This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

30fps is superior to 60fps

#51riznich48Posted 7/16/2014 1:41:17 PM
26 fps > 30 fps > 60 fps
#52mayu780Posted 7/16/2014 1:42:31 PM
sucessful troll is sucessful
---
http://i.imgur.com/YjqIMlX.jpg
#53pwnater777Posted 7/16/2014 1:43:20 PM(edited)
Lol at "cinematic".

Other than just using this as a poor excuse, can you expound on this?

And not just saying "because that's how movies are!!!"
---
"Opinions are like magnets, nobody knows how they work." - Foppe
#54SupaflyGibsonPosted 7/16/2014 1:48:36 PM
Nex-Gen63759 posted...
Facts on why 30fps is better.

-Cinematic experience
-60 FPS looks fake
-60 FPS only benefits Fighting/Racing/Online FPS games
-60 FPS makes games look worse visually
-30 FPS makes makes games look graphically better
-I can't see the difference at all
-Back in my day people didn't care about graphics
-60 FPS doesn't matter because gameplay matters more


Please be a joke topic.
---
gt: For Spartaa
#55Auction SniperPosted 7/16/2014 1:48:47 PM
The only reason sub-60fps feels 'cinematic' was because cameras back in the early days of cinema were't capable of recording film any faster.
---
"Sleep is for babies, gamers play all night!" - Thomas Falsetta
#56pothocketPosted 7/16/2014 1:48:55 PM
pwnater777 posted...
Lol at "cinematic".

Other than just using this as a poor excuse, can you expound on this?

And not just saying "because that's how movies are!!!"


A guy on Steam from a few weeks ago locked his graphics card at 24 fps to play A Wolf Among Us and claimed it was amazing. A cinematic experience for a cinematic game.

But take into account that he locked it at 24, so it was still a nice steady framerate. Very different from a card that is struggling and only averaging 24 fps (which would have a ton of peeks and valleys)
---
http://i.imgur.com/aBZ2Gww.gif http://i.imgur.com/HnzWmt3.gif
#57TropicMoon10Posted 7/16/2014 1:50:00 PM
Console gamers have been stuck with outdated hardware for almost half a decade. Standards have dropped a lot. We have games like Far Cry 3 and GTA 5 which struggle to maintain even 20fps at times. You can't blame them for not understanding the difference. It's not exactly taught in school.

Then you have idiot developers like Ready at Dawn spouting whatever bull**** they want to make their poorly-performing game look more complex than it actually is. Which makes the uninformed understand even less. I'm fine with gamers playing whatever they find playable, but The Order 1886 has really crossed the line.
---
http://i.imgur.com/N9lTE.jpg
#58pwnater777Posted 7/16/2014 1:50:04 PM
pothocket posted...
pwnater777 posted...
Lol at "cinematic".

Other than just using this as a poor excuse, can you expound on this?

And not just saying "because that's how movies are!!!"


A guy on Steam from a few weeks ago locked his graphics card at 24 fps to play A Wolf Among Us and claimed it was amazing. A cinematic experience for a cinematic game.

But take into account that he locked it at 24, so it was still a nice steady framerate. Very different from a card that is struggling and only averaging 24 fps (which would have a ton of peeks and valleys)


I don't see why that would be superior at all to playing at a locked 60 fps.
---
"Opinions are like magnets, nobody knows how they work." - Foppe
#59pothocketPosted 7/16/2014 1:51:33 PM
pwnater777 posted...
pothocket posted...
pwnater777 posted...
Lol at "cinematic".

Other than just using this as a poor excuse, can you expound on this?

And not just saying "because that's how movies are!!!"


A guy on Steam from a few weeks ago locked his graphics card at 24 fps to play A Wolf Among Us and claimed it was amazing. A cinematic experience for a cinematic game.

But take into account that he locked it at 24, so it was still a nice steady framerate. Very different from a card that is struggling and only averaging 24 fps (which would have a ton of peeks and valleys)


I don't see why that would be superior at all to playing at a locked 60 fps.


The same reason people complain about Hobbit looking like a daytime soap opera. Too many frames per a second.
---
http://i.imgur.com/aBZ2Gww.gif http://i.imgur.com/HnzWmt3.gif
#60pwnater777Posted 7/16/2014 1:52:36 PM
pothocket posted...
pwnater777 posted...
pothocket posted...
pwnater777 posted...
Lol at "cinematic".

Other than just using this as a poor excuse, can you expound on this?

And not just saying "because that's how movies are!!!"


A guy on Steam from a few weeks ago locked his graphics card at 24 fps to play A Wolf Among Us and claimed it was amazing. A cinematic experience for a cinematic game.

But take into account that he locked it at 24, so it was still a nice steady framerate. Very different from a card that is struggling and only averaging 24 fps (which would have a ton of peeks and valleys)


I don't see why that would be superior at all to playing at a locked 60 fps.


The same reason people complain about Hobbit looking like a daytime soap opera. Too many frames per a second.


I've never thought there could be too many frames per second. That sounds like saying water can be too wet.
---
"Opinions are like magnets, nobody knows how they work." - Foppe