Think 60 fps really matters or is noticeable to most?

#141BryanPS360Posted 10/3/2013 10:16:28 PM
Yes, it's noticeable.
No, it doesn't really matter for me (outside of Shooters or Fighters).

It'd be nice if it was standard fare on consoles though. One day... Until then, there's always PC in case I start getting annoyed by games being limited to 30 fps.
---
XBGT:ABN THUG 210 PSN: ABNTHUG210
#142RyuuHou25(Topic Creator)Posted 10/3/2013 11:07:20 PM
strongo9 posted...
What a terrible comparison image to use.


What a terrible name.
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liGiTVdVu1A
#143SORS_IMMANISPosted 10/3/2013 11:46:47 PM
RyuuHou25 posted...
strongo9 posted...
What a terrible comparison image to use.


What a terrible name.


Epic burn!11oen!1
#144chestershadowPosted 10/4/2013 12:02:41 AM
While the typical person wouldn't really care/notice, I would obviously prefer 60fps over 30fps if given the choice.

That being said, when a game is an open-world monster like Red Dead Redemption, or Watch Dogs, etc, 30fps is understandably fine. Theres so much going on at once that it would be a pretty impressive technological feat to actually pull that off and not suffer in other areas such as detailing on everything including even the smallest objects. I like to call that Rage syndrome (great overall visuals, great fps rates.... but when you get really close to something, the texture is really muddy/blurry and washed out). Don't get me wrong though, I loved Rage, and loved how the FPS always remained really good even when alot was going on at once (not entirely sure if it was at 60 fps, my computer wasn't necessarily the best it could have been with the cpu.
#145DaLaggaPosted 10/4/2013 12:09:30 AM(edited)
RyuuHou25 posted...
Lastly, I'll gladly take a game that looks nicer and has so called input lag, over one that looks more fluid. I dunno, might have something to do with gaming for the past two or so decades and not really giving a f*** about smoothness >.>


So laggy controls don't bother you? The fact that you can't play as well with a higher input latency doesn't even matter so long as the game looks better? Seriously? If you've been gaming as long as you say, then surely you'd take more responsive gameplay over better graphics.

Fourth, if we took the results of that and applied it to the world of, what, 7 billion, that's over 1 billion that wouldn't always tell the difference.


And most likely an even greater proportion of the worlds population couldn't tell you the difference between a CPU and GPU. What's your point?

Edit:

Second, it's proven. Not proved.


Actually, both work but if anything, I was using the more proper term given the context.

http://grammarist.com/usage/proved-proven/
#146loafy013Posted 10/4/2013 12:17:42 AM
DaLagga posted...

So laggy controls don't bother you? The fact that you can't play as well with a higher input latency doesn't even matter so long as the game looks better? Seriously? If you've been gaming as long as you say, then surely you'd take more responsive gameplay over better graphics.

In all the years I've been gaming (30+ by now), there is something I've learned about bad controls. If it is a fun game, you learn to adjust to the control scheme. If it is a bad game, you say why bother and go play something else.
---
The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes. That's fact.
Everything else, is theory.
#147DaLaggaPosted 10/4/2013 12:24:05 AM
loafy013 posted...
In all the years I've been gaming (30+ by now), there is something I've learned about bad controls. If it is a fun game, you learn to adjust to the control scheme. If it is a bad game, you say why bother and go play something else.


Well, as someone who has been gaming nearly 30 years myself, I'd argue that good controls are nearly as important as good gameplay. If you took the most amazing game ever made but played it with bad controls, it wouldn't be anywhere near as fun.
#148chestershadowPosted 10/4/2013 12:31:06 AM
DaLagga posted...
RyuuHou25 posted...
Lastly, I'll gladly take a game that looks nicer and has so called input lag, over one that looks more fluid. I dunno, might have something to do with gaming for the past two or so decades and not really giving a f*** about smoothness >.>


So laggy controls don't bother you? The fact that you can't play as well with a higher input latency doesn't even matter so long as the game looks better? Seriously? If you've been gaming as long as you say, then surely you'd take more responsive gameplay over better graphics.

Fourth, if we took the results of that and applied it to the world of, what, 7 billion, that's over 1 billion that wouldn't always tell the difference.


And most likely an even greater proportion of the worlds population couldn't tell you the difference between a CPU and GPU. What's your point?

Edit:

Second, it's proven. Not proved.


Actually, both work but if anything, I was using the more proper term given the context.

http://grammarist.com/usage/proved-proven/


i agree with you, anyone saying they'd rather have lag with their controls than anything else is a f****** idiot and is also a contributing factor to why companies are catering to graphics-whores vs making a game that plays/controls well and is fun. Those people can kindly go jump off a bridge for dumbing down games for the rest of us.
#149RyuuHou25(Topic Creator)Posted 10/4/2013 6:48:32 AM
DaLagga posted...
RyuuHou25 posted...
Lastly, I'll gladly take a game that looks nicer and has so called input lag, over one that looks more fluid. I dunno, might have something to do with gaming for the past two or so decades and not really giving a f*** about smoothness >.>


So laggy controls don't bother you? The fact that you can't play as well with a higher input latency doesn't even matter so long as the game looks better? Seriously? If you've been gaming as long as you say, then surely you'd take more responsive gameplay over better graphics.

Fourth, if we took the results of that and applied it to the world of, what, 7 billion, that's over 1 billion that wouldn't always tell the difference.


And most likely an even greater proportion of the worlds population couldn't tell you the difference between a CPU and GPU. What's your point?

Edit:

Second, it's proven. Not proved.


Actually, both work but if anything, I was using the more proper term given the context.

http://grammarist.com/usage/proved-proven/


Your so called "more responsive" game play, by all evidence, results in mili seconds of difference. Which means, say, if I turn the car right, it's going to do it in a fraction of a second faster than it would with the so called "laggy" controls.

After having played numerous fighting games with ACTUAL lag, no, your so called "laggy" controls don't bother me, because it's not that noticeable and doesn't break the game in any significant or even minor way. It's just something scrub like players use as their scape goat, and have been for YEARS, as to why they can't play something well.

That it doesn't f****** matter.

Proper term....right. You still use gay when telling people how happy they seem? I will concede they are both right however.
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liGiTVdVu1A
#150doc1369Posted 10/4/2013 7:03:41 AM
I haven't seen anyone bring up that depending on the controller you use the time it takes for your imputs to reach the platform will change. That lag between 30fps and 60fps is nothing compaired to the diference between gaming platforms. Aka how the controller sends a signal to the platform. I can feel the difference between the 360 and PS3.
---
If you believe that Jesus wants 100% compensation proudly put this in your sig.