| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Crestfallen


Status: Offline Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 3428 $poons: 228.80 Location: frayed ends of sanity

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
60 is total overkill. I doubt you could tell the difference between 40 and 60. _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE


Status: Offline Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 20357 $poons: 34.20 Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| crestfallen wrote: | | 60 is total overkill. I doubt you could tell the difference between 40 and 60. |
agreed.
the human brain is incapable of processing more than 40 frames per second anyway, so anything faster is actually wasted processing.
anyone who claims they can tell the difference is clearly an android. _________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passa


Status: Offline Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2613 $poons: 0.00 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| ObsoletE wrote: | | crestfallen wrote: | | 60 is total overkill. I doubt you could tell the difference between 40 and 60. |
agreed.
the human brain is incapable of processing more than 40 frames per second anyway, so anything faster is actually wasted processing.
anyone who claims they can tell the difference is clearly an android. |
For someone who is (as far as I can tell) a seasoned FPS player, I'm surprised you believe that rot. A good example of this myth being false is Halo on the PC. It, by default limits the FPS to 30 like the Xbox version. Play it for 5 minutes, then up the settings to a limit of 60 FPS, then try it without any FPS limitation at all. Its pretty clear which one looks and more importantly feels smoother. _________________
Xbox 360 Gamertag + Xfire Username + PlayStation Network ID: Passa91
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emuaust

Status: Offline Joined: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 238 $poons: 8.20
|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
You know what sucks hard about Nintendo and the wii?
Paper mario has been finished sitting n there warehouse for weeks...
"We are waiting to time the release just right"
I mean WTF???
Modded Wii here I come.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qbert


Status: Offline Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 4541 $poons: 209.00 Location: Guayaquil

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
^It's legal to mod your Wii in Australia because it's not region free right? I'm still a bit unclear on the legalities of modding since the rule change last year or so (But that's for a differnet thread). _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SMASHED

Status: Offline Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Posts: 272 $poons: 0.00 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| LeonJ wrote: |
No way, 60 vs 30 is like light and dark. I would prefer a game running @ 60 fps with less detail then more detail and a crappy framerate. |
I agree with practically the whole article, and sad to say it Nintendo don't seem to be spending much of its well deserved dough. _________________ Eternity-he is coming to get us
Last edited by SMASHED on Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passa


Status: Offline Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2613 $poons: 0.00 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| SMASHED wrote: | If Crysis had 30fps and UT99 had 60fps? |
I think he means he would sacrifice visual quality on the same game to get a higher FPS. Ie, average looking Crysis with 60FPS compared to awesome looking Crysis with 30FPS. _________________
Xbox 360 Gamertag + Xfire Username + PlayStation Network ID: Passa91
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SMASHED

Status: Offline Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Posts: 272 $poons: 0.00 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Passa wrote: | | SMASHED wrote: | If Crysis had 30fps and UT99 had 60fps? |
I think he means he would sacrifice visual quality on the same game to get a higher FPS. Ie, average looking Crysis with 60FPS compared to awesome looking Crysis with 30FPS. |
Sorry about that, withdrawn comment.
The one thing I hate about this generation is the more expensive controllers, PS1 controllers iirc were only around the $45 mark. _________________ Eternity-he is coming to get us
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crestfallen


Status: Offline Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 3428 $poons: 228.80 Location: frayed ends of sanity

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Passa wrote: | | ObsoletE wrote: | | crestfallen wrote: | | 60 is total overkill. I doubt you could tell the difference between 40 and 60. |
agreed.
the human brain is incapable of processing more than 40 frames per second anyway, so anything faster is actually wasted processing.
anyone who claims they can tell the difference is clearly an android. |
For someone who is (as far as I can tell) a seasoned FPS player, I'm surprised you believe that rot. A good example of this myth being false is Halo on the PC. It, by default limits the FPS to 30 like the Xbox version. Play it for 5 minutes, then up the settings to a limit of 60 FPS, then try it without any FPS limitation at all. Its pretty clear which one looks and more importantly feels smoother. |
yeah, probably the placebo effect. _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frozencry


Status: Offline Joined: 04 Nov 2005 Posts: 9277 $poons: 1628.10 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The only time I notice my framerate is when I have VSYNC off. My fps is so high that there's tons of f**king tearing and it pisses me off.
And in games like UT I notice it when it goes below 30. But that's only when I'm, you know, not paying attention to the rockets and lasers flying at my face and dodging them for my dear life.
Otherwise, I played through FEAR on my old system at an average of 33 fps. Was beautiful. _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE


Status: Offline Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 20357 $poons: 34.20 Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| crestfallen wrote: | | Passa wrote: | | ObsoletE wrote: | | crestfallen wrote: | | 60 is total overkill. I doubt you could tell the difference between 40 and 60. |
agreed.
the human brain is incapable of processing more than 40 frames per second anyway, so anything faster is actually wasted processing.
anyone who claims they can tell the difference is clearly an android. |
For someone who is (as far as I can tell) a seasoned FPS player, I'm surprised you believe that rot. A good example of this myth being false is Halo on the PC. It, by default limits the FPS to 30 like the Xbox version. Play it for 5 minutes, then up the settings to a limit of 60 FPS, then try it without any FPS limitation at all. Its pretty clear which one looks and more importantly feels smoother. |
yeah, probably the placebo effect. |
the flicker resonance threshold for the human brain is around 40Hz, so realistically, you should be able to see the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz, because one is above the threshold, and one is below it.
however, the numbers in question were 40Hz and 60Hz, and realistically the percentage of people who would be able to tell the difference is minimal, since, as i said, the threshold is around 40Hz - some people will be able to process slightly higher, some could only manage a slightly lower rate. _________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
renegadesx


Status: Offline Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 1599 $poons: 28.60 Location: Canberra

|
Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Its been a while since I vented my frustration
I totally agree with alot of these statements. Except Zelda (and I would have been more blown away if it got released on cube in 05) this gen has had no real "wow" games except Oblivion. Bioshock and Corruption seem destined for GOTY nominations when you look at all the crap thats been spewed out recently. And I have a sneaking feeling that Halo 3 and GTAIV wont be as amazing as people are expecting.
And what the hell is taking MGS4 so long?
I know Nintendo has Brawl and Galaxy coming, but what else is coming for the Wii? Umbrella Chronicles? Great job Capcom, a House of the Dead clone. Cheap ports of Raw vs Smackdown, Tony Hawk and Need for Speed that could have done just as well on the PS2? For the talk of 3rd parties really jumping on the bandwagon, there seems to be a lot of talking and not alot of action.
Xbox 360 comments = right on. Games are only now starting to be done right on the system, what took them so long was the game of catchup because Microsoft wanted to spend a year with 100% market share. Great job guys, despite things turning around as far as the games go on the 360, what about the hardware? Microsoft's greed always leads them to break their own products and the industry they compete in. So why am I surprised:?:
Rare: Do I really need to say anything on this subject?
PS3: drop your ridiculous price and release some bloody games, nobody gives a s**t about HD movies, get over it, its too soon, the technology is too expensive
Sega: AMEN!!!!! Sega what is wrong with you? You spend all your attention making crappy 3D sonic games (Sonic should have NEVER been in 3D in the first place) and it took you this long to realise you had other franchises such as NiGHTS? Do you forget you have other franchises that you could ruin? or you know, maybe make good games? Burning Rangers? Even Master System titles on the VC is not asking for much and Where the hell is Shenmue III???!?!?!?! We have been waiting for this since the Dreamcast. What is the go?
Ok Im done _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passa


Status: Offline Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 2613 $poons: 0.00 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| ObsoletE wrote: | the flicker resonance threshold for the human brain is around 40Hz, so realistically, you should be able to see the difference between 30Hz and 60Hz, because one is above the threshold, and one is below it.
however, the numbers in question were 40Hz and 60Hz, and realistically the percentage of people who would be able to tell the difference is minimal, since, as i said, the threshold is around 40Hz - some people will be able to process slightly higher, some could only manage a slightly lower rate. |
I personally notice a difference between 30 and 60 FPS, however looking beyond that, anyone should be able to feel the difference in how fluid the game feels. I find my mouse less responsive playing Sauerbraten at 60FPS vsync compared to the maxfps of 200 for example. _________________
Xbox 360 Gamertag + Xfire Username + PlayStation Network ID: Passa91
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kaboth


Status: Offline Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 355 $poons: 6.60

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
It depends on the game really. Some games are naturally slower paced so having 60 FPS isn't as vital and you can afford the luxury of higher quality graphics. _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fireflybck

Status: Offline Joined: 12 Jul 2007 Posts: 39 $poons: 3.00
|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I admit I was generalising a bit too much. But a lot of action games are increasing the detail but dropping the frame rate to the point that movement is jerky.
I suppose a balance is needed.
God of War has that balance. Frantic action needs a higher frame rate.
Same with Fighter games.
RPGs probably don't need as much, though remember Final Fantasy VII? The battles ran at 15fps. But a game like Oblivion at least has to run smoothly given it's real-time.
I haven't seen examples of 40fps. If 40fps is all we need, why the hell don't the developers aim for that?
The good thing I liked about farcry was that it was detailed but also ran pretty well on a mid range system at the time. Halo 1 and 2 on the PC
should have a "Microsoft Certified: runs like a dog" sticker on the package.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE


Status: Offline Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 20357 $poons: 34.20 Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| fireflybck wrote: | | I haven't seen examples of 40fps. If 40fps is all we need, why the hell don't the developers aim for that? |
WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT.
it's mostly a relic from television design - specifically, the formats.
NTSC format runs at 30Hz, but this is an interlaced frequency, meaning that alternative lines of pixels are changed with each cycle, giving an effective frequency of 60Hz.
now, if something doesn't run at this speed, or some multiple of this number, then weird artefacting happens as the image tries to refresh and a faster rate than the tube can perform at.
in wave physics, it's called harmonics (it's the same process that gives beats when there's 2 close frequency tones - like how a guitar is tuned with a tuning fork, you tap the fork to give the frequency, then tighten/loosen the string until the pulsing stops) - and it's a similar process here. if the frequency doesn't match the "harmonic" of the monitor, the image becomes chaotic resulting in screen-tearing - this is technically (in electronics and particle/wave physics etc.) called aliasing, but it's not the same thing as computational aliasing, which we know as aliasing (though the cause is similar - but very hard to explain using only words.)
--
to qualify this to PAL - we run at 25Hz interlaced, giving an effective tube frequency of 50Hz, which is technically more than enough, but since most games are made for the US and Japan, and these days most TVs are dual-mode, we end up getting 60Hz games, because that is what the developers know. _________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thebigm


Status: Offline Joined: 21 May 2003 Posts: 3677 $poons: 100.40 Location: Sydney

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
One major thing with the 30fps - 60fps argument is that games are hardly ever dead set on the one number and as such a 30fps that contains any slowdown will be noticeable very quickly that it's dropped compared to a 60fps game dropping.
Also in a First Person Shooter for instance, the game is naturally more smoother and responsive with a higher frame rate. Also wasn't there a study recently (last couple of years) that showed hard core gamers have a response time similar to that of a figher pilot? Surely something can be attributed to the rate at which we process images in that regard.
Edit: forgot to mention good article Matt, definitely agree that "next-gen" was too early as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ObsoletE


Status: Offline Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 20357 $poons: 34.20 Location: Perth, WA :: Jubei'Thos

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
actually, that's a good point re: slowdown. the reason we notice it is because the current framerate might still be at 55Hz, but it produces a "beat" effect if the framerate doesn't match the monitor's natural harmonic. the screen isn't physically capable of displaying this rate, and so we'll get stutters.
yeah, i remember reading something along those lines too - i'm not sure if it was fighter pilots, but it was definitely some high-stress job. however, i don't think it's so much their ability to process changes in images, which is essentially this argument, but their ability to recognise and react to something (typically a threat) onscreen. _________________
My Play-Asia Affiliate Link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quin


Status: Offline Joined: 19 Mar 2002 Posts: 3434 $poons: 342.10 Location: Portsmouth, UK

|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Oh finally, someone else who doesn't think much of Bioshock.
I think the sentiments expressed in this article pretty much cover why I haven't been bothered to get any "next-gen" console yet.
Roll on Brawl, only that will make me get a Wii. _________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|