• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

As a 35+ year console gamers. I must admit pc guys are right. Frames over graphics any time!

Shmunter

Member
DoucheLilJohnssons words are extra fitting with his own permaban.
hi22e0l.png
Sheeet. I find dancing on someone’s grave to be poor form, and I don’t generally endorse banning, but yeah one less asshole is good for the community seemingly.

Poor Gamefaqs and YouTube comments.
 

Fredrik

Member
New consoles have closed the gap like no other time before. Pc is practically redundant for fidelity and gfx outside of those that simply prefer pc lifestyle.
Nah man I already play games at higher framerates with better graphics on my years old PC. As true next gen titles arrives things will be even worse. Updated consoles mid gen could help out though, as someone who like higher framerates I hope we’ll something on that end soon, I’m guessing 2023 is the year it happens.
 

Fredrik

Member
It's still crazy to see such a turnaround from the years of people trying to support 30fps or lower.
We’re in a honeymoon of sorts since many games are made for last gen consoles too, once the real next gen games arrives we’ll see people start saying 30fps is enough again.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Gameplay over graphics/performance for me. Nintendo and Playstation 1st party always deliver. I cant imagine not playing there games so I can play PC games lol.
If you can afford a great PC, you can probably buy a Switch and PS to have everything you want. Otherwise your missing out
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Nah man I already play games at higher framerates with better graphics on my years old PC. As true next gen titles arrives things will be even worse. Updated consoles mid gen could help out though, as someone who like higher framerates I hope we’ll something on that end soon, I’m guessing 2023 is the year it happens.
Denied
 

Skifi28

Member
Wow, another fanboy bites the dust. Not what I expected when I entered to be honest and still nowhere near as spectacular as Kretos.
 

BlackTron

Member
Ah, then that is my misunderstanding! I completely agree that higher FPS is objectively better, but I personally won’t fret too much if I can only play them at 30 FPS. As long as its *solid* framerate without dips, I am not too troubled by it.

I was trying not to be that guy, but is it safe to assume you are playing with a controller? Because yeah on a controller. The FPS above 30 doesn't matter that much for aim/gameplay purposes, it's more just to look nicer.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
I was trying not to be that guy, but is it safe to assume you are playing with a controller? Because yeah on a controller. The FPS above 30 doesn't matter that much for aim/gameplay purposes, it's more just to look nicer.
wut
i couldn't properly aim when i tried last of us 1's 30 fps lock on ps4 (like, the image does not move accurate enough to stop the aim movement accurately)
once set to 60 fps, i could completely abandon aim assist and play fantastically

maybe i suck. no idea. this was my experience

i could literally feel "steps" when stopping the aiming. it needed much more attention and care to a point where my hands were getting tired. i can even say 30 fps literally made the game harder... 60 fps was buttery, much more accurate aiming

if u use aim assist... sure. 30 fps and 120 fps aint gonna make a difference. like rdr 2.

in the end playing 60 fps + no aim assist was a MUCH better experience
 
Last edited:
Each to their own, I always tend to choose graphics over frames, as long as the frame rate isnt all over the place anyway. A solid 30 is fine for me.
 

BlackTron

Member
wut
i couldn't properly aim when i tried last of us 1's 30 fps lock on ps4 (like, the image does not move accurate enough to stop the aim movement accurately)
once set to 60 fps, i could completely abandon aim assist and play fantastically

maybe i suck. no idea. this was my experience

i could literally feel "steps" when stopping the aiming. it needed much more attention. i can even say 30 fps literally made the game harder

I find this perfectly feasible. My assumption was that aim assist is always being used on a controller, therefore getting that last bit tiny adjustment for the precise shot didn't matter.

If you're taking total responsibility for your shots AND the game is any challenge, then yes 30 vs 60 will still create a gulf of difference even on a controller.
 

rodrigolfp

Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
wut
i couldn't properly aim when i tried last of us 1's 30 fps lock on ps4 (like, the image does not move accurate enough to stop the aim movement accurately)
once set to 60 fps, i could completely abandon aim assist and play fantastically

maybe i suck. no idea. this was my experience

i could literally feel "steps" when stopping the aiming. it needed much more attention and care to a point where my hands were getting tired. i can even say 30 fps literally made the game harder... 60 fps was buttery, much more accurate aiming

if u use aim assist... sure. 30 fps and 120 fps aint gonna make a difference. like rdr 2.

in the end playing 60 fps + no aim assist was a MUCH better experience
Last time I saw we could not to disable pathetic aim assist in last of us 1. Do the remaster has the option?
 
That's usually the case.
But I had a bit of trouble seeing 60 vs 120 in uncharted4 remaster. You can feel it a bit but it's hard to notice. I think motion blur quality and camera movement really helps.
It's much easier to feel with mouse look
Lucky you, you can get away with lower fps then if that's true.

Me, 120fps is immediately and hugely noticeable over 60. Joystick vs. mouse doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

rofif

Banned
Lucky you, you can get away with lower fps then if that's true.

Me, 120fps is immediately and hugely noticeable over 60. Joystick vs. mouse doesn't matter.
Just by the way - do you disable motion blur in games ?
I found that in good motion blur games (like doom 2016), 240hz without motion blur looked like lower fps with motion blur. There was finally enough frames to fill the mind gaps
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Be happy OP, at least it only took you 35 years. A lot of people still don't know better.

In 35 years you will get your socks blown off by 140+ fps

Everyone says 120 fps, what about 165 fps with g sync on?
 
Just by the way - do you disable motion blur in games ?
I found that in good motion blur games (like doom 2016), 240hz without motion blur looked like lower fps with motion blur. There was finally enough frames to fill the mind gaps
Yes, unless it's either A: 30fps on OLED or B: it's 30fps on my LCD, and the game lets me dial the motion blur intensity way down. For example on uncharted 4 on PS4 pro I keep motion blur, but at a low value on my LCD. OLED would be at a higher value setting.
 

rofif

Banned
Yes, unless it's either A: 30fps on OLED or B: it's 30fps on my LCD, and the game lets me dial the motion blur intensity way down. For example on uncharted 4 on PS4 pro I keep motion blur, but at a low value on my LCD. OLED would be at a higher value setting.
I find that most good motion blur implementations raise the "shutter" speed the more fps you get.
So at for example, 240hz, Doom 2016 would look the same with and without motion blur if I remember correctly. It's just there to fill the data between frames.
60hz is for sure too low for me to disable motion blur unless it's some crap implementation
 
I find that most good motion blur implementations raise the "shutter" speed the more fps you get.
So at for example, 240hz, Doom 2016 would look the same with and without motion blur if I remember correctly. It's just there to fill the data between frames.
60hz is for sure too low for me to disable motion blur unless it's some crap implementation
Camera blur absolutely destroys detail in motion so it makes higher resolution a waste and destroys motion clarity. It's just there to just hide stutter.

Stutter may be present at 60fps, but it's low enough that I don't want to blur everything to crap when in motion. On my x900e LCD in particular, 60fps with 120hz bfi is really pretty smooth. Unless you go to that right after 120fps :p


Motion blur at 240fps is insanity mate. Aaaaall that motion clarity just thrown in the trash.

When displays get good enough to even display 240fps properly and 240hz black frame insertion is available it's going to be nearly perfect.
 
Last edited:

rofif

Banned
Camera blur absolutely destroys detail in motion so it makes higher resolution a waste and destroys motion clarity. It's just there to just hide stutter.

Stutter may be present at 60fps, but it's low enough that I don't want to blur everything to crap when in motion. On my x900e LCD in particular, 60fps with 120hz bfi is really pretty smooth. Unless you go to that right after 120fps :p


Motion blur at 240fps is insanity mate. Aaaaall that motion clarity just thrown in the trash.

When displays get good enough to even display 240fps properly and 240hz black frame insertion is available it's going to be nearly perfect.
that's what I am saying!
Motion blur at 240hz is instance because it absolutely is not needed. That's my point.
240hz with bfi was indeed godly. 120hz with bfi (at least on least on lg c1) is... questionable. Seems kinda harsh.
You have so many frames with 240, that the brain does not see any stutter anymore. It's all filled in information.
30 or 60 fps is low enough (even sometimes 120 maybe), you either choose sharper but more stuttery motion or motion bur to cheat in the frames info.
I would really ike to see the new 360 or even 480 monitors.

Of course, it's hard to even achieve 240fps, so I can tell you that my ag251fg 240hz monitor was the best Enter the gungeon machine possible. That game never looked this smooth again :p
 
that's what I am saying!
Motion blur at 240hz is instance because it absolutely is not needed. That's my point.
240hz with bfi was indeed godly. 120hz with bfi (at least on least on lg c1) is... questionable. Seems kinda harsh.
You have so many frames with 240, that the brain does not see any stutter anymore. It's all filled in information.
30 or 60 fps is low enough (even sometimes 120 maybe), you either choose sharper but more stuttery motion or motion bur to cheat in the frames info.
I would really ike to see the new 360 or even 480 monitors.

Of course, it's hard to even achieve 240fps, so I can tell you that my ag251fg 240hz monitor was the best Enter the gungeon machine possible. That game never looked this smooth again :p
C1 should look amazing at 120 with 120hz bfi (low or medium setting OLED motion pro) based on what I saw with 60 fps.

Maybe a little bitty touch of stutter. I am dying to pick up a 48 inch c1, but I can't until i move into my new house... Gotta pinch my pennies. I hope it stays in stock long enough since it's going to be mid to late July 🤞
 

rofif

Banned
C1 should look amazing at 120 with 120hz bfi (low or medium setting OLED motion pro) based on what I saw with 60 fps.

Maybe a little bitty touch of stutter. I am dying to pick up a 48 inch c1, but I can't until i move into my new house... Gotta pinch my pennies. I hope it stays in stock long enough since it's going to be mid to late July 🤞
I've not checked the 120hz bfi since I've got it. I've got no interest. But it for sure works.
It's just 120hz though. Not 144 or 240 so for you, it would require bit getting used to
 
I've not checked the 120hz bfi since I've got it. I've got no interest. But it for sure works.
It's just 120hz though. Not 144 or 240 so for you, it would require bit getting used to
Well if you haven't used it don't talk about how c1 motion is questionable! I think we have talked about this a few times and you haven't tried it? Why bro lol.

120fps plus a solid 120hz bfi is all I need. Looks glorious on my x900e and I expect same from c1.
 
Last edited:
Actually, over frames, I prefer a nice clean presentation. I've been noticing that most modern game engines "cheat" to hit 60fps and when they do, the IQ drops significantly.
 

kyoji

Member
It's not him. I'm just don't with GAF and he had an account that portrayed gaf. I got banned for some stupid shit last night, in a pc thread. So that's my final straw. Fuck this place, no point in staying in a hostile environment. I'm probably a ban a way. No point in spending money here, for what? Only to get silenced? Fuck that
Dont let the door hit you on the way out
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
Something I noticed that always caught my attention is that console users (in general, at least the most enthusiastic) always are happy to settle for whatever the console provider offers. My issue is that lots of times they even champion whatever Sony/MS/Nintendo provide, and anything above is unnecessary or superflous, specially if the comparison is vs PC. Of course, when years later the next gen console offers it its the bees knees.

Happened with resolution (720p/1080p are enough) framerate (30 FPS is, enough, cinematic experience) graphics ( "I don't play games for graphics" (when comparing vs PC of course, between consoles 900p vs 1080p was a gap as wide as the ocean last gen) an now Ray tracing and DLSS.

I have also seen folks happy with that sub par 40 FPS solution that Sony offers in some games at times? 40 FPS? I don't care if you have a VRR TV. That's FPS no mans land...
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
Something I noticed that always caught my attention is that console users (in general, at least the most enthusiastic) always are happy to settle for whatever the console provider offers. My issue is that lots of times they even champion whatever Sony/MS/Nintendo provide, and anything above is unnecessary or superflous, specially if the comparison is vs PC. Of course, when years later the next gen console offers it its the bees knees.

Happened with resolution (720p/1080p are enough) framerate (30 FPS is, enough, cinematic experience) graphics ( "I don't play games for graphics" (when comparing vs PC of course, between consoles 900p vs 1080p was a gap as wide as the ocean last gen) an now Ray tracing and DLSS.

I have also seen folks happy with that sub par 40 FPS solution that Sony offers in some games at times? 40 FPS? I don't care if you have a VRR TV that's FPS no mans land...
60fps minimum for me. In a world of 120hz TVs, 30fps should be banished.
 

rofif

Banned
Something I noticed that always caught my attention is that console users (in general, at least the most enthusiastic) always are happy to settle for whatever the console provider offers. My issue is that lots of times they even champion whatever Sony/MS/Nintendo provide, and anything above is unnecessary or superflous, specially if the comparison is vs PC. Of course, when years later the next gen console offers it its the bees knees.

Happened with resolution (720p/1080p are enough) framerate (30 FPS is, enough, cinematic experience) graphics ( "I don't play games for graphics" (when comparing vs PC of course, between consoles 900p vs 1080p was a gap as wide as the ocean last gen) an now Ray tracing and DLSS.

I have also seen folks happy with that sub par 40 FPS solution that Sony offers in some games at times? 40 FPS? I don't care if you have a VRR TV. That's FPS no mans land...
Being content is something we can all aspire to. Imagine - blissful happiness !
 

proandrad

Member
It's still crazy to see such a turnaround from the years of people trying to support 30fps or lower.

A lot of people grew up on the ps3/360 generation and bought into a lot of marketing BS about resolution/graphic effects, because it translates better in screenshots, being the only thing that makes a video game look better. This is a big reason why when developers show games for the first time that run at 30fps, they try to limit quick camera movements. Higher framerates not only gives you a more responsive game but it also adds a lot to motion clarity which is just as important for visuals.
 
Last edited:

rofif

Banned
A lot of people grew up on the ps3/360 generation and bought into a lot of marketing BS about resolution/graphic effects, because it translates better in screenshots, being the only thing that makes a video game look better. Higher framerates not only gives you a more responsive game but it also adds a lot to motion clarity which is just as important for visuals.
It was a great graphical next gen time and we were all constantly very impressed by graphics.
It might be hard to imagine now but these games were more impressive than forbidden west now.
Gears, uncharted, gta4, ghost recon, dead rising, mass effect, lost planet, bio shock and tons more. My fav the darkness came out on 2007 and that game still blows my mind.
The games are really innovative too. Performance suffered but I honestly don’t remember it. I just remember being impressed and I was always 60fps pc gamer before that. Would not touch a game without fraps showing perfect 60.
Maybe it was marketing but man…. Good times
 
Last edited:

ACESHIGH

Banned
Lol it is. My work buddy playing rdr2 on 1050 and not even grasping an idea that it’s running 20 fps and that’s bad lol.

Give him some pointers. That 1050 can run the game at 900p 30 FPS I am sure. No reason to have such a bad experience.
 

rofif

Banned
Give him some pointers. That 1050 can run the game at 900p 30 FPS I am sure. No reason to have such a bad experience.
Yeah I did. Poor guy :p
I advised him to get his son a 3060 ti or something so he can get his son’s 1060 at the very least
 

Swift_Star

Banned
We’re in a honeymoon of sorts since many games are made for last gen consoles too, once the real next gen games arrives we’ll see people start saying 30fps is enough again.
I don’t think we’re getting 30fps only games anymore but we’ll see.
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
A lot of people grew up on the ps3/360 generation and bought into a lot of marketing BS about resolution/graphic effects, because it translates better in screenshots, being the only thing that makes a video game look better. This is a big reason why when developers show games for the first time that run at 30fps, they try to limit quick camera movements. Higher framerates not only gives you a more responsive game but it also adds a lot to motion clarity which is just as important for visuals.
I wonder if this is a important these days, since most of us actually see more games on videos and trailers than in still pictures... It's not magazines and new blogs the main media for news consumption right now, it's YouTube, twitch (yes, streamers commenting on live events are very popular), etc.

Heck I have a closed discord server where I watch important events with friends commenting everything with them, that's actually very fun and it's a somewhat widespread thing these days, I don't think the "it looks good on screenshots" argument is still valid
 
Gee, that Don fella took this shit hard. Imagine being an Xbox gamer for the last 7 years. That's how you learn to live with getting shit on. But times, they are a changing.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
I spent a pretty penny on my last setup and for the first time in my PC gaming life I can now say for visual quality and frame rates..

Girl Why Dont We Have Both GIF
 
Top Bottom