-
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
Because you don't need studies to answer this question. It's not up for debate.
Gameplay is smoother at higher frame rates. Period. Why anyone is trying to argue otherwise is beyond me.
Soodanim
Member
Doesn't matter what you think, he asked if there were studies done. If the answer is you don't know, then say that or don't post. We've had opinions 100 times, he wanted something more academic than forum posters' thoughts. I agree that higher framerates are better in all ways, but who gives a fuck? He didn't ask for that.
Do you also need a study to determine if water is wet?
I feel like the OPs question is far from unreasonable so if I were you I would check your attitudes at the door and come to the discussion. What a pointless post it is to anecdotally say that you feel it's better even when the point of this particular post is realy about whether or not it is in fact anecdotal. He is agreeing with you right off the bat don't you see? But his points on reaction time seem pretty air tight. 60fps probably does not make you react better, I would venture that the fluidity of motion is more likely to improve your ability than the improvement in reaction time.
"playing better" is subjective.
If you want to cite data and evidence then don't use subjective terminology, I'm not sure what else to tell you
Read the post again
Shifty
Member
Try flipping it on its head: Do games play objectively worse at 15FPS?
If the answer to this is yes (and oh boy is it), then we can infer a linear relationship between framerate and how well a game plays. There may well be a cut-off, but why pick 30FPS? It's broadly acknowledged to be the industry standard / acceptable minimum, but that's for a mixture of reasons such as technological limitations and marketing. Sure, 60Hz displays have been the norm for a while, but that again ties back to technological limitations and lowest common denominators.
Simpler take: If you can perceive a difference with your eyes then you can feel that difference ergo yes it does make a difference.
Edit: Hot dang this thread turned into a rhetorical warzone real quick huh.
If the answer to this is yes (and oh boy is it), then we can infer a linear relationship between framerate and how well a game plays. There may well be a cut-off, but why pick 30FPS? It's broadly acknowledged to be the industry standard / acceptable minimum, but that's for a mixture of reasons such as technological limitations and marketing. Sure, 60Hz displays have been the norm for a while, but that again ties back to technological limitations and lowest common denominators.
Simpler take: If you can perceive a difference with your eyes then you can feel that difference ergo yes it does make a difference.
Edit: Hot dang this thread turned into a rhetorical warzone real quick huh.
yah
Leafhopper
Banned
There have been studies done. I am not saying there hasn't been, google popped up a few with minimal effort. This just comes off as a weird validation thread to me is all.
Developers/publishers must have done some market testing, surely? I mean it wouldn't be difficult to do a blind study, you grab some random people, ask them to play a video game. Different people get games with different settings, and you see which one they like the best.
I don't notice a difference
I don't notice a difference
Okay what is better to play, something that is pretty responsive or very responsive?
Having less of a delay increases the responsiveness.
ViolentP
Member
It's night and day to me but I genuinely believe your case to be just as true.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
OhhhhhhhhhhhHe said that your brain can process, not than your brain can process.
Concept condensed to one sentence here:
More frames means better visual information for tracking and interpreting motion, which then goes into better aim/reaction/etc.
In 50 years when technology has progressed enough, you catch a tiger, put blinkers on its eyes that only open momentarily ten times a second and see how well that tiger hunts.
More frames means better visual information for tracking and interpreting motion, which then goes into better aim/reaction/etc.
In 50 years when technology has progressed enough, you catch a tiger, put blinkers on its eyes that only open momentarily ten times a second and see how well that tiger hunts.
It's 100 percent fine if you personally don't notice a difference.
Your personal experience doesn't alter tangible facts. More frames = smoother on screen experience, and (typically) more accurate input from your controller to the screen.
I enjoy playing something that's less responsive. Therefore the less responsive game is better to play for me.
See what just happened? That's called subjectivity. You told me some data, and then asked my opinion about something. I ignored your data because it was irrelevant to my opinion. Hence - if you're going to cite data as evidence, state your conclusion in the terms of that data, not by mapping it onto other subjective terminology.
The only statement your data supports conclusively is "playing games at higher framerates is more responsive"
nkarafo
Member
Then there's something wrong.
- Your monitor/TV is broken
- You don't save the changes you make in the drivers so the game runs at the same fps, even if you think you changed it
- Your card is always locked at the same fps no matter what you do
- Your FPS counter is bugged and reports wrong estimates while your game always runs at the same fps
- You get frame pacing and stuttering instead of consistent frame rate
- You think frame rate is something else and even though you feel the difference, you can't put your finger on it
- You have some rare eye condition
Has to be one of those or a combination of more. There is no other way for a person to not be able to notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps.
Thanks this is the kind of stuff I was looking for.
For anyone curious. Here's some graphs relating score to framerate in 2 different FPS games from each of the different studies. I would recommend reading the entire thing though.
I agree that simply more visual information is what the benefits of 60fps are then trickeling down to other things like aim.
I am thoroughly confused by what your illustration is supposed to mean. I have no idea how it would affect a tiger as it insinuates that it would be completely unsuccessful. I know that playing at 30fps against people playing at 60fps wouldn't inhibit my success more than my skill at it would. I'd probably argue that in an fps that the framrate would probably have an effect but most certainly the more skillful person would still succeed.
Edit:
My point being a frame limited tiger who saw me would still be able to eat me
There is no eye condition that makes it that you can't tell the dfference between 30 and 60fps.
That said, I think Wulfram is talking about the input lag difference. And yeah, that's harder for people to notice than seeing the smoothness, especially if someone doesn't play with a mouse.
If it was the smoothness, this is a good test.
That it plays better seems like a logical conclusion to me. More animation frames likely means better reaction times to input.
However, I think for many developers/publishers play/focus testing led to them noting many gamers prefer better graphics/more effects over 60 fps on consoles (on PC it is a case of investing in better hardware, which is up to the consumer). I know I read something along those lines of Insomniac in regards to their decision to go 30 fps for the Ratchet and Clank series, and to be honest I definitely prefer the beatiful presentation over 30 fps in that case. Also something like Driveclub showed me that arcade racers can work greatly at 30 fps, that game is a bliss to play. I switch between 30 and 60 fps games all the time and usually quickly adapt (if the game runs consistently and isn't marred by framepacing, for example Last Guardian and Bloodborne are not good examples for 30 fps). But I also believe this is on a case by case basis, because I don't think a lot of gamers would like to play a fighter or competitive online fps at anything lower than 60 fps. Hence most games in those genres being 60 fps.
So, to answer OP, no I am not aware of any published study specifically aimed at comparing 30 and 60 fps in gaming. But I do think many pubs/devs do extensive testing for what tradeoffs work best for their game.
However, I think for many developers/publishers play/focus testing led to them noting many gamers prefer better graphics/more effects over 60 fps on consoles (on PC it is a case of investing in better hardware, which is up to the consumer). I know I read something along those lines of Insomniac in regards to their decision to go 30 fps for the Ratchet and Clank series, and to be honest I definitely prefer the beatiful presentation over 30 fps in that case. Also something like Driveclub showed me that arcade racers can work greatly at 30 fps, that game is a bliss to play. I switch between 30 and 60 fps games all the time and usually quickly adapt (if the game runs consistently and isn't marred by framepacing, for example Last Guardian and Bloodborne are not good examples for 30 fps). But I also believe this is on a case by case basis, because I don't think a lot of gamers would like to play a fighter or competitive online fps at anything lower than 60 fps. Hence most games in those genres being 60 fps.
So, to answer OP, no I am not aware of any published study specifically aimed at comparing 30 and 60 fps in gaming. But I do think many pubs/devs do extensive testing for what tradeoffs work best for their game.
sol740
Member
Of course there's no difference, all of these people are liars, and just want to feel better about their purchases. The human eye isn't even capable of detecting more than 5 frames per second, so says eyeball science. Optometrists? Somebody with a degree in straight ballin. Eyeballin.
if that was the case then cod battlefield battlefront nintendo games etc wouldn't be succeful.
most people aren't nitpicky fucks and the difference in visual fidelity is vastly overstated.
1) Input response improves as framerates get higher.
2) The flicker fusion threshold, which is the point at which your brain no longer detects flickering from a refreshing source is around 85Hz. This was applicable to CRTs, and in my experience is about equivalent to the point where I stop perceiving any framerate improvements on high framerate display. Would be nice to see a study on this. Of course, this is also affected by display blur and post process motion blur, so it would be a bit of a fluid number.
Research for VR generally agrees with this last point, as 90fps is the target for presence.
2) The flicker fusion threshold, which is the point at which your brain no longer detects flickering from a refreshing source is around 85Hz. This was applicable to CRTs, and in my experience is about equivalent to the point where I stop perceiving any framerate improvements on high framerate display. Would be nice to see a study on this. Of course, this is also affected by display blur and post process motion blur, so it would be a bit of a fluid number.
Research for VR generally agrees with this last point, as 90fps is the target for presence.
respawnIN10
Banned
I thought you'd be pointing out the flaw in the analogy here where 30fps is apparently subjectively, according to this thread (edit: I guess I should add the disclaimer here that I personally think that's bollocks, YMMV) somewhere at the border of perceptive threshold for a human, whereas 10 images per second would be crippling to a tiger.
To actually give a serious reply though, no, I'm not talking about a tiger hunting you, I'm talking about how a tiger with eyesight that handicapped that badly is simply going to perform far worse in the wild than a tiger without that eyesight handicap, especially when hunting prey that has essentially undergone natural selection for millennia escaping hunters.
Deeke[VRZ]
Member
I have to agree with the consensus that 60FPS is better, but to a point. It just depends on your preference in some cases, especially if you're used to a certain FPS.
For example, playing Halo in 60FPS on the MCC was insane after playing Halo CE on OG Xbox (via X360) for so many years. It was a really jarring experience.
I'd say that certain first party console exclusives that run at 30FPS might be awkward and weird in 60FPS too.
For example, playing Halo in 60FPS on the MCC was insane after playing Halo CE on OG Xbox (via X360) for so many years. It was a really jarring experience.
I'd say that certain first party console exclusives that run at 30FPS might be awkward and weird in 60FPS too.
nkarafo
Member
Yes i do believe there is no way to not notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps unless there's something wrong with the test or the person doing it.
I don't see why it's weird to you.
there's no reason to think 60 fps preference is limited to competitive games.
respawnIN10
Banned
I laugh out of joy! It's rare to see someone who truly believes something and doesn't simply have an opinion for the sake of response like most of Gaf.
I believe you are wrong, but I tip my cap to you sir!
We are talking about playing better, you will play worse if you are less responsive. Though I should have worded my response better
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Sorry, could have worded my post so it scanned better. Thanks to those who parsed it out.
I didn't say that? I used examples of genres where games are commonly 60 fps on consoles.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I don't know why you bothered, OP. Clearly there's too many people for whom reading is just too much like hard work.
I've wondered this myself. A lot of arguments for 60fps being "objectively better" are trying to say "well these numbers add up to be lower, so it is better" which sounds logical, but seems ultimately like a car manufacturer stating theoretical fuel economy. I'm yet to be convinced that this translates to a measurable performance benefit in practice.
I've wondered this myself. A lot of arguments for 60fps being "objectively better" are trying to say "well these numbers add up to be lower, so it is better" which sounds logical, but seems ultimately like a car manufacturer stating theoretical fuel economy. I'm yet to be convinced that this translates to a measurable performance benefit in practice.
nkarafo
Member
If that's the case then i stand corrected.
Also, that test is not that good. Here is a better one
http://testufo.com/#test=stutter&demo=smooth (click on the "frame rate slowdowns")
Well, thanks.
It's not about you reacting better, it's about the game being able to recognize your reaction. Just see how less prevalent whiff punishing became in SF V when it had a really high input lag at launch (and that's a 60fps game). People didn't suddenly become worse at reacting to random buttons, the game was just too slow. You effectively got worse, even though your reactions didn't change.
Aside from input lag, higher framerates are also higher temporal resolution, which is basically motion clarity. When things are less blurred with camera movement, you will be able to discern more detail during action scenes. It may not be a huge impact, but it makes a difference.
The non-frame limited tiger would eat you even better. That's the point, not that someone playing at 30fps will always lose 100% of the time, but that the same player would do better, even if slightly, at 60fps.
Gears of War 4 on the xbone has given me all the confirmation I'll ever need that 60fps is superior in every single way.
Play some VS mode in crisp 60fps and then after about 2 hours switch to Horde or Campaign and it just feels awful. Everything feels like it's a water level or something and actually make me feel a little sick.
Play some VS mode in crisp 60fps and then after about 2 hours switch to Horde or Campaign and it just feels awful. Everything feels like it's a water level or something and actually make me feel a little sick.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
This is not what OP is asking, and in fact agrees with this point as a preface to their question.
Similar threads
- Locked