By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Ouch – King Arthur II’s PR manager believes that 24fps are fine for the human eye

pezus said:
Acevil said:


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. 

Yeah, only a few fighters are locked at 30 FPS (Mortal Kombat iirc). 

I would be very surprised if it wasn't 30FPS because that game is one of the most fluent ones I've ever played on a console.



Around the Network

Is that true about that 100fps statement? I can't see the difference between running a game at 60fps and hitting 234908290348120fps on a Valve game.



Films have 24fps at a constant rate.

24 fps in a game means frame times vary between 20-30 fps at all times, making it very inconsistent. The reason we want 30 or even 60fps is so that even with variation there are enough frames to be smooth.



I dont understand these complains, movies are not games, 24fps standard was set in the 1920's by Hollywood. Just becoz games look better on higher fps doesnt mean movies are the same. Have you ever watched a movie on MotionFlow 200hz technology from Sony LCDs or any other LCD with above 120hz? It gives you the Soap Opera Effect, plasmas do not suffer from this.



If anyone needs an example.

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Just set everything to 60 FPS and 25 FPS, Motion Blue to None and change the velocity to different speeds

At the lower speeds there looks to be no difference... Get to 500 Px per second and there is.

For a game like King Arthur 2, it probably wouldn't matter... graphically.

Of course there is the problem with control inputs.



Around the Network
pezus said:
Soleron said:
Films have 24fps at a constant rate.

24 fps in a game means frame times vary between 20-30 fps at all times, making it very inconsistent. The reason we want 30 or even 60fps is so that even with variation there are enough frames to be smooth.

And films have motion blur, most games don't. Watching a film without motion blur would be...unpleasant

Only if it's an animated movie....

As far as live action goes, "Motion Blur" just means the effect movement has on the camera.

http://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/shutter/

"Motion Blur" as a technique was invented in animated films and Videogames, because camera's have a shutterspeed, while animation just shows a perfect instance in time.



I hate the statements that the human eye can see x frames per second it's not how the eye works

From what i was lead to believe movies run at 24 FPS to add a dream like quality to the movie to kind of seperate it from reality in a way this could be non sense but it's what a lecturer that used to teach me said.

Games with user input at 24 FPS might well be playable but it isn't quite right, if the frame rate stays consistent though your eyes will adjust and it should be comfortable the main cause of uncomfort when it comes to games happens when the frames aren't consistent and the reason the higher frames the better is the drop can be less noticable. A game running at 60 FPS which has regular drops in frame rate can be just as uncomfortable as a game at 30 FPS dropping frames. Consistency is the key in gaming



Andrespetmonkey said:
What would life be like if our eyes saw things at 5 fps?


Very good question...

That we be going in the opposite direction of how pigeons observe the world. I would think that the experience of time would be much different - a second would seem shorter to such a person... Perhaps like a whale or other large creature.



I don't mind when a game dips from 60 to 40 FPS every now and then or even frequently



pezus said:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ouch-king-arthur-iis-pr-manager-believes-that-24fps-are-fine-for-the-human-eye/

 

I’m shocked. I’m seriously shocked since this thing came from a PR manager and not from a misinformed person. According to King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame’s Kate, 24fps are pretty enough as the human eye sees them as fluid as the cinema movies. NO our dear Kate, you are wrong in so many levels and we’re surprised by your answer. The human eye can even see above 100fps. And regarding those 24fps, there is a huge difference between a movie (and how it’s been captured) and a game.

As Kate said in the official forums when the fans expressed their low-performance issues:

“It is not bad performance and not too low. If it gets below 20 FPS than it is bad performance. 24 FPS is what a human eye sees as fluid and you watch the films in the cinema with 24 FPS.”

Ironically, Kate asked the fans whether they go to the cinema again and again to see bad performance and horribly low FPS. This is hilarious and so wrong in so many levels. We’d expect a kid to try and justify his opinion with the ‘movies’ example, but a PR manager?

Kate went ahead and admitted then that the fps is not capped and that Neocore can get easily, on their test rigs in the developer office, around 50-60 fps.

As we said and before, the human eye can see above 100fps and you can find a lot of articles that explain the difference between movies and videogames. Sadly, Kate hadn’t done her homework while replying to the fans. Ouch.

i dont really care about this game at all, but i dont really see anything wrong with what he said.

he said at 24fps people see fluid motion. he didnt say, you cant see any difference between 24 and 60.

this seems much ado about nothing.