Could you at least keep reading... Ive responded to it.

Yeah it's weird cause the more framerate the more natural you see things.

This is a nice quote:

''Myelinated nerves can fire between 300 to 1000 times per second in the human body and transmit information at 200 miles per hour. What matters here is how frequently these nerves can fire (or "send messages").

The nerves in your eye are not exempt from this limit. Your eyes can physiologically transmit data that quickly and your eyes/brain working together can interpret up to 1000 frames per second.

However, we know from experimenting (as well as simple anecdotal experience) that there is a diminishing return in what frames per second people are able to identify. Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second.

The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'. 120 fps is not a 'waste' (provided you have a 120hz monitor capable of such display). There IS a very noticable difference between 15 fps and 60 fps. Many will say there IS a noticeable difference between 40 and 60 fps. Lastly, the limit of the human eye is NOT as low as 30-60 fps. It's just not.

The origin of the myth: The origin of the myth probably has to do with limitations of television and movies. Movies, when they were recorded on film reel, limited themselves to 24 frames per second for practical purposes. If there is a diminishing return in how many frames people can claim to actually notice, then the visual difference between 24 fps and 60 fps could not justify DOUBLING the amount of film reel required to film a movie.

With the advent of easy digital storage, these limitations are mostly arbitrary anymore.

The numbers often cited as the mythological "maximum" the eye can see are 30 fps, 40 fps, and 60 fps.

I would guess the 60 fps "eye-seeing" limit comes from the fact that most PC monitors (and indeed many televisions now) have a maximum refresh rate of 60hz (or 60 frames per second). If a monitor has that 60 fps limit, the monitor is physically incapable of displaying more than 60 fps. This is one of the purposes of frame limiting, Vsync and adjusting refresh rate in video games.

tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps.''

''The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.''

Re-watched both conferences and I still stand by my position that Microsoft won, but I was definitely over grading it because of nostalgia versus what we actually saw; I'm talking about Psychonauts 2, Stalker 2, and Fable. I'm actually not as excited for Halo as others and don't think it really captures classic halo. I also am growing cold on the grapple hook the more I think about it. I still think Medium was really interesting with its concept and I'm getting silent hill vibes which is why I'm excited for that.

Yesterday I'd have given it 8/10, but I'm bumping it down to 6/10 and keeping my grade of the Sony conference at 4/10.

Ratchet, Horizon, Spiderman, Resident Evil 8, Gran Tursimo 7, Demon Souls... 4/10?

Well it's your opinion I guess. xD

I have no idea why owners of 24 month console exclusive Tetris Effect will wait six months for a free update. Maybe Sony didn’t write a big enough check? Who knows. 

It’s weird how Nintendo “won” e3 by showing a logo for Metroid Prime 4 but Xbox gets nailed for CG trailers.

Since when did gameplay become a requirement? Horizon FW was in engine and I don’t recall much backlash as say Forza is getting. I didn’t need to see gameplay of Avowed to be blown away...because Obsidian is a master at their craft. Fable and Hellblade 2 gameplay would have been nice, but we know Hellblade 1 was awesome and Fable will at the very least have the charm of its legacy games.

It’s almost like people just buying themselves time to hate on Xbox, because these are all games that have a high chance to actually deliver once released.

You're not wrong, I called out the MP4 logo being a "megaton" as BS when it happened, and people argued that it would launch the next year when all they had to show was a logo, not even a CGI trailer.

I still remember Rol saying - "You think Nintendo are so desperate they would show 2019 games?" and look where we are now. People saw just a logo that could be knocked up in a day but expected Nintendo to deliver.

There wasn't that much gameplay footage in the Xbox event, but personally I'm not overly bothered by that.

How do you sell a new system if you don't show its capabilities? 

From a sales standpoint I think it was very weak. Didn't make me want to buy a new console, didn't make me wanna play almost anything. Halo showed us some minutes of gameplay which will be available on the current gen.

They marketed Series X as the most powerful console, where did they show that? They could've AT LEAST show some Hellblade 2 gameplay.

"But Halo was never about great graphics" "Halo is about gameplay". Ok, then why you need the so called most powerful console? 

I'm watching it now...
First on Halo Infinite, I have to say even Ratchet and Clank looked more impressive on the graphic technical side. I was underwhelmed =[, and sincerely didn't see the power of Series X being used from ground up. Face models itself didn't look better than even current gen games like TLOU2 or heck even GoT.
Will say that with State of Decay 3 I was a lot more impressed and it have a good looking demo presented. Not on the level of Horizon 2 Forbidden West imho, but well we need to see more on both, but so far it seemed good.
Phill Spencer can't get enough of his "the most, better, biggest, powerfull console yet" =p, strange that he says FM was captured fully in engine but didn't say the same for the previous 2 titles.
Forza looks great as expected, still is the single IP MS have been able to deliver with consistency on quality. It was a very short trailer so I'll wait DF comparison, if they make one, on how it and GT7 compares to one another, I expect the power advantage of Series X to give a leg up to FM.
Everwild is pretty but look like an Indie game, I would expect that from Double Fine (it matches with their point and click DNA) but for Rare that is a let down.
Tell me why looks like a fine 8gen game with cartoony texture for facial model. Won't blame it on MS since it is a third party that they got for temp or full exclusive.
Well Ori being updated to run 120fps isn't unexpected at all, but it is a pretty game with nice elements/artifacts.
Outer Worlds Gorgon for me doesn't even look like a good 8gen game.
Grounded is an interesting idea, doesn't look like a next gen game, but I know my son is thrilled for it and that I loved the movie. But I swear it was already released by the quantity of youtube video my son watched on it already.
Avowed looks like a proper next gen game and looking good by Obsidian (congrats on having 3 very good games developed at the same time), and no wonder it won't release on a current gen platform (despite being revealed within the timeframe of the crossgen for the next 2 years). But it don't have a reveal date, so may be just a early show-off.
As dusk falls seems a pretty nice indie with point and click or choice based system.
Hellblade 2 have a lot of potential, no date yet, but studio still isn't that big, let's see how it will unfold.
Psychonauts 2, underwhelming to cut it short.
Stalker 2 looks fine, but we didn't see what type of game is it going to be did we? But since it is timed exclusive (something Phil said he doesn't believe in but we will find people forgiving him), doesn't really matter much.
Warhammer 4000, lukewarm but since not MS studio not their fault, also timed exclusive.
Tetris effects, meeehhhhh, also not MS fault, but timed exclusive.
The gunk, liked the colors, but seem like a forgetable game, again not MS fault and also timed exclusive.
The medium, graphics look gen 8, but I really liked the idea of the 2 renders simultaneously, need to see how they will make that work in the gameplay and if you need to solve puzzles or challenges in on side or the other or both at the same time, or have enemies/traps coming differently on both and need to deal at same time. Good concept. Another timed exclusive, so doesn't really give leverage to MS.
Phantasy Star Online 2, lookf like a very good gen 8 game, and sure there is a good fanbase for it, not sure if it being free to play will help or not sales of XSX.
CrossfireX, not that impressive, but timed exclusive, so much for the rumors that Sony was buying Remedy =p
Fable didn't show much, but well it was very pretty, seems like the rumors were true and Playground will do a fine entry on it. And the userbase will be happy with it, they have been waiting for quite a good time.

The show in a whole doesn't really seem better than PS5 event, and even had only Halo gameplay everything else is trailer of cutscene, similar to sony reveal. So good guy Phill wasn't telling the truth on back to back gameplay or 3rd party exclusives being bad right?

I wasn't wrong when I said I didn't expect this show to be better than PS5 event.

Thread is missing a pool for us to grade the event, mine is 7/10. Good show, but not as exciting and impressive as PS5 one was for me.

Nintendo has a 35 year legacy of quality, Metroid Prime is a critically hailed game franchise, and while Nintendo has low points, they have a whole lot more high points and have been knocking it out of the park ever since the Switch was released. 

None of the same things can be said of Microsoft. 

Again, these reveal trailers do not exist independent of the world they were shown to. There's a lot more that goes into whether or not something is impressive or not than just the trailers. Sure, the trailers are a huge portion of it, but you can't JUST assume the entirety of the reaction came from the trailers without any context. Microsoft has failed since 2010 with the last 5 years being the worst, Nintendo had a bad period but have been knocking it outta the park since 2017 and the last three  years have been some of their best. Worlds of difference between the two companies and their legacy and history.