Stabby McSter
Member
for competitive gameplay? yes, it is objectively better
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Have there been any definitive studies on gamers "playing" better above 30fps.
- Thread starter bomblord1
- Start date
for competitive gameplay? yes, it is objectively better
for any gameplay
DarkConfidant
Member
Family members and friends who dont even regularly play games and wouldnt even recognize the word "framerate" all freak out when a 3rd player joins.
Or when you're doing 3-4 player and it shows a replay at 60fps.
Terrorist Hunt in Siege really shows the difference. It's not just about look and feel, it's also far, far harder to aim. I assume due to the halved visual feedback on how the reticule is moving.
You know I guess I may have misunderstood the thread? I didn't realize he was saying that 30fps was subjectively worse. I thought he was saying the reason may be different than most people think?
Totally agree, that makes sense to me.
Vigilant Gambit
Member
I don't believe you.
I ran the test I described in Vanquish before the patch. 30 fps was a very, very different game.
And when I say different, I mean the difference in the amount of time between a button press (or mouse movement) and the game's reaction to that input is very pronounced and obvious, especially compared to 60 fps.
Nothing1016
Member
I think when it comes to competitive games such as CS:GO, Overwatch, or Street Fighter it makes a difference. If you take two pro players or two pro teams at equal skill, the team with better Framerates will have a slight advantage because of reduced input lag.
But in general, the overall population or the average person who plays these games will most likely see less of an advantage because there skill set and mechanical ability just isn't that good. It's like equipment in sports, it certainly doesn't make the player but it for sure helps.
Also, it just looks good.
But in general, the overall population or the average person who plays these games will most likely see less of an advantage because there skill set and mechanical ability just isn't that good. It's like equipment in sports, it certainly doesn't make the player but it for sure helps.
Also, it just looks good.
It absolutely is objectively better.
As long as you are assuming that what you want to represent in a given game is continuous movement and instant reaction to inputs (a fair assumption I'd say), higher framerates and faster response times are inherently and objectively superior to lower framerates and higher response times.
GametimeUK
Member
What line of thought? Using the word "objectively" correctly? How about you fuck off and read a dictionary and come back when you see that I am correct.
Keihart
Member
reaction time != input lag
I can't wrap my head around what's so confusing about this.
If you have a PC, go to any old game you can max out and use the UI with VSync on and off
ofcourse it isn't, but also one makes the other less relevant. It doesn't matter how much frame data you have of a bullet moving to you if you can only react at 100 ms for example. This is why people can get shot even with good reflexes in real life.
I think that the part that matters is not the input lag really when dealing with those tiny numbers but instead the information available to telegraph things that you have to react to.
you're the one who needs to read it.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
It's kinda insane there are still arguments about this, on a gaming enthusiast site of all things.
Higher frame rate is always better. You can make arguments whether sacrificing frame rate for graphic fidelity is worth it or not, but if you had to choose between two games that are graphically equal you'd be fool to pick the one that ran at a lower framerate.
Try playing a fighting game at 30fps against someone playing at 60fps, it's a nightmare.
Try playing a fighting game at 30fps against someone playing at 60fps, it's a nightmare.
GametimeUK
Member
I know someone who couldn't play TLOU Remastered at 60fps. They had to bump it to 30fps. When they panned the camera at 60fps they found it jarring. They described it as motion sickness. They found 30fps more comfortable.
Sorry, it is subjective, not objective.
Psychoward
Banned
It is objectively better.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
It's objectively better. You're wrong.
A game running at 30fps is running objectively less smoothly than one running at 60fps. Games are played in motion, not in still frames.
Your evidence is an antecdote from a friend? Come on. You know better than this.
30fps is not "objectively" better than 24fps. Let's face it, it's almost universally agreed on that it is better, but it isn't actually "objectively" better. It's still a matter of opinion.
Psychoward
Banned
That's like saying I have a friend who thinks a 4k screen is too detailed and hurts their eyes, therefore a 4k screen being better than a 480p one is subjective.
*Avatar of game that runs at 15fps checks out*
The only thing worth considering is whether 60 fps plays better than 30 fps all other things being equal, that is, input delay being the same (60 fps game reads input every 2 frames or something). Imo in that case both games would be found to play the same, though the 60 fps game would still look subjectively better to most. But this is irreleveant since in the real world it's unlikely to ever happen, and a 60 fps game will always have less input lag than a 30 fps one and will objectively play better (unless you're using your tv's frame interpolation mode achieve 60+ frames, which you totally shouldn't)
GametimeUK
Member
You will have retro heads that will swear blind that some of the best visuals come from running games on a CRT. Sorry, looks like a lot of people don't know the definition of the word in this thread. It's still subjective.
Cute joke, but not on my system it doesn't.
Psychoward
Banned
Yeah and some people swear vaccines cause autism, the world is flat and Trump isn't a racist.
No, it's definitely objective. It's their subjective opinion that is wrong.
Lemme put it this way. We're talking about input lag, not display lag. At higher framerates anyway, the player will be able to react from an earlier moment but let's not concentrate on that atm.
With input lag, the small window where the player needs to press a button to dodge a bullet in a game (or which ever), more input lag couple be the reason why they press the input but the game hasn't registered their inputs yet, meaning they can't dodge irrespective of their reactions and intention.
Going back to display lag and what a higher refresh rate does... that reaction process from the player can potentially start earlier. If we're talking about a bullet, perhaps the muzzle flash is visible after a certain amount of time. At lower refreshrates, it's possible that the start of that muzzle flash is missed because the screen is still updating (this depends on when the last refresh is).
Essentially, there are fewer ms gaps between what the player is able to see -- and fewer frames between their reaction input to when it is registered.
--
Side note... Particles running at 30fps in Gears of War 4 was horrible.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Grandmother by Kitty Horrorshow runs at 15 fps as an aestethic choice. I have a hard time thinking of 30 fps as an aestethic choice though. If you want it to be noticably laggy you'd pick something low like 15, not something that a lot of players won't actively notice...
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
deadscreensky
Member
I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but it's huge in first-person shooters. There's a reason people used to dial their shit down to potato-mode settings and use things like brightskins. Framerate and target contrast is a winner.
I and a colleague both saw significant (I'm talking a 50% gain over the original) gains in accuracy and headshot ratio (and, accordingly, KPM/KDR) in Planetside 2 when we both got off garbage rigs that had us running sub-30 FPS in most fights. I bottom out at about 80 now and it's significantly easier to track moving targets and twitch-shoot people.
For comparison, he's a really old pic of what I'd be dealing with for resolution/framerate and some more recent video. There's no way I'd have been able to do anything close to the video (which isn't exactly elite gameplay, to be fair) on the old rig. Frames are huge for shooters.
I and a colleague both saw significant (I'm talking a 50% gain over the original) gains in accuracy and headshot ratio (and, accordingly, KPM/KDR) in Planetside 2 when we both got off garbage rigs that had us running sub-30 FPS in most fights. I bottom out at about 80 now and it's significantly easier to track moving targets and twitch-shoot people.
For comparison, he's a really old pic of what I'd be dealing with for resolution/framerate and some more recent video. There's no way I'd have been able to do anything close to the video (which isn't exactly elite gameplay, to be fair) on the old rig. Frames are huge for shooters.
That's VERY strange, considering lower framerates is commonly associated with motion sickness...
--
and as for the FPS stuff. Nah
Desktop at higher refresh rates is bae. I can read while scrolling, it's amazing.
Even a simple game like Sudeki is super bae at 100hz over 60hz
Keihart
Member
i know how it works, that's why i put the numbers out, the difference is negible in perspective making other things like buffers or telegraphing moves or having a synched frame rate more important when talking about reactions.
Edit: tracking targets tho might be were increasing fps have less diminishing returns i think
GametimeUK
Member
I found it strange she felt that way. Colin in his TLOU review said he found 60fps jarring, but we all know how popular he is round here, so it's pointless mentioning it.
Well it's interesting because in fighting games and fps, knowing what to react to is the most important thing.
Like, if you're going to anti-air someone in street fighter, you gotta be ready to look for it. When people undergo reaction time tests, they are told what they are supposed to react to.
If someone unexpected happens a lot more stuff comes into play (which is why I die constantly by grenades in Titanfall 2 or get hit by those slow ass moves in Tekken).
Sure, for games that have a res that doesnt line up properly with a higher res display. How about someone who prefers playing TLOU in 480p as opposed to 1080p?
I don't know who Colin is, but how long did you play with it?
Honestly, if you jump from 30fps to 60fps...
forgive my example but it's sort of like having an orgasm for the first time (I'm going to use a girl perspective) where you don't know what the feeling is, scared to pee etc.
But once you get over that hurdle there's no going back. 30fps will reforever look jarring in comparison and will never give you the clarity and benefits of 60fps.
That's more subjective, honestly.
I prefer playing certain games at low resolutions all the time. I used to dislike MSAA when I was a teen.
j^aws
Member
I don't think I've seen an argument based around Input Lag and Human Reaction times before - these are two different things. Both together add to the feeling of walking through molasses. That is, they both add to the feeling of unresponsive controls.
Although, an individual with extremely slow reaction times can prefer high input lag, just from their own counter reactions being so slow that this coincidentally matches shit framerates.
Although, an individual with extremely slow reaction times can prefer high input lag, just from their own counter reactions being so slow that this coincidentally matches shit framerates.
Well here's an analogy I never thought I'd see.
Tlou Did feel weird to me going to 60fps at first. But I think that was me being used to playing it at sub 30fps. My aim and everything was off until I adjusted. It was probably the same thing for that guy
Spacejaws
Member
Inwould say the game matters....for me..if its a fast paced FPS like DOOM then taking that graphical hit for constant 60 was a better experience for me than looking beautiful and constant 30. But for Witcher and lets say Alien:Isolation I enjoyed the higher visuals at 30 than I did toning down the textures and effects for 60. So yea for me it is inportant what type of game it is and whether I shoot for 30 or 60. Ultimately I want the game to look as pretty as possible with my limitations and if 30 is going to look stunning and 60 flat and trash I'll go for 30 everytime.
Wether it makes me better in my experience for online fps like Battlefield I would say yes but not incredibly so. My Battlefield score is still pretty low at 60 but I feel that I stay alive longer, maybe thats just being able to react better or dealing with others also at 60 or a placebo I don't know...
GametimeUK
Member
I prefer 60fps like most people. You don't have to explain it to me, I spent a lot of money on my PC purely for higher framerates. All I'm saying is I know someone who was knocked sick by the fluidity of panning the camera.
Sure we all agree 60fps is better, but it's a matter of opinion. It hindered her performance and enjoyment. End of story.
There's someone who prefers doing just that in this thread. Subjective. I'm right, you're wrong. It's all about preference.
I dunno about how TLoU does it, but sometimes higher framerates can, in fact, affect sensitivity.
Keihart
Member
In fighting games you read not react, most of the time. Just like real fighters do reading body language before the move is actually executed. When reaction is more important you usually have a higher time window for it, higher than the delay produced by have to go from 30 to 60 i mean.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
People can have opinions. It doesn't mean that what they disagree with isn't objectively correct in a scientific sense.
Your friend is an outlier. That doesn't mean her opinion trumps science.
So this is second-hand information?
You're not going to "End of story" anyone's opinion.
This is as objective as eggs giving more protein when cooked.
Unless it's SFV, where you can't really react in time because input lag is too high, haha.
I didn't even think about messing with the sensitivity. That might be it. I've never had that issue in any other game
Similar threads
- Locked