62 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidite Nemini]

ME3 is kinda hilarious in FPS, main game has stable 60 fps, cutscenes have 30. 

 

Is that normal?

 

 

Don't know from the top of my head, but are those cutscenes prerendered? If so, 30 fps is harld an issue because there's a couple cinematic techiques to make them look fluid (which is what the motion media's been doing for decades with their 24fps).

 

 

 

 

The whole 537289531904832098312 FPS is a PC thing because some gamers can afford ridiculous high end PC. It's mostly a thing on competitive game because people with higher FPS had an advantage( I remember playing with ugly green skin and super low quality on quake to play it at 300 FPS), but on a single player game ? Why do you care ? Thirty FPS is more than enough and they could allow at 60, but than the overall fidelity of everything else would be lower.

 

 

That is wrong on so many levels. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Fishy]

Don't know from the top of my head, but are those cutscenes prerendered? If so, 30 fps is harld an issue because there's a couple cinematic techiques to make them look fluid (which is what the motion media's been doing for decades with their 24fps).

 

 

 

 

 

That is wrong on so many levels. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

Hmm yes I know what I am talking about. You don't understand what I am talking about. Anyway I am out of this thread. This is just getting toxic and futile.

[bmwcrazy]

I can still voice my opinion that I find this whole 30 vs 60. I find this ridiculous. I am not melodramatic. They're melodramatic. If you're a developper and you make a game. You cast a vote to either get more fps or better graphic/script/texture and whatnot. It a choice they make and I agree with it. I'd rather have better graphic that will represent more their vision than 30 more fps. That it. I can play DAI with 30 FPS.

 

When I play on PC.. Same thing happens. I will play a game at 40 fps if it mean better texture quality and draw distance. You choose more fps and I choose better graphic. Unless I am in a competitive environement. THan I will do everything I have to do  to winning.

 

I said my age because a lot of people seem to enjoy patronizing others and making the assumption that we must be ''console gamer''.

 

I don't find asking for 60 fps in new games ridiculous at all. 

 

It is a very valid argument and a reasonable request given the next-gen hardware that we have and 1080p is by no mean a big resolution by modern standards. The problem here is lazy game developers like Ubisoft pushing out poorly optimized games, and you end up with games that don't look much better than their counterparts and still run at only 30 fps.

[Cassandra Saturn]

60hz is better match with 60 fps on the new consoles that are optimized for 60 fps and 60 hz.

personally, I have never tried them out but I know damn well that higher number over low is better than the previous number.

30>60>144>160>199 fps. that number changes over the time as technology progresses.

[Fidite Nemini]

Hmm yes I know what I am talking about. You don't understand what I am talking about. Anyway I am out of this thread. This is just getting toxic and futile.

 

More like no, you don't.

 

I won't even get into the matter of "super powerful space PCs that can run games at high fps". That's just a myth if there ever was one.

 

And the whole "more fps give you an advantage" is pure, undiluted NONSENSE. 300 fps will not make you better. In fact, 300 fps will make things WORSE. Screen tearing and stuttering galore is what 300 fps means, even on high end 144Hz monitors specifically engineered for gaming. There's a reason for stuff like V-Sync.

[Riven326]

The consoles have been out for nearly a year. We should be at the point where pretty much everything can run on high settings at 60 FPS on the consoles.

 

At least until the end of the generation when the hardware is once again outdated and are badly in need of a new console so that we can begin the cycle again.

 

and if you absolutely must cap it at 30, at the very least don't be like Ubisoft and try to tell me that 30 is superior to 60.

 

Well said.

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

Wait till you try 144 fps on one of those 144hz computer monitors.

 

Isn't 144hz monitors analogous to 4k right now? Way too expensive to be mainstream, yet. And likely will be for a while. Though a stable framerate of 60fps at 900p or higher really should have been the standard for these so called next-gen "supercharged pc" (lol) consoles. It seems the one and only thing so far that has truely reached "next gen" is hype. Effing Ubisoft.

 

Hmm yes I know what I am talking about. You don't understand what I am talking about. Anyway I am out of this thread. This is just getting toxic and futile.

Willful ignorance.

[Fidite Nemini]

Isn't 144hz monitors analogous to 4k right now?

 

Not quite analogous to 4K. 144 fps on a 144Hz screen is achievable rather easy (all but one monitor that I know are 1080p resolution displays, the only higher resolution 144Hz display I know of is the Asus PB278Q @ 1440p). It's just the hardware that's prohibitively expensive. 4K on the other hand is simply not yet tapped into. You can get halfway decent 4K screens for ~500 bucks, but there is no GPU in the world (not even CrossFire or SLI monster setups) that can drive a 4K resolution with maximum graphics stable enough to be enjoyable (enjoyable obvously being a relative term).

 

144Hz is merely expensive. 4K is helluvalot expensive and unstable.

[bmwcrazy]

Isn't 144hz monitors analogous to 4k right now? Way too expensive to be mainstream, yet. And likely will be for a while.

In terms of prices? I'm not so sure. I bought my 27" Benq XL2720Z for $400 not too long ago. It was quite a bit more than the comparable 27" displays and the downsides were its relatively low 1080p resolution and it being only a TN panel.

I saw my friend's 144hz Asus monitor and then I decided that I should get a dedicated gaming monitor as well. The display quality of my 144hz Benq is definitely not on par with my 27" 1440p IPS monitor, but for pure gaming, you can't really beat the 144hz refresh rate.

My philosophy is very simple, if I'm shopping for a new monitor, anything that costs less than my video card is very much reasonably priced to me.

[BellPeppers&Beef023]

In terms of prices? I'm not so sure. I bought my 27" Benq XL2720Z for $400 not too long ago. It was quite a bit more than the comparable 27" displays and the downsides were its relatively low 1080p resolution and it being only a TN panel.

I saw my friend's 144hz Asus monitor and then I decided that I should get a dedicated gaming monitor as well. The display quality of my 144hz Benq is definitely not on par with my 27" 1440p IPS monitor, but for pure gaming, you can't really beat the 144hz refresh rate.

My philosophy is very simple, if I'm shopping for a new monitor, anything that costs less than my video card is very much reasonably priced to me.

 

Nah, too pricey for me. I'm pretty comfortable with a 1080p 60hz monitor, but i can imagine what a 120hz or 144hz monitor would be able to do.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I think there is a limit for Electronic Stuff. You can't just run a PC that uses 1500W of electricity for a long time (50" monitor, 2 whatever GPUs, super duper speakers etc.). Then you have to deal with power ministry of your country and pay the price for your overusage of Electricity expensively!

Considering your area can support the voltage needed for many people using these kind of PCs.

[Farangbaa]

More like no, you don't.

 

I won't even get into the matter of "super powerful space PCs that can run games at high fps". That's just a myth if there ever was one.

 

And the whole "more fps give you an advantage" is pure, undiluted NONSENSE. 300 fps will not make you better. In fact, 300 fps will make things WORSE. Screen tearing and stuttering galore is what 300 fps means, even on high end 144Hz monitors specifically engineered for gaming. There's a reason for stuff like V-Sync.

 

This. Unless you're a robot, your reaction time will quickly become the limiting factor, not how much FPS your machine produces.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

I think there is a limit for Electronic Stuff. You can't just run a PC that uses 1500W of electricity for a long time (50" monitor, 2 whatever GPUs, super duper speakers etc.). Then you have to deal with power ministry of your country and pay the price for your overusage of Electricity expensively!

Considering your area can support the voltage needed for many people using these kind of PCs.

lol 3rd world problems