By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 13 January 2019
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
thismeintiel said:

There's a reason 30 FPS has stuck around for all of these decades, the same goes for 24 FPS in film, and it has nothing do with processing power.  To A LOT (I'd even say the vast majority) of people it looks more realistic.  Our world, while not having an actual framerate, does not appear to us to move in the smoothness of 60 FPS or higher.  So, yea, you can definitely prefer higher framerates for games if that's what you like, but you can not tell me that that actually looks like real life.

In gaming, it is far less about preference. The hardware will always be the drawback, especially considering that devs push visuals over frames per second (though this will continue to change). The latter is where the money is. Doesn't mean 30fps magically is more realistic than 60. And what I can tell you ~ real life is far closer to 60 fps than 30. Things aren't choppy in the world I live in. 

Lol, 30 FPS is not choppy.  Let's not use hyperbole to try and win a debate.  There is nothing choppy about a locked in 30 FPS. 

And every game could run at 60 FPS if devs so chose.  Sure, they would have to lower some of the fidelity, but it is possible.  Doom, for example, is still a really good looking game.  And while it is really fun to play, that 60 FPS screams that I am playing a video game.  Things do not move that smoothly across your eyes in the real world.  This is the same reason 48 FPS film failed.  While many people are fine with higher framerates in games, as it is a game, they do not want that in their films where it is supposed to be capturing lifelike images.  So, there is much more to the 30 FPS vs 60 FPS and 24 FPS vs 48 FPS than just HW limitations.  It is most often a preference. If I were making a game that I was aiming at complete realism, there is no way I would want it to run higher than 40 FPS.