Got all of em right. 60fps just looks smoother. Sucks for people who can't tell the difference.
It'd be best to just not get too upset at 30 FPS, and honestly after a brief readjustment period I usually don't care unless it's a genre begging for it (and even then I have leeway for certain racers) or the frame rate is erratic rather than a smooth 30, which bugs me way, WAY more.Why does it suck for them (me)? Imo that would be preferable, since I don't get annoyed when a game is 'only' 30 frames per second.
No, you're right. If you cover one up and look at the other for a while, and then switch to looking at the other, it's far more obvious.Yeah the difference is pretty big. Only thing is that the gifs were very close together and could "trick" you as they seem to be the same scene. (blend to the same scene) Did take a couple of seconds per gif to see it.
Maybe a little more spacing between the comparisons gifs would differentiate the fps more.
But that is just me, may be wrong
Why does it suck for them (me)? Imo that would be preferable, since I don't get annoyed when a game is 'only' 30 frames per second.
Why does it suck for them (me)? Imo that would be preferable, since I don't get annoyed when a game is 'only' 30 frames per second.
Have you been to see The Hobbit in 'High Frame Rate'?Didn't really work. I *think* I might've noticed a teeny tiny difference that way, but ... not much, really. Then again my eyes are shit, so I'm not surprised.
I got them all right but I had to stare pretty intently. Also, I dont think this is a fair representation because it's definitely easier to tell in a full game than an isolated image IMO.
Yeah the difference is pretty big. Only thing is that the gifs were very close together and could "trick" you as they seem to be the same scene. (blend to the same scene) Did take a couple of seconds per gif to see it.
Maybe a little more spacing between the comparisons gifs would differentiate the fps more.
But that is just me, may be wrong
No, you're right. If you cover one up and look at the other for a while, and then switch to looking at the other, it's far more obvious.
Why does it suck for them (me)? Imo that would be preferable, since I don't get annoyed when a game is 'only' 30 frames per second.
Part of the annoyance from some of us though is that if they compromised visuals otherwise they WOULD hit 60 FPS, and I imagine 99% of the time we're not even going to miss those damn special effects that keep it from 60. MGR looks fantastic to me, and that's 60 FPS at a native 720p. In contrast Crysis 2 looks kind of hideous to me on 360, and that can't even hit a stable 30 FPS most of the time while being sub-native resolution, just so they can pump in all those details and effects. But then that IS a reason why my bigger beef is with pushing systems too hard for a stable 30, something like the older Bioshocks look just fine to me on consoles and I prefer the FPS locked just so I don't get insane tearing.I saw the difference, don't care to much though. I want my games to be fun/entertaining they don't have to be perfect graphic wise (maybe because as a Nintendo gamer I'm used to that ratio)
I dunno, this gif isn't the greatest way to see, but I think if most people played a game in 60 FPS they WOULD notice it's just smoother, even if they couldn't put their finger on why. Look at the hypothetical reasons for why CoD is so much more popular than other FPSes, or think back (if you have these memories) of getting to see 60 FPS games after many 30 or less FPS games. I'm sure the smoothness was mind blowing, especially if it was on a PC that was also going way further than consoles (especially in the PS1 generation.)My hunch is that if you're used to 30 fps, you're less likely to see the difference from a move up to 60 fps. Whereas if you're used to 60 fps, you're more likely to notice the difference when dropping down to 30 fps.
Every game which is 30 fps locked on PC, like most of Double Fine's games and Dark Souls, I can tell immediately as soon as I start playing. I can see individual frames (like a slideshow) instead of a fluid animation.
It's not just about the look, it's the responsiveness. Many people wouldn't be able to pinpoint the framerate as to why Call of Duty is so fun, but it is absolutely key to its success.Just took a glance to get all three right. For me, it's like seeing the difference between color and black/white. Night and day.
But the fact that so many in this thread didn't see the difference suggests that devs are right. I guess there's no reason for them to push for 60fps if many the most dedicated gamers can't spot the difference.
It's not just about the look, it's the responsiveness. Many people wouldn't be able to pinpoint the framerate as to why Call of Duty is so fun, but it is absolutely key to its success.
It's not just about the look, it's the responsiveness. Many people wouldn't be able to pinpoint the framerate as to why Call of Duty is so fun, but it is absolutely key to its success.
It amazes me that some people can't tell the difference. Especially when it comes to games or movies... 60 fps is just so smooth whereas 30 is more film-like.