pezus said:
Acevil said:
pezus said:
Pineapple said:
pezus said:
Pineapple said:
He's right, though. The human eye sees 24 frames per second as fluid. He never (as far as I can tell) says that the human eye can't observe higher, just that it's fluid at 24 frames per second. And it is.
|
It isn't. Why do you think movies have to use motion blur?
|
24 frames per second was long ago decided to be the best compromise betweeen the quality of the movie and film usage.
This PR manager says that they decided that 24 frames per second was a good bottom for their frame per second. Ultimately, this choice is similar in several ways.
It's largely using the same logic. You can obviously question their decision, but I'm rather opposed to just ridiculing the PR manager and claiming he did no research.
|
24 frames per second does not look fluid to me without motion blur. 30 frames per second barely looks fluid. 60 FPS is what all should aim at imo, especially for PC games.
|
I think 30 frames is tolerable for most things, but not realistic racers. However there is a noticable difference between 24FPS vs 60FPS.
|
Indeed. I'd add fighting games to the 60 FPS pile too and platformers.
|
Aren't fighting games even for consoles always 60FPS or use Motion Blur? Not really into fighters, and because of that I most likely don't notice.
