Shenmue 3 Actually Exists, Is Out Now
Half-Life: Alyx Officially Announced
Want us to remember this setting for all your devices?
Sign up or Sign in now!
By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
By Cameron Robinson | @camfrazrob on July 25, 2014 at 1:49PM PDT
Flex those mental muscles and join Lucy James on a journey of discovery in Reality Check, the show that investigates the science behind your favourite games, and spawns a few wild theories of its own.
Crew:Chris BeaumontDave Jewitt
Please Log In to post.
User Lists: 5
Yes.. It does.. Its not controversial, 60 frame looks smoother, looks better, and helps the players far more than 30fps. In every genre, no matter it being 1st or 3rd person. The Xbox X looks to still be playing most games at 30fps as well..
User Lists: 0
This video is just as relevant now as it was when it was posted. After posting a review on Steam, some users commented and argued that my complaint about the game running at a max of 30 fps was invalid. I was happy to refer them to this video.
Cam, you summed it up pretty well here! Good luck on the Cam and Seb YouTube channel :)
gamestop, please make a video discussing "cinematic" experiences in gaming and why 30fps in games is closer to a 24fps movie than 60fps in games (speaking strictly visually, not about response time or input lag).
@t_degan This whole "cinematic experience" comes from our familiarity with movies being 24fps. We got so used to 24fps in movies that 60fps video just seems awkward. Obviously 30fps is closer to 24fps which explains why you get "cinematic experience" (if such thing even exists). With movies like Hobbit increasing this boundary for fps, I'm sure that people will have cinematic experience at 60fps in the future.
There should be no discussion on this topic, 60fps is the standard now.
@walloftruth @kagerancid 60fps is still the standard, just because consoles aren't reaching it consistently doesn't make it not the standard for them.
@kagerancid @walloftruth Consoles can reach it.In fact we have 60fps games.Mostly its the developers fault cause some graphic engine eats up a lot of power.But the developers who made/make only exclusive games for the ps4 can achive 60fps cause they know the ps4 in and out.And thanks to the uniqe for now GDDR5 memory.Look at Last of us or Uncharted,Killzone.Look at Bloodbourne and Infamous.These are exclusives that run on 60fps.Even AC unity could have run on 60fps on ps4 but thanks to xbox we should play on 30fps too.So the consoles or at least the ps4 has the power.Just the need to learn how to use it.Look at ps3 games from 2007 and today.Big difference.And ps4 is 1 year old.And dont forget the upcoming direct x 12 that will almost double the video cards preformance.And im a pc player that had enough of upgreading it always.Its better to have a console.
One correction about this video, he mentions that tearing is caused by fps going over the refresh rate which is a common misconception. Tearing can happen at *any* framerate even at framerates significantly below the refresh rate, and will always happen when vsync isn't used regardless of framerate.
Tearing is caused anytime a frame is sent to the monitor by the gpu out of sync with a monitor refresh, the result of this is several frames being displayed at once, which causes the tearing effect. The only way to stop this is to force the gpu to wait on the monitor and only send frames in sync with its refreshes (vsync).
@bwat47 There's another way to prevent tearing, without slowing down the game. Force the monitor to wait for the gpu to send the frame. This is what nVidia does with their Gsync.
A lot of electronic engineers, computer software engineers must be commenting seeing all the heavily understood and researched facts.
60 FPS is expected. I'm getting to the point in my gaming life where if it's not 60, it looks like garbage. Similar to the way that people got used to 720p (well, upscaled 720 to 1080p to be accurate) during this console generation and to go back to xbox one (not the new xbox one, the original xbox one)
Not every genre favors that high frame rate. Racing sure. Simulators sure. MMO's perhaps. But characters on screen, like in AC or other 3rd POV titles, appear to look so fake, like really bad movie CGI because there are no small nuances -- muscle and facial reactions -- that a developer can capture with just coding.
Not to mention how jerky they feel, almost as if the characters have been sped up. I'd say 30 frame rate is perfect. Maybe 45 would be better, but 60 is too high. It's like movies captured at 48 frame rate; it might better render vast landscapes, but between close camera character interaction, it feels unnaturally quick, almost sped up.
@adon_cabre: AC games look far better at 30fps.. Also "fake CGI movie."? They're not movies, they're games, and they explained the difference between movies, and games in this video.. 3rd person games, and 1st both look much better at 60fps.
User Lists: 8
@adon_cabre @jlwilliams1981 forza horizon 2 has been on purposely capped to 30fps
I don't want to come off as pompous or privileged, I'm not. But my passion is gaming, and as such I've always saved up to get the absolute best in hardware. I game on my TV with my PC through Steam, so you know the method. My TV is capable of 240FPS, 3D, ultra HD (it's pretty much 4k, but it's not. When I tested them side by side, the 4k didn't have any noticeable advantage over the one I chose -- and yes, I brought my laptop into the store because this is what I was using it for). My question is twofold:Since there was no visual or performance difference between my TV (Which is NOT 4k, but did just as well as a brand new Sony 4K set -- my TV is also made by Sony) and the "higher resolution" TV, does that mean my eye just couldn't detect the difference, and thus and response on the "better" TV was just entirely ignored and therefore superfluous?
Also, are there ANY games that take advantage and actually USE all of the hardware that we put all this money into obtaining? Will there ever be? (<<<-- main question)
@saren_dredd Dude, there is no current cable standard capable of passing 4k content faster than 60fps. DisplayPort 1.2, or HDMI 2.0, it doesn't matter.
@quazar87 @saren_dredd lies. How does you home Internet pass content higher than 60htz then?
@quazar87 @saren_dredd like to see your proof of that. 240htz Sony tv?. 60htz max cable speed? Frequency is not limited to 60htz. Research boys... guessing and limited understanding of hardware and software have hurt you logic
@0o-saxon @quazar87 @saren_dredd Display port 1.2 is currently the best cable connection you can get, and it only supports 4k resolution at 60hz/fps. If you have a tv/monitor that is displaying 4k at a higher refresh rate, it's internally upscaling that refresh rate through interpolation. This is not native.
That, or the same is being done with the resolution.Display port 1.3 is set for this year and can display 4k at 120hz, but I highly doubt any normal consumer, if any at all, have that.
This needs to be re-addressed, with the drawbacks to 60fps.
@perphektxero drawbacks? I'm glad you think you're funny.
This whole video is 60fps.
@moaznasr @x2rufff4u *cough*motionsickness*cough*
@Fireblader70 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u I don't think you know how motionsickness works. It occurs when you have a delay in your input, so you press a button but the guy won't move instantly. That was the problem in Oculus Rift DK1. So if anything, you get more motionsick the less framerate you have. That's why Oculus is trying to get the highest FPS possible, around 120 FPS.
@moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u Actually between 300 - 1000 is what we need to make it feel like reality
@marmiteyeast @moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u What about epileptics?
@JAIBOT @marmiteyeast @moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u What about them? Framerates won't change flashing lights and colors.
@moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u Motion sickness can happen at any frame rate. Not just due to input lag, but also as simple as seeing motion on screen that doesn't match up with what your body is telling you. And FOV.
@Fireblader70 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u Yeah, sure that's true, so going with what you said, 60FPS eliminates most motionsickness because the motion you see on the screen is exactly what you told the game to do as a result of the smoother input.
@moaznasr @Fireblader70 @x2rufff4u I'm not saying it doesn't alleviate it, but my point is that it can indeed happen at that frame rate. It isn't just about input, it's about the visuals and your inner balance telling you different things.
30 FPS is all you need. 60 FPS starts to make me feel sick with too much motion. After a while it will catch on to you.
@x2rufff4u So you get sick from a more responsive and smooth gameplay experience? Also, do you get sick when you're not gaming because real life is more than 60FPS? I think you didn't even watch the video.
@moaznasr @x2rufff4u there is barely any difference to 30 and 60
@dexter-404 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u you have to be blind to not notice the huge difference.
@dexter-404 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u You have to be blind to not notice the huge difference
@dexter-404 @moaznasr @x2rufff4u You have to be blind not to notice the huge difference.
@ESPM400 @cristi1990an Yep, we perceive games to run much smoother in higher frame rates. You also needn't have a giant t.v. or sit very close in to get the benefits of higher fps. (Of course you may not get the full effect depending on monitor size and/or viewing distance.)
It's quite an interesting topic
If you monitor/TV is 60 Hz, it shows 60 frames per a second.
This means a frame is on for 1/60 s, which is ~17 ms
For 30 fps a frame is on for 1/30 s, which is ~34 ms
For 120 fps a frame is on for 1/120 s, which is ~8 ms
So the latency basically halves going from 30 fps to 60 fps to 120 fps
Which is why increasing the frame make the game much smoother
Also there is also the monitor/TVs response time to take into account
Your average monitors/TV would add another 5-10 ms, a gaming monitor would be about 1 ms.
Was the difference is much more noticeable in first person shooters, where slow reactions get you killed