Support NeoGAF

[SocksAndShoes]

Stop, you're embarrassing.

Subjectively or Objectively?

 

[5taquitos]

How is this a 7 page thread?

60 fps > 30 fps, and there's plenty of empirical data.

The end.

 

[Izuna]

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.

I dunno, I played a lot of SF4 and it feels like Tekken is far more about reactions.

Hell, look at Kuroda playing SF3, most of that game is "knowing" the opponent. Very little is reacted to. Umeshoryu is 100% reads. So are the anti-airs, if you're not preparing for the jump it becomes very hard to anti-air even.

A lot of footsies aren't reaction based on the specific moves either, it's a guessing game when it comes to "which" footsie, the reaction is only that it happens.

You got Tekken where people could be impossible to throw because they can see which hands the character uses for the grab.

 

[MrCunningham]

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.

Well yeah, there are a lot of other variables to take into account when looking at competitive online gaming groups. You also have to factor in screen latency with server latency and ISP ping and server tickrate along with controller input and also frametimes. I guess a game at 30FPS under lower frametimes can still be a somewhat acceptable experience. But comparing it to something like 60 or 90FPS under the same circumstances, there will be a clear advantage at a higher framerate.

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.

One of the things that CRT's will always have over LCD's or other flatscreens is that there is a 0ms response time from the signal of the image to the image display. CRT's are analog and don't get muddled down by additional processing like LCD's do, so they can still deliver the smoothest experiences. Some of the higher end CRT PC monitors from back in the day could display at 1600x1200 @120hz, or even 2560×1600 @ 75-85hz. Just flicking around a mouse cursor on a display at that resolution at 120Hz, you could see/ feel a difference in responsiveness when compared to a LCD monitor.

I honestly think arena based FPS shooters played best on a good CRT PC monitor back in the day.

 

[cuate]

Subjectively or Objectively?

isn't objectivity subjective? or something. 2+2 doesn't equal four if it doesn't sit well with me. the basis of alt-facts.

 

[The Hermit]

Found couple with short search.

http://www.cs.uml.edu/~kajal/research/pubs/mmcn06-frameRate/fr-rez.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/035a/30b1e6d69848596706483ffe1847d3514191.pdf

Holy crap there are actually studies.

Good job

 

[nkarafo]

What looks better to a person is subjective.

That is the point I am trying to make and I am 100% correct.

What looks better to someone is subjective yes.

Werther or not smoother motion is better than less smooth motion is not.

Maybe you just like things that are inferior, but that's your jam.

I also love how you validate yourself at the end.

I honestly think arena based FPS shooters played best on a good CRT PC monitor back in the day.

I do remember people carrying their own CRT monitors in gaming competitions.

 

[nded]

More visual information to judge motion and trajectories and less time between input and visual confirmation can only be improvements, surely?

 

[rodrigolfp]

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.

sure it is subjective. i bet you think SMG at 1x1i on CRT looks even better and more detailed than at 4k