-
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.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Yeah. Like Megaman 2, Mario World, DKC. /s
TheloniusFabdul
Neo Member
Turn motion smoothing off?
hyperbertha
Member
Clown opinion. The 30fps has superior atmosphere. It's not a low standard thing. I love the feel so much I even limit certain games at 30 fps.
Blood Borne
Member
To be honest, I didn’t see that much difference between 60fps and 120fps when I played it on PS5 with Nioh 2 and COD.
60fps is more than enough for me. In my opinion, 30fps is unacceptable.
A 30fps game can never be timeless. 60fps ensures timelessness.
60fps is more than enough for me. In my opinion, 30fps is unacceptable.
A 30fps game can never be timeless. 60fps ensures timelessness.
Shadowstar39
Member
Same... all my displays are 1080p , even my main 27" pc monitor is 1080p but 144hz,, guess what I turn down to 60hz.. Why because its pointless. I don't need to play my strategy games at 144fps and have it make the room hotter as it overworks my rtx gpu.
TV in game room 60" 1080p from 2013, one in living room is LG 55" 2014. Have my pops spare 40" 1080p set in the basement.
I can't justify shelling out money for 4k or high hz displays. It will just cost me more or I will have to lower graphics settings. At 1080p I can get constant 60fps. Also switch probably looks like ass on 4k tvs.
DeaDPo0L84
Member
Real life is 30fps, therefore I prefer 30fps max in my games to represent what I see everyday and produce a more cinematic end result. 60-120 is simply unrealistic and makes games feel fake or cartoon like.
nkarafo
Member
Ironic how mine is the "clown opinion" and then you post... this.
Whatever floats your boat though.
Last edited:
StereoVsn
Member
That’s a great deal if you have the space! I am running a 42” C2 and that’s already a tad too large, lol.
Edit: Personally on the OLED I can’t take 30 fps. The way OLED handles low frame rate with instant on and off pixels just messes with me.
I have another LCD 120hz TV and it’s a lot more palatable there.
Last edited:
hyperbertha
Member
Movies are terrible at 60 fps. This is a majority opinion. Try harder.Ironic how mine is the "clown opinion" and then you post... this.
Whatever floats your boat though.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Half or more of the frames missing provides a superior atmosphere, sure.
Last edited:
Tarnished
Member
I'm currently using 1440p/165Hz with a RTX 3080, and it's pretty perfect most of the time, I tend to cap all games at 120fps and I can hit that in pretty much every game, I can only think of two which don't and that's Cyberpunk and Alan Wake II which are more around 90--120fps. I'm saving up for a 5090 when they release, and that should be the perfect card to make the move to 4K.
deeptech
Member
I've tried 240hz with gsync on a friend's PC only recently for the first time ever, it's a whole different world of not only gaming but everything you do on the computer. As if eyes were constantly, subtly and pleasantly massaged by the smoothness of the image.
Also maybe i got a wrong initial feeling but even lower fps seemed smoother, now probably g-sync had a role in that as well, but there it is, sitting here on my 75hz 1080p screen feels almost archaic now.
Also maybe i got a wrong initial feeling but even lower fps seemed smoother, now probably g-sync had a role in that as well, but there it is, sitting here on my 75hz 1080p screen feels almost archaic now.
kiphalfton
Member
That's soap opera effect is associated with motion smoothing, which is shit and should always be disabled.
Don't think that has anything to do with higher framerate monitors.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
But with those games 120fps is more than enough for a great experience.
It’s the competitive shooters like Counter Strike, CoD, Val, Apex, Quake, etc. that benefit form frames above 125.
At this rate 5090 will probably cost $3000 lol
Fbh
Member
Going from 30 to 60 is a massive step up that instantly looks and plays a lot better.
After 60fps though it does feel a bit like diminishing returns to me, it's not like I can't tell 120fps is smoother but it's not that instant "wow this is so much better" effect like when going from 30 to 60.
I've never played anything at more than 144hz though.
After 60fps though it does feel a bit like diminishing returns to me, it's not like I can't tell 120fps is smoother but it's not that instant "wow this is so much better" effect like when going from 30 to 60.
I've never played anything at more than 144hz though.
Last edited:
MarkMe2525
Member
While I appreciate them, I am not much of an fps snob. I have noticed that 120hz modes have more of impact in VR experiences as opposed to flat screen games.
The less obvious benefit of developers focus on HFPS is how the optimizations can help performance on weaker platforms.
The less obvious benefit of developers focus on HFPS is how the optimizations can help performance on weaker platforms.
nkarafo
Member
They look fine, it's just that you got used to the lower frame rates and it feels unfamiliar. It's OK though.
Also, this is more about games. And games are better at higher fps, there is no argument to be made here.
Tarnished
Member
That's why I've started saving already, I'm just putting £150 a month aside for it.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Multiplayer:
60-120 HDR with higher resolutions over any of the 240+ lower resolutions crap.
40-60 4K for single player
60-120 HDR with higher resolutions over any of the 240+ lower resolutions crap.
40-60 4K for single player
ShadyAcshuns
Member
I fucking hate the game forum elitism that tries to shame people who don't care about this stuff. If you can only play with the highest refresh rates, frame rates, resolution, graphics etc. then more power to you, but why shame those that don't feel the same way? It shouldn't make any difference to your own preferences.
StereoVsn
Member
You can certainly play as you wish. I don’t think anyone is stating otherwise. However, lower FPS gameplay is objectively worse from multiple angles and folks saying “it’s fine” should clarify “for me” part. Especially with OLED lower FPS is pretty atrocious.
nkarafo
Member
Shaming? You mean like calling others elitists for appreciating nicer things? Yeah, that does look like shaming indeed.
OP provides information about how and why higher frame rates makes the gaming experience/functionality objectively better. All you have to do is accept the information given and move on. If you can access those frame rates, awesome. If not, oh well, it's OK still and if you can enjoy games at lower frame rates more power to you, just ignore the whole topic.
This applies to all nice things.
Heck, if you can indeed enjoy the hobby just as much at lower frame rates you are among the lucky ones. You should be happy you don't have to spend more money for more expensive hardware and monitors. I really wish i was like you, honestly. But instead you seem angry about this which is odd to me and makes me wonder why. It almost looks like the bitterness of someone who doesn't have those nice things mentioned but i'm probably missing something.
Whitecrow
Banned
Is pretty atrocious "for you".
I have hundreds of hours in my C9 playing at 30 fps and my brain didnt burn.
vanillaFace
Neo Member
I realized that I fell out of love with gaming, or in other words, gaming lost its magic, when LCD's became the primary viewing medium.
UltimaKilo
Gold Member
and here I’m waiting for the era of 144hz. 
ShadyAcshuns
Member
I just get sick of seeing these threads repeatedly over the years on game boards, then someone says they don't notice or care about these things, then someone always says something about "low standards" and that seems to be the whole point of the threads--either people agree with the tc and pats on the back ensue, or the "low standards" insults start to happen. Just a very pointless thread imo.
nkarafo
Member
Why is it considered an insult when someone points out you got used to a low standard?
It's not implied that you have low standards in general, just that you may have got used to something not optimal after decades of being exposed to it. It's completely natural.
It doesn't take away the fact that it is a low standard though. The so called "cinematic frame rate" of 24fps was not an artistic choice. It wasn't chosen because it's "better". It was chosen because of technical and economical reasons. It was something "good enough without breaking the bank" sort of deal that stuck for an eternity. Obviously people got used to it after so long and when you show them something objectively better that offers way more visual information, it looks unfamiliar and that unfamiliarity feels like a negative.
Crayon
Member
Depends what kind of game we are talking about. Playing an sp adventure game, 30 is fine. Streaming one, you might want 60.
For a hard action game, 30 feels like a major impediment. For an fps with a mouse 30 feels unplayable and can even make me sick. For anything VR, 90 feels like a minimum and anything lower should use reprojection, as imperfect as that is.
I find the difference between 60 and 120 significant but nothing I get excited about.
I also believe people fuck up their perception bey flipping back and forth with framerates. The lower fps will look awful if you've been playing on the higher one for 20 minutes. The lower one will take up to a few hours to get used to again, the way your brain will perceive it without the quick back to back.
For a hard action game, 30 feels like a major impediment. For an fps with a mouse 30 feels unplayable and can even make me sick. For anything VR, 90 feels like a minimum and anything lower should use reprojection, as imperfect as that is.
I find the difference between 60 and 120 significant but nothing I get excited about.
I also believe people fuck up their perception bey flipping back and forth with framerates. The lower fps will look awful if you've been playing on the higher one for 20 minutes. The lower one will take up to a few hours to get used to again, the way your brain will perceive it without the quick back to back.
