157 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

The console hardware shouldn't be so outdated at this point that you need to lock them to 30 FPS.

[thepiebaker]

Only 25% or so of the human population can see 60 fps.

I think bioware can spare resources from that department to put elsewhere.

[Cyonan]

Only 25% or so of the human population can see 60 fps.

I think bioware can spare resources from that department to put elsewhere.

 

This has been proven false. The actual number where the human eye can no longer tell the difference is over 100.

 

Plus on top of the fact that not only do animations look smoother at 60 FPS over 30, due to the fact that controller input tends to be registered on the next frame running at 60 FPS will make the game feel more responsive as well.

[Akrabra]

It's sad that 30fps is even considered an option in 2016. The technology for more has existed for ages, it's just that developers have to limit themselves because of the consoles.

 

While PCs on the other hand could raise the standard to 120fps if they had the push they had in the pre-console time.

It truly is. Games having been running on 60 since the start, and now we are scaling down it on with terms like "cinematic". There is no reason a game should lock at 30 atleast not if you can get it to run at 60. Hate coming off as an FPS snob, but after owning a PC and consoles for 20 years, you start to notice the difference now more than ever. 

 

Only 25% or so of the human population can see 60 fps.

I think bioware can spare resources from that department to put elsewhere.

Source me on that, because i do not believe it. 

[Novak]

You notice a lack in responsiveness if you are at 30 fps. And that's gets better if you're let's say 45 fps. So that's complete horseshit that you don't notice until you hit 60+ fps.

[ZipZap2000]

If you have a PlayStation 4 and Killzone: Shadow Fall, that would be a solid example of the difference between 30 and 60. The campaign for that game is locked to 30, while the multiplayer runs at 60 but is uncapped (so it is prone to dip lower when there is more to render). The difference is very, very noticeable.

https://www.youtube....h?v=41Hfe9xfixY

Watch the video on YouTube itself, embedded videos won't go to 60 fps for some reason.

30 fps on the left, 60 on the right. The animation quality is noticeably smoother on the right-hand side compared to the left. This thread is specifically referring to the console versions of MEA, so I'll make a few extra points relevant to that. Not only is animation smoother with a higher framerate, but games actually play better with higher framerates too, particularly if the game in question is played on a TV as opposed to a computer monitor. TVs tend to have lower refresh rates than monitors (because they're mostly used for watching movies and shows, which are non-interactive and thus don't really necessitate having a high refresh rate because faster visual processors are more expensive), which can cause input lag (which is when you input a command on a controller or some other device, and there is a delay between the button being pressed and the command being carried out). LCD TVs in particular are bad with this because they tend to use some kind of post-processing when rendering, which adds more milliseconds. Of course, input lag in games is inevitable and always present, but if a game is optimized properly and coded with any sense of competence, then it will be negligible to the point of being unnoticeable. In theory, at the absolute minimum, a game running at 60 frames per second would have an input lag of 17 milliseconds. At 30, it more than doubles to 36 milliseconds. Of course, those are absolute minimum figures and are almost certainly going to be higher when taking things like refresh rate of the display, quality of the control hardware (i.e. a fresh new controller vs. an old beaten-up one), and how well the game was optimized into account.

TL;DR -- higher framerate is smoother and cleaner to the eye when things are moving on the screen, and it's actually a better playing experience with a higher framerate due to less input lag caused by modern TVs.

Still cant tell the difference and the comments section tries to tell me I have to watch it on chrome to be able to tell.

Sounds like BS.

[thepiebaker]

This has been proven false. The actual number where the human eye can no longer tell the difference is over 100.

Plus on top of the fact that not only do animations look smoother at 60 FPS over 30, due to the fact that controller input tends to be registered on the next frame running at 60 FPS will make the game feel more responsive as well.

Studies have clocked the human eye to be able to detect at 225 fps. But we're talking about percentage of people and the 225 numbers were vastly exclusive to trained military fighter jet pilots. And what percentage of gamers have that training?

I cannot find the exact article as it seems to be lost in the internet and Google is only bringing up reddit threads with no sources of their own.

[xkg]

30 fps and 60 fps look the exact same to me

 

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

change the second ball to 30 fps.

[laudable11]

There's a clear difference to me.
 
Couldn't find any 40 FPS videos.

Thank you. I can always tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. 60 fps is superior. Period.

[laudable11]

Only 25% or so of the human population can see 60 fps.
I think bioware can spare resources from that department to put elsewhere.

Nonsense.

[Fiery Phoenix]

It's going to be 30fps. That was the console standard last generation and is also the standard this generation. As long as it is locked and consistent, I don't really mind. I do hope it is native 1080p on both consoles, though.

 

Only 25% or so of the human population can see 60 fps.

I think bioware can spare resources from that department to put elsewhere.

lolno

[Cyonan]

Studies have clocked the human eye to be able to detect at 225 fps. But we're talking about percentage of people and the 225 numbers were vastly exclusive to trained military fighter jet pilots. And what percentage of gamers have that training?

I cannot find the exact article as it seems to be lost in the internet and Google is only bringing up reddit threads with no sources of their own.

 

Only people with training only being able to go up to 225 doesn't mean the average person can't notice 60. The average is closer to 140, but of course everybody is a bit different.

 

and that's still not counting the fact that controls feel more responsive with a higher framerate.

[Just My Moniker]

https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

change the second ball to 30 fps.

 

.......They look exactly the same to me .___.  

[Commandr_Shepard]

.......They look exactly the same to me .___.  

 

You can't be serious.

[Larry-3]

Instead of 30 or 60... why not 45 frames per second?

[Just My Moniker]

You can't be serious.

I'm not usually a 'serious' person (Especially here on the BSN) but I legitimately can't tell the difference.

[goishen]

The only difference that I'm seeing is in the clarity of the picture.  25 fps, you have it blurred.  60 fps, you have a nice clean ball.

 

That's great when the ball is sitting there.  What about when it's being kicked past your head?  You want it blurred, not a perfect ball. 

[Sartoz]

Uhh, no? If the technology is available to run it at a higher framerate, it should be done. This isn't even a point of opinion, higher framerate is better than lower.

                                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

You do realize that there are limiting factors, such as hardware capability and game graphics selection criteria that determines FPS rates?  Yes?

 

My potential issue is the LOCKED fps rate vs unlocked.  The game ought to be able to analyze the hardware and dynamically set up the graphics options and fps rate (according to Bio's internal criteria). But, also, let you change them at "your peril".

[rashie]

When playing on consoles, I really don't care about 30 vs 60. What matters far more is if its a consistent frame rate without drops at whatever lock you are going for, its fine.

 

If the entire game is running on an even 30, most people will find it just fine. Its the small drops down to say 25 that can become jarring and disruptive.

[Gothfather]

We're not talking about monitors and computer gaming, we're talking about the console version of ME:A, which 99% of the time will be played on a TV, which renders different than a computer monitor.

 

Err no they don't. Flat screen tvs are monitors.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I would say that 90% of console players AND PC gamers can't tell the difference, the only ones are graphic nuts and the tech festishists.  

[slimgrin]

I doubt they'll manage 60 FPS with the Frosbite engine. People saying there is no difference between 30 and 60 are in serious denial. I've played 20-30 for 4 years until I got my new PC and I refuse to go back to that frame rate. 30 is playable, but 60 is better with every game I own. 

[Jimbo_Gee79]

I can honestly say I havent ever been ever to tell the difference between 30 and 60 and people who say they can are lying. just enjoy the game.

[capn233]

Don't have a dog in this fight, but it would be nice for console players if it runs at 60fps.

[slimgrin]

I can honestly say I havent ever been ever to tell the difference between 30 and 60 and people who say they can are lying. just enjoy the game.

 

Try telling the people who organize and participate in shooter tournaments that FPS doesn't matter. Or fighting tournaments. Sorry mate, the facts aren't on your side and this isn't even a platform debate, it's science.