| Chrkeller said: It always amazes me when people won't accept being wrong. The article demonstrates the average player benefits from fps above 60 fps. You said the "majority" of players don't. Your statement was wrong. Pretty simple. Btw there are other articles as well. As fps goes up, performance goes up. When you say the "majority" it was based on nothing and it is factually untrue. Also enjoy how you picked the graph of perception but ignored the graphs that show an uptake is objective based performance criteria. Like I said, it isn't that look of 120 fps, it is the increased accuracy and responsive controls. The article proves it is a real thing. |
I have no issue being wrong and honestly I don't even look at it as being wrong half the time because healthy discussions focus on organic exchange and broader meaning/understanding. You are right that I picked the graph on perception but thats because that was quite literally my point lol. People struggle to detect the difference.
The original exchange was literally someone saying 120fps its a waste of resources for them.
"I'm a normal gamer, not a 'competitive gamer'. 120fps is a waste of resources for me.
You said diminishing returns does not exist with high FPS and I said it does, which is illustrated by the study you grabbed.
There comes a point however where across the spectrum of gamers, the vast majority cannot detect that extra 10-20ms of lag.
Now I shat out "10-20ms" as a number but I was just communicating the point of diminishing returns and that at a certain level, a reduction of latency (lets say 10ms from 16ms) is not discernible to the majority. Looking at the study (which is very small I might add), I feel like it's a pretty fair assessment.
The perceptive improvement of smoothness actually dipped at 90fps from 60fps (meaning they couldn't tell the difference and mistook it for being worse despite the higher FPS), and only increased marginally at 120fps.
Additionally these are averages. It's not the same as saying the "average gamer"... If 9 people rate a game a 9/10 and 1 person rates it a 10/10, it's average is 9.1 but the majority rated it a 9, It doesn't mean the average participant rated it 9.1. The vast "Majority" is in this case is the "mode; The value that appears most frequently in a dataset". This study doesn't actually offer that but its safe to assume it doesn't exist where the curve flatlines and the diminishing returns take effect.
I take your point that even when there is negligible perceptive difference, there is still likey an objective performance one for most of the participants up until 90-120fps. I do think that is specifically relevant to mouse/keyboard input which is what this study is based on and specifically a game that requires twitch aiming movement (just look at those tiny targets in the game they played lol).
Just to weave the meaning back into this, I think it is very fair to say the vast majority of console gamers will not benefit from 120fps whilst playing on consoles with a controller. If it's not a shooter especially, I don't think they'd benefit at all.
