Because you don't need studies to answer this question. It's not up for debate.It's disappointing to see how many opinions have been posted in response to a call for actual studies. That's exactly what OP wanted to not get, so well done guys - you did absolutely nothing.
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.Mainly because a study isn't needed if you you use your eyes.
It's disappointing to see how many opinions have been posted in response to a call for actual studies. That's exactly what OP wanted to not get, so well done guys - you did absolutely nothing.
It's not subjective. Higher framerate = less input delay which improves responsiveness which makes games play better. I am not saying 30 FPS can't be fun, but 60 FPS is better.
I have a 144hz and that's fun too but 60 is still super good
Read the post again.....What?
It reduces input delay and looks better
"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
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.
OP, you don't need a study.
Take your favorite 60 fps game on PC. Now use your driver settings to limit it to 30 fps and tell me you don't notice a difference immediately.
"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
I don't notice a difference
..... So you agree with the original post you quoted?
OhhhhhhhhhhhHe said that your brain can process, not than your brain can process.
It's 100 percent fine if you personally 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.
Then there's something wrong.I don't notice a difference
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.
Then there's something wrong.
- Your monitor/TV is broken
- 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
- Your FPS counter is bugged and reports wrong estimates
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.
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.
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 30fps no matter what you do
- Your FPS counter is bugged and reports wrong estimates
- 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.
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
if that was the case then cod battlefield battlefront etc wouldn't be succeful.
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.
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.LMFAO
This is amazing! You actually believe this!
Did you read my entire post?
I'll quote myself:
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.
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"
Sorry, could have worded my post so it scanned better. Thanks to those who parsed it out.Ohhhhhhhhhhh
there's no reason to think 60 fps preference is limited to competitive games.
If that's the case then i stand corrected.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.
Well, thanks.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!
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.
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
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.