how much better it looks...

Dude, how deep did you have to dig to unearth this thread? Holy necromancer.