ITT: Overrated shit on /v/
Can't even tell the difference when it's not a fighting game.
>>321626576
you suck at baiting
>>321626576
Can't even tell the difference when it's not a fighting game, racing game, first person shooting game, rpg game, point and click game, strategy game, hentai game, horror game, hack 'n' slash game, third person shooter game...
>>321627184
>rpg game
yeah I too remember hating fallout 1 because it's limited to like 10fps
I genuinely believe games can benefit from being 30fps, I mean certain genres and games like platformers; Tearaway & Axiom Verge need to run at 60fps due to the nature of the mechanics and it's relationship with user-button input.
However when you compare MGSV & Dark Souls 2 that runs at 60fps on PS4 to Bloodborne you come to notice a few things. A sense of weight and gravity during ground movement and combat control is basically non-existent due to animations heavily influenced or directly tied to frame rate. In the game it literally feels like you're floating or gliding on butter as you move around, this inorganic fluidity of movement is even more pronounced knowing the biomechanics of the human body through joint anatomy and how the body maneuvers on uneven surfaces and adheres to gravity and equipment load in general.
When you attack an enemy in Bloodborne and also when you receive an attack in return, the animation and frame rate work together to allow you to feel the full force and weight of attack both ways. This is crucial for games that seek to fully immerse you rather than comply with a performance benchmark and Bloodborne simply dose movement and combat control extremely well. You feel every inch of the weight associated with animation from the initial impact, the impact itself and the aftershock, it all ties in together to provide a heavy grounded experience.
Games that utilize realistic graphical styles W3, MGSV, BB and Dark Souls feel light and unnatural at 60fps. Everything feels like water and shallow, like you're floating and walking on clouds.
>>321627908
>30 FPS are good to hide bad animations
60fps is one of those things that people think is better because it takes more power to achieve. It makes everything feel "light" and cheap, 30 fps feels more "weighty" and lush
>Arbitrary fps targets
Proof that console shitters infected PC gaming.
In the old days nobody cared about fps. If your PC could run a game smooth, you praised your GPU and everything was fine. Nobody gave a fuck if it was 40 or 50fps or whatever.
60fps is literally a console standard.
>>321626576
>Can't even tell the difference when it's not a fighting game.
you're blind then
>>321628245
Point being, 30fps is shit
>>321628058
30fps just hides bad animations
>people have actually said PSX and N64 games ran at 60fps
>>321627908
I think you're misunderstanding having to not go blind and absolute trash tier developers who tie game elements to how many frames per second is showing.
I wouldn't even consider playing a game that runs sub 90 fps.
But hey, I've been a PC gamer my whole life and always played games at 90-120 fps.
Fun fact: the internal clock of the brain is clocked at approximately 30 hertz. That means the brain literally can't see past 30 FPS.
>But MUH 60 FPS.
Grow up, kid.
>>321628564
t. a 14 year old
/v/ is garbage, and you should feel like garbage.
>>321628245
>In the old days nobody cared about fps.
Actually they did. There's a fucking reason why one machine ran 320x200 duke and the other 1024x768 VESA. Because shitting on the framerate is why. There's a reason I'd play Duke strictly instead of even bother with Quake - because it shit on FPS.
There's a difference between playable and good. No one was going around shitting out a specific number, but people sure as fuck did care about the FPS back in the day. 60fps is also a fucking computer standard since old micro used to fucking use TVs and 60fp output, whether or not they actually got the full 60fps dependent on the game itself.
>>321628695
I agree, but me and my brother, we tried overclocking our brain and it wen well. Now, my brain is clocked at 60gps and i FINALLY can spot the difference. But for people with stock clocking are games with more than 30fps completly useless.
>>321628564
>But hey, I've been a PC gamer my whole life and always played games at 90-120 fps.
So you've literally been a PC gamer for like 15 minutes?
>>321627908
this pasta though
DIS IS FUNY THED I LIK FINY TRED
SIGS-T F P ECS
>>321628845
I installed a blood cooling setup and now I can run at 120hz it just sometimes messessessess up but that's okay
>>321628695
Depending on how high I am, I definantly see reality at 60fps
>>321627184
>>321627845
>rpg game
>role playing game game
>>321628903
Never played CS 1.6 eh?
>>321628903
What's it like being so young and retarded that you don't know about 200Hz CRT Quake matches.
>>321629093
>Never played CS 1.6 eh?
>and always played games at 90-120 fps.
>tosses a smoke
Confirmed for a lying piece of shit.
>>321626576
PCucks literally BTFO
>>321626576
60 frames per second are good while playing,
BUT wanting cutscenes to run at 60fps is heresy. 30 fps or bust, sixty frames look "cheesy" when watching a sequence.
>>321629328
No.
>>321629247
60 fps looks more smooth
>>321628509
Some did brah
>>321629446
Yes.
>>321629751
No.
>>321629829
Yes, try to watch a movie at 60fps.
>normies can tell the difference on youtube videos
>on /v/ it's irrelevant
>>321629247
Is that a joke? I can definitely tell the difference. Check your eyes faggot.
>>321626576
Check those eyes brah.
I am okayish with 30fps, I can live with it. But thinking it as preferable or even a feature is just retarded.
144hz or bust. 60hz is shit.
>>321627908
>justifying choppy 30fps
>games trying to emulate reality, with physics, textures/models, and lighting, but somehow an unreal and choppy 30fps is "realistic" for such games
>>321628564
Now this is a whole new level of tryhard
>>321630357
Reality doesn't go faster than 30 FPS though.
>>321630159
Shame there's very few games that can support it though
>>321628058
This bait tho
>>321628695
This is bait, but I have a question for you.
How come your eyes can't see past 30fps yet you can see a huge difference between 144 and 60fps? How come there's a gigantic difference between CS at 300fps and 600fps? or COD4promod at 125 and 250fps?
>>321632885
>yet you can see a huge difference between 144 and 60fps? How come there's a gigantic difference between CS at 300fps and 600fps? or COD4promod at 125 and 250fps?
there is no difference between those lol
>>321630509
Are you actually autistic?
>>321626576
you fightan niggas are fucking retarded
>>321628767
>>321628903
Sorry, i went shopping.
I'm 32.
>>321628695
>Fun fact: the internal clock of the brain is clocked at approximately 30 hertz.
fucking dying
Rotate the camera around your character in TLoU on PS4 then do the same on Just Cause 3.
Tell me there's no difference.
>>321628695
>internal clock of the brain is clocked at approximately 30 hertz
>>321626576
>Can't even tell the difference
Unless you're mentally retarded you easily can.
Why do people actually care about framerate? Motion blur, input lag of the game, your output display lag, and frame pacing are all much more important than frames per second.
And don't say "fps affects gameplay!!" because it doesn't affect it in any perceivable way. The difference in between 30fps and 60fps is about 8ms or 1/125th of second. For comparison the fastest possible human reaction speed is 120ms, and the average is about 325ms.
Most games have around 100ms of input lag completely independent of the frame rate. Frame rate really isn't important at all.
>>321634946
>what is motion blur.
Post this webm with some motion blur and 30fps will look smoother than 60fps.
>>321635041
>Post this webm with some motion blur and 30fps will look smoother than 60fps.
Motion blur only works when you're watching a movie. When you're playing a game it looks like utter shit and is sure to give you eye cancer.
>>321635138
It just needs to be done properly and not too over the top. Motion blur done right looks realistic and natural
>>321635041
You're a retard, and I'm not gonna go through explaining how a clean digital frame is different to a film motion blurred frame.
Just let me tell you that you're a retard. Pretty much every single sentence in your post contains factual errors.
>>321635230
It doesn't look realistic at all.
>>321635230
no it doesn't you humongous faggot.
>>321635230
That's not how things fucking work fuckface. You can't just artificially create motion blur and call it a day.
THAT'S THE REASON PEOPLE WANT A BILLION FRAMES PER SECOND SO THAT THINGS OCCUR NATURALLY AND NOT ARTIFICAL AND HEADACHE INDUCING.
>>321632885
>How come your eyes can't see past 30fps
This is a canard. Your eye can't see past 10 FPS if we're measuring visual continuity for entire images. You aren't looking at entire images when playing videogames, you're looking at a simulation in which you may prioritize things like a reticle and two enemies over most of the other visual content.
Technically you can't get much more than 6 to 7 for high-detail observations. We also lose visual continuity at those speeds, yet somehow you looking at a faster moving thing and only "seeing" 7 frames doesn't feel like you've lost visual continuity, so it's clear that the whole idea of 10-12 FPS as a hard limit on the human visual system is false.
Plus, that claim originates from some french film rag. You're not a faggot frenchman, are you?
>>321635041
Now imagine two players reacting at almost the same time but one is half a frame faster than the other. Within your low fps model they both react at the same time, within a high fps model the game actually realises that one is faster than the other and it can react accordingly. The same is true for any type of action game, whether it's vs CPU or vs other players.
Enjoy your told.
>>321629247
Two can play at that game. This whole thread is hilarious, too many trolling trolling trolls man. Also pic related is meant to be a joke but someone's bound to get salty over it anyway.
>>321634946
great
now provide a comparison of actual video games
>>321635236
It's copypasta man, at least four different replies in this thread are copypasted. This whole thread is trolling having a giggle mate.
>>321635763
It's the exact same thing in video games.
>>321635491
Except that even adjusting graphical settings in a game can easily influence fps by up to 40+ ms. So graphical settings are much more important to input latency than fps. ( http://www.displaylag.com/reduce-input-lag-in-pc-games-the-definitive-guide/ )
The difference between 30fps and 60fps is roughly 8ms or 1/125th of a second. And even then, input latency is independent of frame rate, with games having anywhere from 60-150ms+ of input lag just in the game regardless of fps or output device.
>>321635041
Framerate and input delay are interlinked you idiot,
God I hate these threads and all these uninformed retards.
Go read a book,
>>321635997
30FPS looks more cinematic and immersive desu
>>321635997
i literally got motion sickness from the 60fs parts
>>321635997
sure it is
then provide an example of an actual video game, not just some text floating across the screen
>>321636048
>Framerate and input delay are interlinked you idiot,
no it's not lol
>>321636048
Spoken like a true ignoramus.
Also the same type of person to watch digitalfoundry videos, buy 1ms "response time" "gaming monitors" (lol), and refuse to use wireless because "m-muh latency!"
>>321636028
>input latency is independent of frame rate
That depends on how the input is processed. In most games input is processed whenever a frame is rendered and thus it's not independent from the frame rate, which in turn depends on your graphical settings.
Also, your brain can easily process more than 60fps and the information you get out of it. With 30fps a lot of information is skipped, e.g. an enemy moving past a corner, an enemy launching an attack, etc. happens within fewer frames and thus it will be harder to recognise and harder to react.
The point remains: less fps is never good, and all I've said within that post still applies.
>>321636194
It literally is in cases where input is tied to the proceessing of frames.
>>321636257
>The point remains: less fps is never good
I see only one legitimate counter-argument, that being games where the logic is tied to the framerate.Which is abysmal practice, and needs to die a gruesome death.
>>321636139
>Sure you proved me wrong. How about you prove me wrong again but without text?!
>>321636257
>Also, your brain can easily process more than 60fps and the information you get out of it. With 30fps a lot of information is skipped, e.g. an enemy moving past a corner, an enemy launching an attack, etc. happens within fewer frames and thus it will be harder to recognise and harder to react.
Factually incorrect.
This would require a game with nearly a hundred different animations all within in the span of a second with a human player with faster than physically possible human reflexes for what you're saying to actually be relevant and true.
Show me one example where this would be true and would affect gameplay in any perceptible way to a human.
>>321636413
you didn't prove anything
anybody can write some text on a screen
THAT IS NOT A VIDEOGAME
>>321626576
>"I have low standards.. What can I do?"
>"Oh yeah, I can make a thread about it on /v/!"
>>321636397
In the vast majority of games input is processed with the frame. Also, you're forgetting the part I've written about visual feedback. Your physical reaction to feedback takes longer than what happens between two frames but your brain processes visual information much faster than that. And to recognise information from a flickery 30fps movement is harder than it is from a much smoother 60 or 120fps movement.
Imagine you're playing a fast paced action game with melee combat, and your enemy swings a sword at you that takes 3 frames to move at 30fps. You'll have a much harder time to recognise that movement because essentially you only have one frame where it's actually moving towards you (one frame where the movement is initialised, one where it travels, one where it has reached its destination). Within a 60fps model you can see the weapon moving for much longer and you can thus recognise it better and evade or parry it.
>>321636546
Refer to >>321636648.
The point is: the more you see the better your brain can interpolate and recognise what's happening.
>>321636648
I'm not arguing against higher framerates, anon. If anything we're in agreement, I just needed to vent about how shitty tying your game logic to the RATE of frames is.
>>321636795
It is done often enough, especially on consoles.
Not to mention that the internal server tick rate on multiplayer servers is usually much lower than the frame rate on the clients. But the aspect of visual feedback still applies. It's not just about reacting in-between frames, but also on deriving information from a series of frames, which is easier if you have more of them.
>>321628245
60fps is because most LCDs are 60hz, CRTs worked a bit differently
>>321636648
>And to recognise information from a flickery 30fps movement is harder than it is from a much smoother 60 or 120fps movement.
This isn't true. Provide proof that the "smoothness" of an animation is "easier to recognize information from" in a way that would impact gameplay in any perceptible way.
>and your enemy swings a sword at you that takes 3 frames to move at 30fps.
First of all, this point is moot as around ~120ms is the fastest possible human reaction, with the average being in the low-mid 300ms. The only difference between an enemy swinging in a 30fps and 60fps game is that the player of the 60fps game will have roughly 8ms or so advantage over 30fps (not factoring the game's input lag into account). No game would ever have an attack occur and expect a player response all within 1/10th of a second
You really have no clue how input lag works. Even games like Street Fighter IV have almost 100ms of latency between inputting a command and its output on the display.
i like playing my games at 30fps anything above that strains my eyes too much
i seriously dont get how people play at 60fps for long hours enjoy being blind at 50 m8s
>>321629247
60 fps has more skyscrapers faggot
>>321637239
>Provide proof that the "smoothness" of an animation is "easier to recognize information from" in a way that would impact gameplay in any perceptible way.
I'm not sure whether research has been done in that regard but it seems quite plausible to me, especially if you look at >>321634946.
Just look how horrible the temporal aliasing gets the faster the object moves, and in many action games you have faster movement than that.
Imagine playing an FPS and an enemy moving through your crosshair. With more fluid movement, anticipating the moment where your enemy passes through is much much easier since your brain needs to extrapolate much smaller distances.
>First of all, this point is moot as around ~120ms is the fastest possible human reaction, with the average being in the low-mid 300ms.
You should consider that many games require quite fast reaction times. A good Counter-Strike, Quake or Street Fighter player has a reaction time which beats the average by quite a bit, but the time was just arbitrarily chosen, the argument still applies.
>The only difference between an enemy swinging in a 30fps and 60fps game is that the player of the 60fps game will have roughly 8ms or so advantage over 30fps (not factoring the game's input lag into account).
Which can be decisive depending on how it falls into the discrete tick sequence.
>No game would ever have an attack occur and expect a player response all within 1/10th of a second
The point is that you can much easier react since you literally see more of it. And if the server tickrate is tied to the frames, which is often the case, then you can simply do much more. In that three fps example a 60fps player might react close to the end of the movement and evade an attack, while a 30fps player can't do anything because he either didn't see anything coming or he literally has "no time" to react any more. Make it a few more fps than 3 or 6, but the point is that the 60fps player sees twice as much.
>>321636648
Humans don't react quickly enough to react faster with 60fps. Average speed is over 300ms, 2 extra frames is 2/60 of a second, or 33ms.
>>321637731
You should watch that dark souls comparison video where pc and console players play the same sections of the game. There's no difference in outcomes. The pc players parry faster, but the console players parry fast enough. If the game is designed around lower framerates, speeding it up won't change gameplay. You might see something earlier and push a button more quickly, but it won't change the output.
>>321637262
Shit man you better not take your eyes off your screen ever, real life is gonna stress the fuck out of your eyes.
>87 replies and 12 images omitted. Click here to view.
Is this one of those epic threads where everyone pretends to be retarded? I love those! XD
>>321637262
That is quite odd considering numerous studies have proven that higher refresh rates decrease eye strain significantly.
That's the reason the office I work at only has 144Hz screens.
>>321629247
It's the same screenshot with a line in the middle, 9/10
>>321637881
Clearly you didn't understand what I wrote.
It's not about being fast enough to react in-between frames, it's about being fast enough to react after a few frames have passed.
If I write a sequence: 2, 4, ...
Do you know how to continue it?
No, you don't because it's ambiguous. It could be 2, 4, 6, 8, ...; it could be 2, 4, 8, 16, ...; etc.
In the same sense if you see an object moving, you cannot estimate whether it's accelerating, whether it's moving uniformly, moving at all, etc. if you haven't seen it for a sufficient amount of frames.
A 60fps player sees an object for twice as often, which means that his brain can estimate how it's moving much faster than a 30fps player, who depending on how fast the object moves might only see a flickering mess which by the time he recognised what's happening has already reached him. He literally didn't see it coming.
>The pc players parry faster, but the console players parry fast enough. If the game is designed around lower framerates, speeding it up won't change gameplay.
Obviously a console game made to run at 30fps will be designed around 30fps, and thus slower - making the game actually easier on 60fps. On the other hand, it will also be a generally smoother and more enjoyable experience, that could actually challenge the player even more.
>>321638035
>The pc players parry faster, but the console players parry fast enough.
Assuming that's true, that still means having more frames is the better option of the two, even in a context where the gameplay is "designed around lower framerates."
Your own example demonstrates a reduction in response time.
>>321638278
The second part was obviously meant for >>321638035.
>>321638278
Video games behave uniformly though. They're not like real life where outcomes are random. Patterns are predictable and consistent. A 60fps player doesn't see an object twice as often. The monitor outputs the object twice as often. The debate about 60fps revolves around whether or not a human can actually react to additional frames, not whether or not they see the difference. You would have to be blind not to see the difference.
>>321638364
Slower reactions are meaningless if the reaction is quick enough. Having more frames is better only if the console player fails to parry on a regular basis by not having enough frames to react. Have fun collecting data on that one. If you want to talk about something that impacts accuracy of inputs, talk about kbm versus thumbsticks, not frame rates.
>>321628695
>>321638495
>Slower reactions are meaningless if the reaction is quick enough
Faster response time reduces the overall lag between player seeing and player reacting, leaving players to fend with their own skills rather than the limitations of their hardware.
>>321638495
>Video games behave uniformly though. They're not like real life where outcomes are random. Patterns are predictable and consistent.
In order to predict a pattern you need to recognise it though, and more information (in this case by a factor of 2!) is more than helpful.
>A 60fps player doesn't see an object twice as often. The monitor outputs the object twice as often. The debate about 60fps revolves around whether or not a human can actually react to additional frames, not whether or not they see the difference. You would have to be blind not to see the difference.
Of course the human eye can see the difference. This is not even debatable because it's visually apparent. I can easily do so in >>321634946 or >>321635997 and I very much doubt that I'm super human. Not to mention that you yourself said that the PC players reacted faster.
>Slower reactions are meaningless if the reaction is quick enough. Having more frames is better only if the console player fails to parry on a regular basis by not having enough frames to react.
The point is that the game could be even faster. Not to mention that it definitely does happen that console players fail to parry due to some wonky frame issue.
>>321638668
>Faster response time reduces the overall lag between player seeing and player reacting, leaving players to fend with their own skills rather than the limitations of their hardware.
This.
>>321638495
>A 60fps player sees an object for twice as often, which means that his brain can estimate how it's moving much faster than a 30fps player, who depending on how fast the object moves might only see a flickering mess which by the time he recognised what's happening has already reached him. He literally didn't see it coming.
If a developer targets 30fps and there are actions occurring in between frames that the player can't react too, that's poor game design. Look at games like edf for good examples of how to deal with this issue. When frame rates slow and frames drop, the game slows down. You're also getting into dangerous territory by saying a 30fps player won't see what is happening, ie unplayable. Most people have been able to play sub 30 games properly for decades. That doesn't mean I want sub 30 or even 30 itself, but it does mean that a developer is perfectly justified not to target 60 if its a waste of their time and doesn't improve the game.
>>321638668
If you're skilled enough to react in time but can't because of poor frame rates, that's the developers' fault. A great example of this is the first jojo fighting game on ps3. It was designed around 60fps but ran at 30 so players dropped combos and missed frames that were occurring irrespective of the frame rate.
>>321638726
What if a developer doesn't want the game to be that fast? Most people have poor reaction times, devs will move to the average.
>>321637731
With motion blur that webm would look essentially identical for both.
30fps in one second is more than enough for your brain to extrapolate.
We're not robots, we're not superhumans hitting a one pixel enemy with a one pixel reticle. We're humans with reaction speeds in the 200-300ms playing games with input lags ranging from 60-150ms on monitors and TVs with 10-30+ ms of input lag.
The few games that do require reaction speed that may be impacted in even the slightest by frame rate (twitch shooters, fighting games, fast arcade racers) run at 60fps in nearly every single case.
>A good Counter-Strike, Quake or Street Fighter player has a reaction time which beats the average by quite a bit,
Which is why I also mentioned that the fastest possible human reaction speed is still over 120ms, with most genetically averaging over 250ms. Reaction speed is almost entirely genetic though and can only be marginally improved through reaction-based gameplay.
>which can be decisive depending on how it falls into the discrete tick sequence
8ms is extremely minimal and essentially imperceptible to humans regardless of which genre you're playing.
>The point is that you can much easier react since you literally see more of it. [...] Make it a few more fps than 3 or 6, but the point is that the 60fps player sees twice as much.
Again, this doesn't affect the gameplay in any perceptible way unless you're playing a game with around a hundred animations occuring in under a second that requires faster than humanly possible reactions. You're not seeing more information at 60fps. Your brain (and motion blur) just fills in any gaps and is easentially the same for both. You don't need to see an enemy swinging an axe through every single pixel on the screen.
You give humans way too much credit. 30fps is more than enough given human reaction speed and game input lags motion blur.
I don't know what fucking Aborigine tribe you're from you piece of shit, but modern humans enjoy 60fps in video games better than a goddamn slide show at 30fps
>>321638814
>What if a developer doesn't want the game to be that fast? Most people have poor reaction times, devs will move to the average.
Then it would still be smoother and more enjoyable to play since players would have an easier time recognising movement. The idea that less fps could be better under any circumstance is utterly foolish. More fps is always better.
Also refer to >>321638668.
literaly no diference
>>321638278
This would maybe apply to a 10fps game. But 30fps is way more than enough for any possible movement. 30fps with proper motion blur looks pretty much identical and plays identical to 60fps.
Your brain can't even process 30 separate images in a second, let alone 60. It simply sees an action, and fills in any gaps and instead of seeing individual frames, it sees one fluid motion regardless of whether it's 30 or 60fps.
Unless your frames are so low that they literally can't even properly track a motion (like 10-15fps or lower), than the only difference between 30 and 60 frames is the extremely minor 1/125th of a second difference between when the player sees the very starting frame of the animation.
>>321638872
>With motion blur that webm would look essentially identical for both.
With copious amounts of motion blur, maybe.
There are websites where you can test these things, anyway.
I see a noticeable difference between 30 and 60 FPS in games myself even with most motion blur settings I've seen yet, especially in first person games where the camera moves a lot.
>>321628509
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm-kSla92SY
>>321639194
I don't see a difference
>>321638814
>If a developer targets 30fps and there are actions occurring in between frames that the player can't react too, that's poor game design
In other words, 30FPS imposes limits upon possible gameplay.
>>321638872
>With motion blur that webm would look essentially identical for both.
No, it would not, because what you would see would be a blurry mess.
>30fps in one second is more than enough for your brain to extrapolate.
>citation needed
You can literally "see" that 30fps is not enough to approximate even the slow movement in the >>321634946. You see a lot of temporal aliasing. The movement is literally flickering around. If an enemy passes around a corner, you can easily see how it would be a lot harder to recognise it as a threat at 30fps than 60fps. This isn't really something abstract that would require a lot of research: this is immediately apparent.
>We're not robots, we're not superhumans hitting a one pixel enemy with a one pixel reticle. We're humans with reaction speeds in the 200-300ms playing games with input lags ranging from 60-150ms on monitors and TVs with 10-30+ ms of input lag.
You're mixing a lot of things here: the point is that while you may not react that fast, you may recognise things faster. And if your enemy reacts a few ms faster than you and his input falls into the previous frame, then you will get hit and not him. This is not about reacting in-between frames, this is about deriving information from a series of frames, which simply is factually easier from 60fps. There is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't be the case and you can even see it in the webm.
>>321639012
I already disproved that claim. Higher frame rates are not faster response times. Faster response times are faster response times. Higher frame rates are an output. If you have 10 seconds to push a button based on a prompt that appears for the first 5 seconds, you will successfully push the button whether the framerate is 1fps or 1000fps. A player who pushes the button half a second earlier is not any different from a player who does not, thus there is no change in actual reaction time.
Slower frame rates do not produce input lag. This is a common misnomer. Input lag is the delay between an input and its output, ie the times it takes for a button press to register its assigned command. What you're referring to is simply a slower frame rate. A dropped frame would be output lag. A dropped frame does not prevent you from pressing a button, nor does it slow said input from registering. Humans cannot react in 33ms time. Those additional frames have not produced a more accurate input. The only way a faster frame rate would allow skill to supersede hardware limitations is if the game was designed at a higher frame rate but was limited by the hardware. A game designed at 30fps that runs at 30fps is not limited by its hardware.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that lower frame rates are better. Several people question whether higher frame rates are better. Learn the difference, you'll save a lot of time and autism.
>>321639358
30fps allows for intended gameplay.
>>321628245
Fucking Super Mario World had 60
>>321639247
>This would maybe apply to a 10fps game. But 30fps is way more than enough for any possible movement. 30fps with proper motion blur looks pretty much identical and plays identical to 60fps.
Completely wrong. Blurring movement in-between frames does not bring you any more information.
>Your brain can't even process 30 separate images in a second, let alone 60.
Are you retarded? You can see it in >>321634946. I can even tell the difference between 60 and 120fps.
Refer to what I wrote in >>321639431. You too are mixing things.
>>321639194
clearly fake, you either run both on pc and fucked the other with forced fps or you used the shittiest possible capture device
face it, pc gaming is dead and console is the master race. And more specifically, PS4 is the master race
>pccuck resort to blatant lies
haha fucking embarrassing
>>321639431
>And if your enemy reacts a few ms faster than you and his input falls into the previous frame, then you will get hit and not him
That's poor game design then. I've never played a game where this occurred, but it would suggest that the game was designed around higher frame rates and should be played accordingly. People count frames in fighting games. Reducing the frame rate would result in the player missing frames regardless of their ability to perceive and react to frames. That's why you don't see shit like 30fps Quake and why some games have always been 60fps on every platform.
>>321627908
>i have no idea how animation or sight work
>>321639513
>Higher frame rates are not faster response times.
Higher frame rates are not faster response times but higher frame rates lead to faster response times since you can recognise what's happening faster due to more information being processed.
While the frame rate may not correlate with the tick rate of the world (which especially in console games is very often the case, leading to all kinds of problems in PC ports), the point still remains that someone who recognises movement earlier will react faster and thus have an advantage over someone who plays at lower fps and generally a more enjoyable time playing the game, since he simply "sees more".
>>321639513
>30fps allows for intended gameplay.
So does literally any framerate if your game logic isn't tied to it.
A game can be smooth and slow at the same time, too.
>>321639679
4 more to go, you can do it
0fps (or either 40 or 50) is better than 30, but you get used to it and forget about muh 60fps the instant you start playing so who cares.
30 is like in the limit, so a stable framerate is crucial. Shadow of the Colossus is an example: it feels heavy bit soon you forget you are playing a sub 30 fps game. But slowdowns remind you of that.
>>321639764
>That's poor game design then. I've never played a game where this occurred
How is it poor design? It could literally happen in any game. If your enemy reacts faster and his button press falls into the previous tick then his action comes first.
>>321639431
>No, it would not, because what you would see would be a blurry mess.
Motion blur is a natural occurrence in life and should be present in games. If you're seeing a "blurry mess" then the motion blur was not implemented properly.
>You can literally "see" that 30fps is not enough to approximate even the slow movement
First of all that is an old troll image. The 30 is 15 and the 60 is 30. And even then, the 60fps (which again is really 30) is also not enough because there is no motion blur. However, text scrolling across a screen does not translate to actual gameplay.
>You're mixing a lot of things here: the point is that while you may not react that fast, you may recognise things faster.
Yes, as said earlier: 8ms or 1/125th of a second. Which is well tehcnically "something" but the delay is so, so minor that it is imperceptible to any human.
>>321627184
>rpg game
>role playing game game
>>321640005
>Motion blur is a natural occurrence in life
And that's the exact reason why it SHOULDN'T be a "feature" in videogames, IT OCCURS NATURALLY.
jesus fuck.
>>321626576
>when it's not a fighting game
This board needs to be cleansed of casuals
>>321627908
Sorry sir but your are sort of wrong. It depends on the animations. If the animations are poorly done with little to no frames and without any variations it will look wooden. 30 or lower fps will look less shit then but that doesn'T mean it's better, that just means the devs are lazy ass fucks.
>>321639513
>30fps allows for intended gameplay.
As long as the intended gameplay doesn't require 60FPS.
>>321628058
i dont like the soap opera effect i get from watching certain above-24fps movies, same as i prefer 30 fps over 60 or more in every third-person-game like dark souls or witcher. And this is coming from someone who can notice input difference in csgo between 100 fps and 300 fps, and for csgo i prefer the latter.
>>321640005
>Motion blur is a natural occurrence in life
yes, and why would you increase it for no good reason in video games? fast moving object on the screen work the same as fast moving object in real life
there is no reason for additional effect that makes it even worse
>>321626576
>Blurring movement in-between frames does not bring you any more information.
Yes, it does. It fills in any of the gaps between frames. Say an enemy swings an axe. It comes down in a line and the motion blur lets your brain understand its trajectory and speed so it can know where it's at. Your brain doesn't freeze frame, say "hmm, the axe is exactly here in this fraction of a second, I think I'll block." Your brain grasps the movement as a whole, with motion blur helping your brain understand the movement, trajectory, and speed, and it reacts. You're acting as if a game will have an axe swinging in a straight trajectory and then WOAH suddenly the axe has teleported to an entirely different location and you need to react this frame!! No, that's not how it works. Any action that is even remotely possible for any human to actually react to can easily have the information broken down into 30 frames.
>>321640385
How i love this webm, i'd like to see same thing with 120 and 144 fps
These fucking threads
>30 fps is more cinematic and immersive!
>there's no difference!
>60fps gives me a headache/makes me motion sick/hurts my eyes
I don't even have to read any of the replies and I already know some baby has already stated the above at least once.
>>321640385
this is not a video game
>>321640005
what
Your eye is not a camera, anon.
Everything that isn't nearly center of your FOV is blurry in the first place, and your brain uses saccadic masking to block visual processing while your eye is moving.
The reason some things appear blurry in real life is because they're moving too fast for your eye to process it, the same would occur on-screen with fast-moving objects.
There's a reason movies need to add extra motion blur during movement to make 24fps seem smooth.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates
>>321640410
>and the motion blur lets your brain understand its trajectory and speed
we are done here, thank you
>>321640452
>>30 fps is more cinematic and immersive!
>>there's no difference!
>>60fps gives me a headache/makes me motion sick/hurts my eyes
all of these things are true
>>321626576
30 FPS is universally accepted as defective. Why you would want a defective game is beyond me. I believe 30 FPS games should be pulled from the store until the developers figure out how to properly code a game. With a change like that, shovelware on the Steam store would decline almost immediately. The shitty developers will get pushed out and even buggy AAA games can get the boot. PC gaming would be saved because as it is right now the PC is an Atari drowning in shit titles. I fucking hate it and I only want the best for my money.
>>321640521
You lost the argument, better luck next time champ.
>>321628058
>30 fps feels more "weighty" and lush
this made me laugh out lard.
>>321640575
no you lost
Personally i can't wait for true 1000hz screens, oculus guys even say we need something closer to 3k hz achieve perfect smoothness
>>321640005
>Motion blur is a natural occurrence in life and should be present in games.
Which means that you don't need to artificially blur pixels.
>The 30 is 15 and the 60 is 30. And even then, the 60fps (which again is really 30) is also not enough because there is no motion blur.
No, you're actually wrong there. But you may as well refer to >>321635997, or I could search for another picture on the internet. The point is: you can see that 30 fps heavily involves temporal aliasing and blurring between frames isn't going to make that go away. It may make things "look" smoother, but you're not getting the same amount of information out of it as 60fps provides.
>text scrolling across a screen does not translate to actual gameplay.
Actual gameplay is actual gameplay. Even in the FPS sequence you can see that 30fps isn't enough.
>Yes, as said earlier: 8ms or 1/125th of a second. Which is well tehcnically "something" but the delay is so, so minor that it is imperceptible to any human.
Again, you're thinking on a per-frame basis. This isn't about reacting in-between frames it's about deriving information from a sequence of frames. You're not watching two pictures but multiple ones. And at 60fps you have an easier time recognising fast movement and deriving information from it which results in a faster response. This is sound reasoning and there's little to debate here since you yourself even backed it with your Dark Souls example mentioning that PC players had a faster reaction time. And this also backs what many people say in regards to their FPS experiences. Nobody in his right mind would play Counter-Strike or Quake at 30fps.
![8313531_f520[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TAOIhqm.jpg "8313531_f520[1].jpg")
>>321640575
It's more effective if you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
>>321627908
>le 30 fps makes games more cinematic goyss
I'm having trouble deciding between this thread and agreeing posts being bait or genuine retardation.
>>321640410
>It fills in any of the gaps between frames.
Completely wrong. It does not.
It blurs movement but the frame rate does NOT get higher. You don't have more fps. All you have is blurred movement, i.e. that you see a fast object leaving a trail. But it won't let you see the trajectory of the object more than 30 times per second.
>>321628695
>look i'm the smart guy!
>>321632885
>How come there's a gigantic difference between CS at 300fps and 600fps? or COD4promod at 125 and 250fps?
there isn't
if 30 fps is so good why don't you blink your eyes at 30 fps and live real life at 30fps.
check end mate.
>>321627908
You're getting massively placebo'd by the idea that 30fps is cinematic or weighty.
>>321639259
GOD I WANT A NEW F-ZERO FUUUUCKKK
>>321640742
but its true, it does, the thing is to determine whether a certain game benefits more from cinematic experience, or smoother gameplay. Id say go with 30 with every non-fast-paced non-first-person game, 60 with rest.
>>321639305
That's because your 30fps console games have irreparably damaged your eyes, anon.
>>321640457
you are one retarded man i have to say
>>321640981
>30fps is cinematic or weighty.
>weighty
Well he is right in a bad way though, because your brain have to adjust your reaction to be much slower, when i play game at 30 fps for more than 4 hours i start to feel slugish
it seriously limits you
>>321641069
yeah come up with better excuses pc fag
>>321626576
>60
You're not telling me that you accept anything below a steady 120+fps, do you?
>tfw got a 144hz monitor for christmas
>my gtx 970 maxes out everything thrown at it effortlessly at 140+ steady fps
>the handful of games locked at 60fps actually genuinely feel like a worse experience to play after getting used to over the double
I thought it was a hoax or even a meme, but going 144hz was surprisingly amazing. I won't be able to go back.
>>321640439
>i'd like to see same thing with 120 and 144 fps
There's no point. They'd be virtually indistinguishable from 60fps.
>>321628058
>30 fps feels more "weighty" and lush
>>321641143
I'm not a man
>>321640410
Kill yourself, you moronic fucking cunt.
>>321640385
top one hurts my eyes
>>321640834
It does, real life has motion blur and the best way to help your brain understand movement in the way that best works for your brain.
Re-read my post because you're replying with the same shit I just responded to. Your brain doesn't see frames in real life. It sees motion blur to understand the movement, speed, and trajectory of an object. Adding more frames doesn't do anything to improve the gameplay or reaction time for the player. No game that any human could realistically play would have individual actions that a player would need to react to one frame apart. It's not like each frame is a quick snapshot, they're a flowing motion that your brain interprets.
>>321641012
you're insanely retarded.
Pc gamers play games at 100+ fps again after the dark 60hz of the past 10 years lcd shitty screens. At the end of the 90's I played HL and Counter-Strike on my 120hz crt.
Thinking 60, and even worse 30, fps is remotely acceptable is beyond me.
>>321640005
>Motion blur is a natural occurrence in life
ahahaha I can't take this anymore.
You know what, I'm actually afraid That these little nigglets really believe all that shit.
>>321641268
Assuming he had a monitor with 144hz, he'd probably see the difference.
>>321641268
because webm doesn't support anything higher
>>321641339
>the best way to help your brain understand movement in the way that best works for your brain.
Yeah. by throwing more images per second at it, and letting it apply the blur it needs.
>>321641291
Nice comeback tho
>>321626576
Funny how in every other area in theindustry, people expect it to move forward. Graphics, Story, AI, whatever.
But framerate has been the most regressive bit, and people actually want it to keep going down.
I remember back when LCD monitors released and no gamer worth his salt would even think about switching to one, because 60fps was too fucking low. We were in the 100's-200's back then.
It just keeps going down and down and down and I swear you console kiddies wont be happy until games are literally just a single picture that never changes.
>>321641319
Oh you poor baby
Would you like some children's Tylenol? Some ibuprofen? Or a dose of man the fuck up?
Being a milk drinker doesn't make your 30fps argument more sound.
>Grew up turning the golden age
>Have played sun 17 fps games.
>Can't manage to give a single fuck how high frame rate is.
Its an entitlement issue really
>>321641525
Motion blur only occurs with 3D objects in real life. For 2D gaming, motin blur needs to be added manually.
I know this is the hot shitposting topic and all but I can't help but feel some people actually are brain damaged enough to only be able to handle 30 fps.
>>321640340
I literally can't watch movies below 40ish fps anymore. It's a slideshow for me. Movie makers and devs need to step up their game. Low framerates stem from a time with technical limitations, not from "better experiences".
The human eye is not a camera. The eyes and the brain have to literally fill in the gaps themselves. That may be more entertaining for the simple minded folk but it's certainly not a good thing to have for the normal thinking part of our species. I for one want to be entertained by the content of what I'm "taking in" not How I take it in.
>>321641592
look, i played morrowind at 15 fps for 300 hours back in 2002
I do not want to return to that hell ever again.
>>321641592
What are you talking about, pretty much every game was 60 fps on NES/SNES and video games have only gotten worse since then.
>>321641592
It's a quality standards issue. Just because you grew up with the short end of the stick doesn't mean it's acceptable.
>>321641339
Motion is perceived by the human eye differently from how a camera does it. Simply blurring moving pixels doesn't make it more but less realistic.
>When an animal's eye is in motion, the image will suffer from motion blur, resulting in an inability to resolve details. To cope with this, humans generally alternate between saccades (quick eye movements) and fixation (focusing on a single point). Saccadic masking makes motion blur during a saccade invisible. Similarly, smooth pursuit allows the eye to track a target in rapid motion, eliminating motion blur of that target instead of the scene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur
>Adding more frames doesn't do anything to improve the gameplay or reaction time for the player.
You're contradicting yourself because you already said that the PC players reacted faster in Dark Souls. Not to mention that you can literally SEE a difference between 30 and 60fps and motion blur doesn't make a difference because motion blur doesn't actually add information. You don't have more frames per second with motion blur.
>No game that any human could realistically play would have individual actions that a player would need to react to one frame apart. It's not like each frame is a quick snapshot, they're a flowing motion that your brain interprets.
That's what I've been saying which you don't understand: you see sequence of frames. And at 60 fps you see twice as much as the 30 fps player does at the same time frame. Naturally the 60 fps player would have a better experience and a huge advantage gameplay wise since he can derive much more information from it, which is backed by the example you've given yourself with the faster reaction times and the personal experiences by players in this very thread.
>>321641268
That's a load of bull good Sir. But you wouldn't know because you never put a 144hz monitor next to a 60hz one and compared. Protip: It's like night and day.
>>321635041
Because low framerates look like ass, how is this difficult to understand? It's not about gameplay, it's about the game not visually looking dirty and cheap. It's pretty much the first aspect of visual fidelity that you notice about a game past the resolution.
I'm not even gonna front, 30fps is perfectly playable, hell, I can sink as low as 20 and even though it'll look like hot garbage I'll keep playing. But higher framerates are always preferrable to the eye.
>>321640879
the difference is in input, your monitor draws the last image it received from gpu every 1/60 ( or 1/144 ) of a second, the more images your gpu generates ( the higher your framerate is ), the more recent image will be chosen by your monitor to be drawn. This reduces the perceived input or visual lag. Diminishing returns apply, i can see ( read = feel ) the difference between 100 and 300, or 200 and 300, at the same time im not sure if i can tell 300 and 500 apart.
The funniest part is that neither 30 nor 60 are good, heck even 100 is not "enough", maybe 200 is ok? nope, 500? more like it, now show me a pc that can run witcher 3 on 500 fps.
>>321641339
>It sees motion blur to understand the movement, speed, and trajectory of an object.
It does no such thing. It detects movement by the fact that objects are changing to different positions in a 3D space over time.
All motion blur means is your eyes were unable to obtain a clear image of it. The most your brain might get from that is that the change in position happened over a relatively short time, i.e. it was fast.
>>321641268
>There's no point. They'd be virtually indistinguishable from 60fps.
Utter nonsense. Just because you're retarded doesn't mean that everyone else is. I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120fps.
>>321641264
This.
What I think though:
>30fps
The minimum playable stage. It often looks distinguishably ugly and can even feel annoying, but it works.
>60fps/60hz
The standard. Going below this number can often be noticed immediately; you can both see and FEEL the frames drop, so keeping it at a steady 60fps or above is the best general experience.
>120/144hz and fps
Costs a lot of money but is worth it if you want to feel even more immersed with your frames. Movement looks and feels both pixel perfect and smooth and after only a few hours you will guaranteed wish to stay with it forever. Playing games locked at 60fps or below now feels weird and dull, but they are still playable.
>>321641319
That's because you are a massive idiot, little man. If you like slideshows so much your brain must be completely fucked, son.
>>321641836
>i can see ( read = feel ) the difference between 100 and 300, or 200 and 300
no, you cannot feel the difference between 125 and 250 or 200 and 300.
>>321641836
Find a monitor with a 500hz refresh rate, you mong.
>>321641748
It proved games don't need super high FPS or graphical fidelity to be good. The last thing I give a fuck about when I'm playing a little is how pretty it is. There was once a time when when we looked down on people who cared so much about graphics
>>321641748
Not really. 30fps vs 60fps is just a design decision, not one is better or technically more advanced.
30fps with weighty, cinematic, realistic, filmic gameplay vs. 60fps with light, floaty, fake looking gameplay. Just a design decision based on the game.
60fps is better for twitch shooters, fighters, and fast arcade racers, but 30fps for everything else.
The only unacceptable part is unlocked fps. But even then, not too bad as long as it doesn't dip too much.
>>321641628
Unless your eyes are literally glued to the screen, no. Your real-life motion blur occurs when a change of light is detected - if that change is happening too fast for your eyes to form a solid image, blur is the result.
If your monitor can refresh fast enough to show rapid movement, it'd blur as any other 3D object would.
>>321641943
Maybe you can't because you're braindead. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
>>321641943
>no, you cannot feel the difference between 125 and 250 or 200 and 300.
Just because you can't doesn't mean that everyone else can't.
>>321641985
>It proved games don't need super high FPS or graphical fidelity to be good
That's a matter of preference. You are a variable, so it proves nothing.
>>321641583
>It just keeps going down and down and down and I swear you console kiddies wont be happy until games are literally just a single picture that never changes.
Gaming truly becomes art at that point.
Like paintings.
>>321641943
i load up csgo, load a map, cap frames at 100, move mouse around, cap frames at 300, move mouse around, the difference is there, its not placebo since i even made a random toggle script that switched randomly between 100 and 300 and i could tell them 100% of the time correctly.
>>321641997
i'm better than you at promod.
>>321642009
you too.
>>321641943
Stop lying. Everyone knows your eyes have 500fps irl.
>>321641978
did you even read the post? looked at the picture? it applies to 60 hz screen as well.
>>321642117
cap frames at 125, then cap at 250 and see if you can tell the difference.
>>321641987
>30fps with weighty, cinematic, realistic, filmic gameplay
Everything you typed past this point was immediately flagged as retarded slander.
>>321642121
You're not even better than me at checkers son. You'll never reach my level.
>>321641592
>Grew up turning the golden age
I'm curious, is that golden age like 2006? Like the grand era of shitty barebone PC's for illiterates?
Kill yourself, I really mean it, you are holding back humanity.
60fps is way overrated
>>321642168
i didn't say anything about seeing differences. i said you cannot feel them between the specified fps.
>>321642235
fag
>>321642190
Get a sense of humor, faggot.
>>321642121
And I can beat you up.
That doesn't change that you you can't see or feel a difference.
I wonder how many people are retarded enough to actually believe the whole "30 fps is fine" shitposting.
>All these poorfags not experiencing the wonders of 120 fps
>>321642196
i did the test with 200 and 300 and could tell the difference, even on a 60 hz screen, unless there is some magic behind 125 and 250 fps, i would be able to tell them apart as well, so no need
>>321642273
you can't feel a difference either.
and i'd grab a crowbar and hit you in the face with it if you came near me.
>>321642331
>i did the test with 200 and 300 and could tell the difference
haha no.
>>321635041
>>321635041
>the fastest possible human reaction speed is 120 ms
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You)
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You)
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You)
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You)
>>321642245
Golden age ended in 1999
>>321642245
>he doesn't know humans existed before the 2000's
golden era of gaming is the 90's, kiddo.
>>321642259
nobody's laughing, guess you got one wicked sense of humor yourself then.
>>321642369
>you can't feel a difference either.
I can.
>and i'd grab a crowbar and hit you in the face with it if you came near me.
fite me irl
>>321642318
Actually >>321641934 I love it. The only thing I don't like is that my BenQ XL2411Z doesn't seem to save my settings between reboots, and I haven't been able to fix this yet. Really annoying to have to set it up for 10 minutes every time I start my PC up, or worse, needing to reboot it for any reason.
>>321642378
in terms of reaction time to a visual stimuli he's correct
>>321642453
>I can.
placebo
inb4 that liar about the fucking script responds again
>muh 60fps
>>>/reddit/
>>321642458
That doesn't change that his reasoning is flawed because on top of that comes the recognition of said stimulus. And that is easier when you have more visual information (TWICE AS FUCKING MUCH AT 60FPS).
I'M BUYING A ANUS PQ279Q TOMORROW
FINALLY A:
1440P
IPS
165HZ
MONITOR
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS DAY SINCE 2003.
i just thought you wanted to know.
>>321642602
I'd get the same if I could but that shit costs like $1000 right? Maybe in 5 years...
>>321642596
i'm not saying anything else he's arguing is correct. i'm only saying that 120ms reaction time to a visual stimuli is roughly correct.
>>321642712
it's around $800 in my country
oh btw you are all forgetting one important thing, 30 fps on a console with gamepad feels different ( a lot better actually ) from 30 fps on PC with mouse and keyboard, also monitor quality/blurring/distance plays role as well. I could play skyrim with 30 fps on my ps3 but 30-40 fps on pc felt like unplayable shit.
>>321629164
>using software render in 1999
Lmao were you poor?
>>321627845
>fallout 1 is the only rpg in existence
Faggot
I used play vidya on a shitty laptop that never played a game at 60fps. Went to a friend's house who had a supercomputer and saw his game was incredibly smooth. I couldn't play on that laptop ever again after that event.
Now I play all my games at an fps above 60. Feels gud.
>>321642748
Still more money than I earn from my shitty "job" every month (about $350 converted) which I need for other things, haven't even been able to afford my driver's license yet. Wish I didn't have to do this "job" but get a real job though, but I can have no such luck in my country it seems...
>>321641836
this is from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0
for all the disbeliebers like >>321642519
>>321642251
>>321626576
>>321642764
>30fps feels different from 30fps
Am I missing something? I don't get it.
>>321642602
Got an MG279Q friend, you won't be disappointed.
>>321642963
i've watched that video before it and it doesn't counter anything i said, so i'm not sure why you quoted me.
>>321642978
yes, the input device and distance to monitor/tv. Input is smoothed out with gamepads, and very precise and sensitive with mouse. That results in lower framerates being perceived as more jarring on PC. Unless some of you turbofags play pc games with gamepads
>>321626576
> 33.3ms lag is not noticable
ok
>>321642764
Probably a combination of less precise/quick controls and less input lag. I doubt a fast paced 2D game would feel a lot better on console, though.
>>321642596
And the difference there is about 8ms or 1/125th a second.
>>321642963
He's wrong about saying the monitor displays the latest _fully_ rendered frame though, since _that_ is how vsync works
>>321641985
>There was once a time when when we looked down on people who cared so much about graphics
You can't be much older than 15....
>>321643309
I generally use a controller for games that don't require precise aiming, such as platformers, third person action/cuhrazy games, etc.
>distance to monitor/tv
Are you saying you don't use your same top tier monitor for everything? That's stupid.
30fps is still 30fps. It doens't look or feel different between the machines running them from my experience. It always RUNS better on PC because PCs can generally always handle running games far beyond 30fps though. Dark Souls was a good example, even without DSFix it looks and runs better than on PS3 or Xbox 360. With a simple mod it also fits any resolution along with other upgrades making it by far the best looking game. AND THEN you can also set the game to run at 60fps if you wish.
>>321641987
You are conditioned and brain washed to believe that and to repeat that stupid ass myth.
Good job son, good job.
>>321642602
good luck getting 165fps at 1440p though.
Consoletards are truly the worst.
>>321627908
what the fuck
