-
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
Why be so dramatic about it? Instead of saying that it doesn't run as smooth or look as polished (assuming it doesn't have good post-processing, motion blur, etc. at 30fps), you use a hyperbolic descriptor like "a complete mess", when they clearly aren't. If that were objectively true, a game like SM64 would be inferior to NSMB2 just because of framerate. That's how silly it sounds.
GametimeUK
Member
It doesn't matter where the information comes from. The fact of the matter is 60fps was unplayable to someone due to motion sickness and the 30fps option was better for her. It is okay to get information from someone else instead of thinking your own opinions and preferences are objectively better than everyone else's. All I know is that I am the only one correctly using the word and for such a dumb person (which I am) I can't believe how many people here fail to grasp basic English and comprehension.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
So has anyone posted actual studies demonstrating statistically superior performance of gamers at 60fps? Not people saying "duh its better", actual studies demonstrating an improvement in player outcomes. Because I saw nothing on the first or last page.
John Kowalski
Banned
Ah yes, "playing"
I personally find 60fps plays better on pretty much any game than 30fps, but I can't say as I've ever had any trouble enjoying games that run at 30fps (1V1 fighters excepted). If it's not something you feel you need in a game or you don't feel any real benefit from it, then that's cool... I mean, I'm not about to be an oppressive asshole about it and attack you for being "wrong" for feeling that way.
Yet GTA is more popular.
Yet GTA is more popular.
If youre playing your games at 30 FPS then the amount of time your display is sitting on one frame is 33.3 milliseconds. This means that when you move your mouse to aim at a target, it will take at least 33.3 milliseconds before you even start to see the cursor move. This delay is halved to 16.65ms at 60 FPS and so on
An article showing most gamers and pros preferred 120hz.
I don't think there's much of a reason for a study. There is no indication that higher refreshrate would inhibit a player, but we have demonstrably reasons why it can make them better.
Or that
j^aws
Member
You don't need a study. Just consider a game capable of setting framerates from 1 FPS to 240 FPS, and you will get a Bell Curve of individual preferences. I can bet you will have a preference higher than 1 FPS.
Here's the thing.
I don't believe you can believe her.
Which is another layer ontop of why you can't convince anyone this is a real thing.
If I told you a friend of mine was told by a old lady who was poor, that she found money in the Quran. Would you believe me?
Chainsawkitten
Member
There have been some studies posted and they show a clear performance benefit of 30 fps versus the lower framerates. 30 vs 60 fps seems less conclusive since the results are within the margin of error. (For the ones I saw.)
GametimeUK
Member
"Let's start out with 60fps looks objectively better than 30fps"
Is the sentence in the OP that I took issue with. But I think we have reached middle ground with your comment here. I was talking about being preferred aesthetically which is a bit silly of me because I jumped the gun instead of debating the main point of the actual OP. Thanks for the discussion. I guess I could have been more clear in my debate, but I think my point stands in relation to that sentence in the OP.
Keihart
Member
SocksAndShoes
Banned
You're objectively wrong about the definition of objective. This is such a weird hill to die on man. Don't do this to yourself.
.
quoting for visibility. I understand your position more, even though it was sort of like playing devil's advocate (or the girl's advocate, haha).
Refreshment.01
Member
By no means what you are asking for but i did experemient with frame rate and game performance perception years ago when i had a PC available.
i locked Dark Souls, Rage and Crysis to 24 fps. No decirnable difference in performance when doing 60 for Souls and Rage and for Crysis whit unlocked frame rate since it wasn't reaching 60.
The safe conclusion been that many genres can get away with frame rates as low as 24 as long as it's locked wihouth any variations.
Btw, this is coming from some one that prefers 60 even with sacrifices to visual flare and someone that recognises how important 60 fps and up are for stereo 3D and VR.
nkarafo
Member
"Yeah, even though evidence supports that the Earth is not flat, it's still an opinion"
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
I had to limit my framerate in overwatch to 30 because when i left it unlocked or capped at 60 it was making my GPU temp go fucking wild after the latest patch.
I don't play overwatch anymore because at 30 fps it feels like i'm playing in slow motion compared to how fast things are happening around me.
I don't play overwatch anymore because at 30 fps it feels like i'm playing in slow motion compared to how fast things are happening around me.
nkarafo
Member
I think it's people trying to justify their console purchases. Or because their favorite games are console exclusives at 30 fps.
Lucky Seven
Banned
Uh-huh i'll prove it to you in Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine
MrCunningham
Member
Counter Strike GO players will all agree that high framerate, high tickrates and low input lag are all king.
I couldn't tell you if anyone put an actual studies up proving this to be fact. I think the best way to gauge this and get some good feedback is to look at some of the competitive online gaming communities, like CS:GO (which I just mentioned), or Overwatch, or maybe even LOL, and even older groups like Quake Live. Generally speaking, I think you will find that more competitive people will drop game details and turn up framerates to get any advantages they can. I think it is proven true when you look at these groups in particular.
I couldn't tell you if anyone put an actual studies up proving this to be fact. I think the best way to gauge this and get some good feedback is to look at some of the competitive online gaming communities, like CS:GO (which I just mentioned), or Overwatch, or maybe even LOL, and even older groups like Quake Live. Generally speaking, I think you will find that more competitive people will drop game details and turn up framerates to get any advantages they can. I think it is proven true when you look at these groups in particular.
nkarafo
Member
Retroheads refer to old games that were made with old CRT screens in mind. Yes, those games look better on inferior resolutions because they fit better.
There's also the argument that CRTs still have better motion resolution than modern panels, which is ideal for 2D scrolling games (like most older games are, what a surprise)
That doesn't make higher resolutions not better than lower resolutions though.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Input lag matters far more than the actual framerate, in terms of gameplay success. If you have a 30FPS game with a really low input lag, like new R&C for example, you may find yourself being more precise in it than in some 60FPS game with a high input lag.
*HOWEVER* It is very, very rare to find any 30FPS game with lower input lag than just about any 60FPS game. Higher framerate in and on it's own provides lower input lag. If you have a game with low input lag in 30FPS, it would be even lower if it was running at 60. It's true that for many games this won't really matter if the lag is low in 30FPS to begin with, but if the input lag is high at 30, having the game run at 60 can help tremendously. Just try playing Rise of Tomb Raider on PS4Pro. It will let you chose to play at 30FPS and also at 60FPS (more or less, but it's 60 FPS in many areas where it matters for this comparison anyway). Get into any firefight or try to hit a moving target, and see how you do in each mode. I found some of the moving targets practically impossible to hit in 30FPS mode in this game, but I could hit them with ease in 60FPS mode.
Also, playing with a mouse is a whole another ballgame. There, due to expected 1:1 hand/screen update response, anything less than 60FPS feels like nightmarish molasses, compared to playing something at 30FPS with a controller.
*HOWEVER* It is very, very rare to find any 30FPS game with lower input lag than just about any 60FPS game. Higher framerate in and on it's own provides lower input lag. If you have a game with low input lag in 30FPS, it would be even lower if it was running at 60. It's true that for many games this won't really matter if the lag is low in 30FPS to begin with, but if the input lag is high at 30, having the game run at 60 can help tremendously. Just try playing Rise of Tomb Raider on PS4Pro. It will let you chose to play at 30FPS and also at 60FPS (more or less, but it's 60 FPS in many areas where it matters for this comparison anyway). Get into any firefight or try to hit a moving target, and see how you do in each mode. I found some of the moving targets practically impossible to hit in 30FPS mode in this game, but I could hit them with ease in 60FPS mode.
Also, playing with a mouse is a whole another ballgame. There, due to expected 1:1 hand/screen update response, anything less than 60FPS feels like nightmarish molasses, compared to playing something at 30FPS with a controller.
gingerbeardman
Member
This is all the research you need.
Jaguar Victory
Member
I was thinking the same thing lol. OP put together a well thought out OP but folks are just doing the usual. I've had the same question as OP for a while.
It's my subjective experience that input lag becomes noticeable in CS:GO when frames drop below 100 FPS. I notice that mouse movements don't immediately result in changes in the viewport.
I'm sure that I would perform worse at lower frame rates in any sort of objective test of reaction time, aiming, and so on.
In fact an objective study was already linked: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=241996065
I'm sure that I would perform worse at lower frame rates in any sort of objective test of reaction time, aiming, and so on.
In fact an objective study was already linked: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=241996065
nkarafo
Member
60fps.
I'd say 99% of console games before 3D polygons took over were 60fps (or 50 in Europe).
Edit: I'm not sure all the elements in Mario Kart are 60fps. The 2D elements like the backgrounds and the camera move/pan at 60fps. Not sure if the mode 7 plain moves as smoothly though and can't test it right now.
But in theory
higher framerate reduces input lag
it's kinda the point
(was it KI season 2 that runs input pulling at 90fps?)
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I think the only way to properly test this is if you could find a game that has the exact same input lag in 30FPS as it does in 60FPS. But I don't know how that can be arranged.
As I mentioned above ROTR is a clear cut example of how much, objectively better, you can aim in the 60FPS mode when you need to hit a moving target. I'm thinking specifficaly of one of the puzzle challenge scenes where you need to hit a target on a moving boat with an arrow. I did like 20 attempts in 30FPS mode, became frustrated, switched to 60FPS mode, and hit the target from the first attempt. Then tried a few more times, and hit it again every single time. It's was incredibly noticeably easier to do. But then again, this is a game with a very high input lag in 30FPS mode, and the lag is very noticeably lower in the 60FPS mode. I do think however that if the lag was really low to begin with, the benefit of having it even lower in 60 mode would be far less pronounced.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
dank b8 m8
GametimeUK
Member
I've had people on this very site tell me that Super Mario Galaxy looks better on an old school set up as opposed to using the Dolphin Emulator. None are better than the other... because it's subjective and I am right as usual.
Stop, you're embarrassing.
Yea--
:|
--
but the idea is that we compare display lag on modern displays to CRTs because in they don't exhibit it.
nkarafo
Member
Yes but what was the reason they liked the old school setup better?
I'll tell you why. CRT motion resolution. CRTs don't have that shitty motion blur of modern displays. That gives them much better clarity in motion.
So it wasn't a matter of 480p vs higher res Dolphin. It was all about motion again. People preferred the CRT not because of resolution but because of motion clarity. And yes, resolution VS motion is subjective.
Smoother motion vs not as smooth motion is not.
Permanently A
Junior Member
I don't know about studies, but you can ask competitive FPS players on twitch/twitter, they always want as many frames as possible and they can answer you in great detail most likely.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Thank you.
That's not as iron clad as you might think. While there's no argument to be made that higher framerates "feel" better and more responsive, the question is really whether this makes a statistically significant impact on gaming performance, which is something that moves beyond simply whether we can perceive higher framerates and think they look nicer. Even if you or I can notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz (and I can, I have a 144hz monitor and a 980ti), but is this the limiting factor on my or any other human's gaming performance? I severely doubt that it is. The 30->60 jump would probably not even amount to much once you translated the study from a very simple latency test (as the study above someone quoted) into a full gaming environment. Differences that do exist get swamped under a mountain of confounding variables.
The graphs on the second page look like a graph of a logarithm and the incline is fairly shallow between 30 and 60.
There's some studies on page 2 that I pulled some charts from. While there is an increase in performance from 30->60 it's slight especially when compared with going from 15 to 30 fps. After 45fps there are diminishing returns and only margin of error levels of difference according to the second study.
I think the differences would be more apparent with higher level play. We have professional fighting game players talking about how 8 frames of input lag at 60fps is so much worse than 4. To those players, 30 vs 60 fps would make a greater difference than an average hardcore/experienced gamer. I think the studies need to be done with that in mind - self-identified experienced gamers are still likely not at the level of competitive professionals.
Want to see pure chaos? Rig all the displays at SGDQ next week to 30fps and watch 80% of the speedruns fail completely.
Sure I'd like to see a study on that
GametimeUK
Member
What looks better to a person is subjective.
That is the point I am trying to make and I am 100% correct.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Fighting games are possibly the only genre I would think where we could demonstrate statistically significant effect sizes because the amount of other variables shrinks substantially. A 1v1 2d fighting game is practically laboratory conditions for measuring input latency. You are fully aware of your and your opponents position at all times, fully focused on reacting to them and executing your strategies, and in some titles missing one frame means a combo fails to execute. In Counter Strike it's a full 3d environment with large levels, different weapons and items, fuzzy positioning, lots of stimulus coming from all different directions, objectives to consider, team tactics to execute and so on.
Similar threads
- Locked