Should games push beyond 60FPS

Super Bunny Hop made a great video about the value of going beyond 60FPS and I wanted to share it with you guys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCbTRSv9sQ8&list=UUWqr2tH3dPshNhPjV5h1xRw

So like I asked should games push beyond 60FPS?

As long as the framerate is smooth, I don't care if it's 30, 60, or 150.

Watch the video anyway, it's very informative

i wonder if cloud computing can somehow help with frame dependant game logic for users with monitors that support higher refresh rates.

the human eye can't tell the difference beyond 60fps. So no, they shouldn't when they could rather push the games content

not until display tech catches up.

I remember when they said the same thing about 30fps. I don't disagree with you though.

How can 30 fps be smooth dude?

That's like a contradiction within itself.

The human eye can discern 60fps from 120fps as long as you have a 120Hz monitor.

Unless my eyes are not human. I'd like to add that the difference isn't limited to our eyes, you can feel it in the response of your actions too, especially in faster and competitive games.

im pretty happy with 60 fps usually in games. Some games though have some delay or laggy movement even if its 60 fps so those i usually unlock and let the fps go up higher despite maybe some screen tearing.

You got these 120hz and 144hz monitors out, so i guess people with those try to push their fps to match those, but its gotta be hard to do with any modern game even if only running 1080p. All the graphics card power in the world can't help you if a games poorly built and even a highend cpu is bottlenecking any chance of hitting high framerates from bad game design.

I wonder how gsync works for people with fps that jump around 60-120fps, im hoping it can handle screen tearing but i have no sync monitor yet to see it for myself. Most games won't be optimized to run beyond 60fps thanks to the terrible consoles that are out... so we'll have to be happy with 60fps for a long while longer cause half the games this gen can't even run 30fps on the consoles.

also i disagree with people saying human eye can only notice 60 fps. If i unlock fps in a game beyond 60fps it looks and handles a lot smoother usually, so that just isnt true. Also people with 120hz monitors will tell you the same thing.

haha. no.

Maybe you should check out the video first and educate yourself on 120 and 144hz monitors.

@kakamoura: no it's not. If it runs without it getting choppy, it's smooth. Doesn't matter what the number is.

By your logic, having 2 fps can be considered a silky smooth experience.

@kakamoura: Any number that's 30 and above I consider good. I will never understand this incessant need to get rid of 30 FPS when 1) it's been standard for a long time, and 2) it's a great framerate for games to run on.

It is one of those cases where the higher is better. But, we don't have the necessary hardware at consumer level yet, so right now, it's still a no go.

nice video

Yes it can. The difference between 60 and 120 is easily noticeable.

Yes.

At 60, there is a chance it can drop below. At 120+, there is a significantly less chance it will ever drop to 60 at all. PC gaming already pushes well beyond 60, and lets the player decide their ideal framerate. I'm not sure why 30fps is even acceptable on consoles this generation. I guess maybe because games last gen were barely achieving 720p30, that 1080p30 seems "good enough".

I really couldn't care less about frame rate, as long as it's not distracting. Translated: I'm totally fine with 30 FPS as it is.

60 fps has been the standard for PC games for a long time and the statement that 30 fps is a great framerate for games tells me you haven't really played at 60 fps much.

They should and they are already pushing for 120Hz standard, especially for fast paces games.

Why are people so adamant at impeaching progress and fine with outdated standards?

@kakamoura: I have played games at 60 fps. I still stand by what I said. If you don't like what I'm saying, I don't know what to tell you. For me, it just depends on the game.

"the human eye can't tell the difference beyond 60 fps"

LOL

It's like anything else when it comes to biology - it depends on the person. You can find articles on the net about it and they'll talk about tests with fighter pilots discerning single frames at a rate of over 200fps. And just like everything else with biology, the current average with respect to what the average person can discern would likely increase over time as people got used to viewing higher fps. We're not robots. Our bodies improve. There's no reason to not continually push the envelope except with consideration to what the current market will bear.

As far as consoles, last gen technology was limited because you still had so many people that had yet to make the change to HD when they launched...60fps would be lost on that market, just like 120 would be lost on the current market. No point making your consoles more expensive catering to a standard only a select audience would enjoy.

60 fps would never have been lost on the market tvs have ran at 50 or 60 hz pretty much since there inception the move to 120hz lcd monitorz of late is just getting back on par with what crt was doing 20 years ago

@numbes:

actually why the crt sets were using 50 and 60 hz was due to the european (metric???) and imperial ac electricity specs, which are alternating with 50 hz and 60 hz respectively, which in turn were translated into pal and ntsc standards...

Depends. How many TVs support 120hz? How many mid-range computer monitors do the same?

Is enough of the market going to even see the difference, let alone enjoy it enough to tolerate the reduction in graphical fidelity that would of course follow? And what, if anything, would it actually bring to the table that isn't brought by 60FPS? Doing things just to do them leads to the Wii U. Gotta have a need for it in the market beyond tech fetishists.

There is no reduction in graphical fidelity. The difference between 60 fps and 120 fps is in feel.