Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Not buying if still locked at 60fps console peasant framerate.
I want to keep enjoying these games and 120hz/144hz monitors have been out long enough that it they are pretty ubiquitous. Not really any good reasons to not support the higher refresh rates anymore. I realize the frames will likely dive low in intense battles, but at least at slower moments my eyes can recover a little with the higher refresh/frames.
I'll agree on one point. Anything over 120 isn't really needed. 240 is silly. But the difference between 60 and 120 is VERY noticeable. Much less so after that.
I'm sure that 120 looks nicer and all but c'mon. There is NO way 60 can give anyone "motion sickness" to the level 30 would.
There's a reason 60 was the standard from the start, even on the Atari 2600 days.
That said yeah, considering the game already has deltatime-type scaling for sub-60 (they HAD to keep it in mind knowing the game was guaranteed to chug) it'd probably be a relatively painless process to implement the option for over-60 refresh rates. Assuming they didn't forget any framerate-tied physics anywhere, at least.
I use to have this problem too back in the pre 60 fps as standard days. I found out that the issue was not needing to get a average specific frame rate but it was rather how consistent the frame rate was. Your likely suffering from a choppy frame time issue and not a average frame rate issue. Your feeling a bit better in other games at higher frame rates because your able to achieve a frame time that was not inconsistent enough for your brain to notice. However, if your already getting choppy enough frame times for you to notice at 60 fps cap it's likely that your going to see this effect in this game even at 120 fps. Since your just running more frames but your still going to get inconsistent frame dips in between even though you have a reported 120 average frame. Your head hurts because your brain is having a fit trying to do IRL DLSS 3 fake frames for you to give you the illusion of fluid frames. You might want to check your hardware to see if something may be the cause for issue for this.
I also disagree that over 120 frames is not needed, There are various reasons you would want over 120 frames such as reaction time latency and needing to draw two frames for every one when doing VR. However 144 is obvious not a big enough jump to make a difference, you will need to go to at least 240 to see a difference from 120 for the average set of eyes. The average human reaction time from seeing something is ~15ms or ~18 frames if at 120 fps. You can definitely be missing small pieces of information between those 18 frames. You probably have to exceed 2 frames per ms to have a frame rate faster than the speed at which most eyes can process vision.
i'll give you the technical explanation about why 60 frames per seconds and more are that important for many pc users :
1) Within an extreme state of concentration or with sufficient training, your brain can actually perceive more than 60 frames per seconds, in opposite to the popular belief, you are not limited by your eyes but your brain processing capabilities. In real life this is know as that second within an action situation that seems to go like slow motion.
2) When peoples thinks 60 fps, it's usually 60 as a target, not not consistently 60 depending on hardware. Your hardware will target 60, but on average will for example with a slightly outdated config be around 50, with 1% on theses frames being wayyy below the target under certains scenes and circumstances (this is when you have a sudden freeze in game)
So, having hardware being able to go consistently over 60 (let's say 240), will likely prevent this kind of thing as it'll be able to buffer capabilities when it's time to work on theses 1% frames.
So, on overall, having more than 60 fps is there is guarantee you a smooth gaming experience.
Now about the console peasant thingy, peoples are making fun of console users because consoles are very locked in what you can do with their hardware, and a piss poor optimized game will likely run with very visible slowdowns, while on a sufficiently optimized pc configuration you can prevent this kind of issues.
You know the irony in calling someone a peasant is you see yourself as a noble. Nobles were pompous asshats who thought everyone should look up to them, simply because they had/spent more money than anyone else. Peasants on the other hand, are the REASON nobles were able to be pompous asshats through toil and strife and just as a bonus, they got to deal with constant belittling and rules surrounding their "Title."
The moral is this. Without the peasants you wouldn't have gaming on PC (In current day and age.) outside of indie titles. AAA games launch on console first and foremost and then they decide is it worth it to port it to PC. The best part, is most of the time, the port isn't done by the main devs and is instead outsourced and then people spend months complaining about @##$%@! PC ports. So have a bit of humility would ya?
Console deals, but "Most" don't say "Runs better here!" do they?