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
60 FPS is still overrated and holding back games graphical fidelity to keep a minority happy.
That's how authoritarian regimes start, isn't it.
30 lush frames of max settings makes me happy.
I think he did a very good explanation. I still occasionally play around 30fps if I have to (like on my Yoga 3 tablet/laptop) but prefer 60 or even higher if I'm using a display that supports it.
http://30vs60.com/ I had too
What if you only "see" 44 fps? Can there ever be an objectively correct statement made regarding the subjective perception of visual data transmitted by the optic nerve to the back of the brain?
I say no, but am open to any science or what not.
It's entirely possible that there is an upper limit and it's possible that it may vary from person to person due to various conditions, old age, and general lack of response time in the brain. But the potential for it is there, due to how the eye processes information. I honestly believe that the majority of those who claim to not see a difference just have never bothered to look for it.
As for the objectivity of 60fps being better, this is indisputable. Due to the eye picking up new information at a faster rate, you're able reduce to your response time to things that are happening on screen with the added bonus of motion appearing to be smoother. People can claim to subjectively not see it all they want, but throwing around objective statements about how many frames our eyes can pick up every second is complete hogwash.
So the question is; is it alright for video game developers to purposefully handicap their products for those who want high framerates, so that they can look prettier for those who don't?
I say no. I'd rather have them either provide the players with options, or work towards a balance. Popular opinion indicates that 60fps is that balance.
After playing Witcher 3 and Bloodborne for my PS4, I'm never going to buy anymore 30 fps console games unless it's an exclusive.
its like saying hd is overrated because mah dadday played games at 640x480 and he gamed just fine back in his day. also colour tv is overrated because black and white was just perfectly acceptable back in the 50s.
No, it's not.