28 réponses à ce sujet

[dantares83]

the human eye is actually not really make to see 60fps, it is make to see around 24-30 fps. I have played on ultra (ave 30 fps) and high (ave 50 fps) on these pc specs:

 

My Spces

• Processor: Intel® Core™ i7 4700HQ Processo
• Chipset: Intel® HM87 Express Chipset
• Memory: DDR3 MHz SDRAM, 16 GB
• Graphic: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX880M 4GB GDDR5 VRAM

 

and so far, i have never notice siginificant difference on the graphics quality or how the framerate actually makes it better. I only notice the 'lag' in combat when i am spamming spells but combat ends quite quickly and it is not that bad.

 

So why are there so many people who complain that this game does not maintain 60 fps no matter how good their pc is? does it really matter?

 

EDIT: ok, the human eye can see above 60fps. sorry for my Ignorance.

Modifié par dantares83, 21 novembre 2014 - 12:23 .

[icecool7577]

Ideally for a first person shooter 60 frames is a must but for a game like dragon age it does not matter, as long as its more than 30 fps its good enough.

[DukeMcFishy]

This discussion has been done many times over and over again. Yes the human eye can see more than 60 fps. It a common mistake many people make.

[Travie]

I don't know where this urban legend about the eye not being able to distinguish past 24 fps came from, but it's horribly wrong.

 

 http://boallen.com/f...pare-html5.html

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

The eye can distinguish past 300 fps for most people. 60fps for games is better in every conceivable way, and anyone who tells you different is lying to you.

[Echorion]

I am glad they corrected you politely, because I wasn't going to be as polite.

[Geth Supremacy]

"the human eye is actually not really make to see 60fps, it is make to see around 24-30 fps."

 

so you're saying that I cannot tell the difference between something that is 30 FPS and 60 FPS watching them or seeing them side by side?

 

Way to make yourself irrelevant and have people ignore you.

[New Kid]

You can tell the difference, but some of us don't really care that much.

[DukeMcFishy]

You can tell the difference, but some of us don't really care that much.

 

That's fair enough, but that still doesn't change the fact that the human eye can see up to 255 fps (and a bit beyond, depends on the person) when you've got a trained eye. Sure average Joe can't see 255 fps, but still...

 

Sure, I don't think 30 fps is unplayable, but it does effect the enjoyment for me. Within reason I'd rather loose some of the graphical eye-candy for a mostly stable 60 fps.

[Durhon]

I'll just leave this here.

 

http://30vs60.com/

[dantares83]

I don't know where this urban legend about the eye not being able to distinguish past 24 fps came from, but it's horribly wrong.

 

 http://boallen.com/f...pare-html5.html

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

 

The eye can distinguish past 300 fps for most people. 60fps for games is better in every conceivable way, and anyone who tells you different is lying to you.

 

 http://boallen.com/f...pare-html5.html - I really couldn't tell any difference in all three. is my eyesight really that bad?

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html - ok, there is a clear difference between 15fps and 30fps/60fps but i see very minute differences between 30fps and 60fps.

 

not really worth whining/complanining about. I think it is what Andraste has been preaching about. Human pride that cause all these beside the pc controls (which is a problem but at least customizable and u get try to get used to).

 

It is "I BROUGHT A SUPER EXPENSIVE HIGH-END PC SO I DESERVE >60FPS NO MATTER WHAT!!!" isn't it?

[DukeMcFishy]

No mate. That isn't it for me. I am highly sensitive for motion sickness and 30 fps makes me feel sick after a while. I have less trouble when it runs at 60 fps. I also can't deal with motion blur for instance. Worst invention ever. 

 

And yes... of course the enjoyment of butter smooth gameplay is also a plus.

[dantares83]

I'll just leave this here.

 

http://30vs60.com/

 

ok, 60fps is sharper in some but still, rather minute differences unless u strain your eyes to see. u are moving way too fast to see that the word "GAS" is sharper when u are really playing a game. And the word "GAS" does not even really matter.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The human eye can see 60 FPS and more. That's a common misconception.

 

After that, it's in the eyes of the beholder whenever 30 FPS is acceptable or not and if you pay actual attention to framerate. Quite frankly, for me it would not be ideal at all in a twitch action game or a FPS that requires fast reactions. 

 

But Inquisition is an RPG with a pause function. I don't much care about framerate so long as its higher than 30, which I always get. The only places that tank my framerate are towns with a lot of people (mostly Redcliffe Village) and there's no combat there.

[Jukaga]

Simple answer is most monitors refresh at 60hz, that is 60 times a second. To sync properly, minimize screen tearing it's best to have the frames at or higher than 60.

[Scoobydooby]

Oh jeez.. 

 

15 > 30. Noticeable. 

30 > 60. Noticeable. 

60 > 100+. NOTICEABLE.

 

Why would people be going out and spending $$$ on monitors with a higher refresh? Cmon. 

 

And no, its not just for FPS.. this is a very common misconception. The difference on a console is not as pronounced, but on PC it can be a huge difference. Once I got my Qnix monitor and cranked it to 100 everything is smooth in windows and in games.. its so much nicer over 60 and is as obvious a change to me as going from 30 to 60.. 

 

The eye can most certainly tell the difference.. up past 100 the difference is less obvious, but up to 100 is still very obvious for many many people.. this coming for a veteran PC gamer going on about 20 years now. 

 

Lastly, this game in its current state is not the best case to use for comparison as it suffers from very eratic framerates. 

 

Play an older game where you can get a steady 30 and then a steady 60. If you can't tell the difference, my friend, your eyes may not be the best. 

[OctagonalSquare]

I honestly don't care. If I can get 60 fps, great. If not, gimme the damn game anyway.

[hexaligned]

This is not how eyes or brains work.  You do not see anything in FPS.  Physiologically the nerves in your eyes can fire about 1000 times a second.  If you can not tell the difference between a game running at 30 fps and a game running at 60 fps, there is something medically wrong with you (or you are lying/dillusional).  That being said, there is some objective benefit to playing a game that runs at higher fps that have nothing to do with how a game looks, responsiveness and input lag are the huge ones.  

[New Kid]

That's fair enough, but that still doesn't change the fact that the human eye can see up to 255 fps (and a bit beyond, depends on the person) when you've got a trained eye. Sure average Joe can't see 255 fps, but still...

 

Sure, I don't think 30 fps is unplayable, but it does effect the enjoyment for me. Within reason I'd rather loose some of the graphical eye-candy for a mostly stable 60 fps.

Yeah I understand that, and I feel bad for the guys and gals that care about it. I just want to play the game for a good story, beyond that it could be 8-bit for all I care. (Exaggeration, but you get my point haha.)

[Neuromancer]

I have never in my life had an issue with48 fps

[dantares83]

Yeah I understand that, and I feel bad for the guys and gals that care about it. I just want to play the game for a good story, beyond that it could be 8-bit for all I care. (Exaggeration, but you get my point haha.)

yeah, i agree. it is not much of an issue. so far, i have the game to be very good (even with all the fillers and sidequests).

 

it is so much better than DA2 where we need to go to the wounded coast like 1000 times because there is no other place to go/explore.

[CIA]

A stable 30fps is playable. A shaky 20-30fps is not playable in some types of games like shooters.

 

Your assertion that the eye is made for 24-30fps is utter bullshit, no debate about that.

The debate should be about 60fps vs 120+fps, not 24fps

 

eurgh, not getting dragged into this **** again. Such a non-debate.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

If a game is written well, tells a great story with great characters, and is an emotionally engaging experience, I will forgive it weaker graphics and a slower framerate.

 

Origins makes a great example.

 

If it's a generic FPS, it's probably going to have to impress me with pretty good graphics to get me to play it for a while.

 

I'm the exception to the rule, apparently. I don't care about the "latest, greatest" system or graphics. That comes very low for me, as a priority. Excellent gameplay or excellent storytelling is what I care about.

 

The industry doesn't really listen to people like me, though. If they did, VG companies would not be constantly investing the bulk of their resources on higher FPS or resolution graphics, but on fostering innovation in conceptual game design.

[Clive Howlitzer]

The majority of us can tell the difference. It isn't so much that it is totally unplayable but imagine when I am running around at 120 FPS and then suddenly the game locks my system down to 30 FPS for a cutscene. It is jarring and completely takes me out of the game.

[naughty99]

 

the human eye is actually not really make to see 60fps, it is make to see around 24-30 fps. I have played on ultra (ave 30 fps) and high (ave 50 fps) on these pc specs:

 

 

 

You can't tell the difference between these two videos? (make sure to watch in Google Chrome browser)

 

 

[Ponendus]

Because it's about what you are used to. If you are used to 30fps, then you won't care. However, if you have played games in 60fps for a long time, the drop to 30fps is very noticeable. And jarring.