interesting fact: killing floor 2 renders its weapon animations at insanely high framerates, so that when its slowed down, you can see individual parts moving.
Robert Harris one weird thing about framerate: movies traditionally play at 25 fps, which is still true today even though we can make it faster. When people make films like 'the hobbit' at 60 fps, the film looks too smooth to some viewers. To get an authentic movie feel, people actually prefer 25 fps.
Like me. My aunt has a high def TV but I just can't stand watching movies on it because it just seems so "fake." And when I say "fake" I mean it's as sort of a double meaning. Like it's fake because it looks too real. Or, rather, it looks about as cinematic as watching a play.
6:25 If you're looking for a recent real life example of this, on the pc version of Dark Souls 2 at 60 fps, weapons degraded twice as quickly. Basically your weapon degrades every time your weapon touches something during its active frames; twice as many frames means twice as much degradation. And weapon degradation was already a problem at 30 fps, haha.
Mocho, some games are affected by FPS variations, mostly due to lazy coding. There's the aforementioned Dark Souls 2, Payday 2 has AI calculations and max vehicle speed tied to FPS, Nuclear Throne is locked to 30 because pretty much everything there is tied to frames (the game would literally run 2x as fast at 60). Most games don't do this, but some absolutely do. I'll take PC over consoles any day, but it's not good to pretend that framerate variance doesn't ever affect anything
Personally, I've always felt that *_consistent_* framerate is most important. Sure, 60fps and above is _great_, don't get me wrong. But I've never felt that being "stuck" at 30fps was so bad, so long as it's a _consistent_ 30fps.
+Paradox Acres It is sluggish. The human eye can see past 24 or 30 FPS easily. So if you play the same game at 2 different FPS then it will feel sluggish.
129das Depends on the person, really. I think Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, for example, (infamous for being so aggressive & hard to please, where games are concerned) actually said he prefers 30fps over 60. So it actually depends on the person. It's kinda like Cars: some people don't mind not having a super-fast, sports car with all the upgrades.
+Paradox Acres Did Yahtzee say that? Pretty sure he said 30fps can appear smoother if 60fps can't be maintained - which is the point you made. It's a point I agree with - started playing Arkham Knight recently (still not properly patched at this point) and trying to run the game at 60fps makes for a lot of stuttering and dips whereas it feels pretty damn smooth at 30fps because of the consistency. To begin with it feels a little sluggish, especially if I have just come from playing a 60fps game, but I find I quickly adapt to the lower framerate. If I can run a game at 60fps then I will always pick that over 30fps but if not I am more than happy to lock it to 30.
+129das Checked google to see if this is bullshit, here's the answer. "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."
***** I honestly can't remember Yahtzee's exact words, but..yeah, he's infamous for being one of the few people who actually likes 30fps. I know what you mean. What's the point of 60fps if it constantly dips & stutters. No matter if it's 30fps or 60fps (or higher), the most important thing is that the framerate's consistent & smooth.
+Scrustle i doubt that frame rate would be explicitly mentioned in the contract, but it has certainly happened that the contract said that the pc version was not allowed to be technically superior, wwhich inherently meant, no super-HD texture sets, no fancier lighting shaders and in some cases no high fps option
+Scrustle of course they are real. People get pretty annoyed when they see that the PC version looks and plays way better because everything is smoother.
+Scrustle I think lack of optimization on the port is a big reason, too. So I wouldn't start assuming every time it happens, its some sort of back room deal.
Yeah, as was already said, the exact words "don't you dare alter the framerate" would never be in the contract. but "don't you dare change the game from the console version" would be, so if they're not allowed legally to upgrade of update the game, they won't. better to release a bad port than get sued.
+Scrustle Those parity agreements are likely there for content and gameplay. Like "the character's powers can't be more awesome in other other platform" or "aiming/walking/running must feel as good as any platform".
I spent many more hours on UA-cam (30fps and 60fps) and PC games than watching 24fps movies, that's why I did not think 48fps Hobbit looked strange to me. There is a thing called "soap opera effect" where the smoothness of higher frame rates are associated to soap opera. I don't watch soap opera.
But cinema is a form of art, so why is realism so eagerly defended when it comes to cinema? I don't see people defending ultrarealistic paintings, so why should people defend movies being ultra realistic in the sense of movement and flow? As I see it, motion blur and other artifacts related to lower framerates have kind of become an artistic element of cinema (or at least some genre of cinema). The same can be said about games that have realistic graphics, which after all, try to replicate what we see in movies in terms of cinematography because we're already used to its artistic aspect in movies
Considering realism was for a long time the holy grail for both sculptures and paintings I don't think you can just say that realism isn't important. And ultra realistic paintings are a thing which are pretty well known.
+akimboDEEZ I do to but I also disable Depth of field if possible because I hate blurry things. If i wanted to see blurry things I would remove my glasses.
AZERTY HuitCinqDeux How i forget about DoF, Yup i disable everything that makes it blury. With the exception of film-grain or vignette depending on how they game looks with it.
+akimboDEEZ Likewise. DoF too. I like to look at my whole screen. I don't focus only on what's in the middle and I don't want to wait for my fake eyes to adjust to turning around when my real eyes have already adjusted. Everything on screen matters to me.
My two cents: First and third person games should never be locked at anything lower than 90. It makes people sick and others cramped and claustrophobic. And also, console devs, please give FOV options on console versions. Some people (like me) have a setup where their TV is the same distance from them as a PC monitor would. Right now my TV and monitor are equidistant, so it's much easier on the eyes to have 90 FPS.
+Inventor Raccoon Bungie in particular is really bad about this. The Halo games always had pitiful FOV, and the same is really true of Destiny right now. It's their favorite performance saver trick, along with the large weapon models, but it's always so disorienting in PvP, and CQC PvE.
+Inventor Raccoon the reason that fov is so low on console game is because when you're across the room, it feels more natural than if you're up close, this is the target demographic (people on couches across the room) vs pc which is usually slightly more than arms length away, try playing quake at max fov and sitting across the room
+Inventor Raccoon what monitor do you have, if you don't have a 120/144hz+ monitor then running higher than 60 fps on a 60hz monitor only has slight benefits, vsync off and about 75 fps being thrown at a 60hz screen makes a sort of 15 frame stability buffer, but it doesn't show more than 60 fps
***** I know that. That's the target. However, there are people who literally cannot buy your game because they cannot play it without getting sick. Also, woops, I typed FPS instead of FOV.
+Solkia2010 Yes 60Hz is the widest spread standard but 30 is also used a lot. Until recently youtube was limited to 30fps max. HDMI was limited to 30fps for resolutions higher than 1080p, later on they boosted it to 1440p and recently the latest HDMI standard can do 4K at 60fps but next to no device supports it yet. Today still most digital TV broadcasting(DVB-T DVB-C) is in 30fps so its not going anywhere and for a good reason. That is because 30fps is a nice round fraction of 60 while at the same time being the lowest framerate that people still think of as being smooth. (For once we are trying to leave behind that legacy PAL and NTSC of 25fps and 29.97fps and interlacing and all that crap that should just die already)
This is why PC games have a menu for graphics settings. Want ALL the fancy world detail? Crank em way up. Want to stay above 60 fps no matter what? Turn a few things that barely make a difference off. Simple as that.
+berni8k unless im playing unreal tournament i go for the best graphics i can at 45 fps. I would like to note that i have a 120hz monitor so i see a lot more of my 45 frames than someone with a 60hz screen does so it doesnt bother me nearly as much.
+Brendan Forish Yeah 120fps monitors will reduce stutter caused by not having your framerate glued to 60 since having them refresh faster means the next finished frame doesn't have to wait as long to be shown. I personally like to drop my settings a little to get 60. Some settings make pretty much no visual difference but might take a lot of gpu power. I have a decent PC (gtx770 and a i7 4790K) but modern games do take quite some ooomph to get then going 60 at max settings.
you forgot to throw in resolution, too. I always like to balance so that I can run it at 60 fps with 1440p resolution, and see where that lands me in terms of visual quality.
The higher the framerate, the less eyestrain games will cause, because the eyes and brain have to work less to bridge the gaps between the frames. At frame rates above 100 or so, the eyestrain is zero, and you can game for hours without negative effects. :D Anyone who hasn't tried frame rates above 60 should really try it. It's reaaaaallly cool.
There's more to eye strain than fps: distance from display, blue light level, ambient light, pixel density and more. If those factors were perfect while playing a 30fps game you wouldn't get eye strain because of the framerate
My Monitor usually runs at 60 which is probably the optimal Framerate if you’re building an entry-level or mid-range rig seeing as it’s cheap and realistic, but for some reason, if i turn off or enable certain settings, some games apparently run at far more. I have a problem where UEBS peaks at around ~9000 FPS when it’s loading, which is really weird.
Nice to hear someone talking about this issue without getting frothy and aggressive about it. I've always wondered the basic technical behind the scenes stuff, but people don't want to get into that. They wants their frames forget you all.
+Extra Credits I'm not 100% on this at all, but couldn't another reason that The Hobbit might have looked slightly off for some people was the fact that the scenes were shot with 3D in mind? I don't think its fair to say that the "weirdness" of the Hobbit was due only to the framerate since a lot of the scenes that were shot for 3D looked particularly over-bloomed with colour when viewed without 3D technology. Not that the framerate difference couldn't have looked weird to some people, but I think its fair to put in the distinction when talking about a general oddness of something, since talking about weirdness or oddness is very ambiguous and might lead some people to attribute the "weirdness" that they felt only to the framerate, rather than other aspects that also might have appeared off to them.
+Ste ik Well, I've seen old movies that have been adjusted to 60fps (or the TV shows them at 60fps) and they still look weird to me. We have been watching TV and movies for all of our lives on 24fps, and our brains expect them to feel in a certain way. When the image on the screen appears more "life-like" than your brain expects it, there is a cognitive dissonance, a difference between what you expect and what you get, and thus the weird feeling. Quite sure that generations that grow up watching TV or playing games with higher fps will feel different about it
Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez I'm sorry for not coming across clearly, but my argument isn't at all that no one could possibly be unused higher framerates in T.V. or film. Instead I'm saying that the claim "the reason The Hobbit feels weird is FPS" doesn't leave enough room for other points about why it might seem weird, namely the 3D to non-3D issues or indeed any possible reason for such weirdness. Kristafer Vale I understand that it might not seem weird to all audiences, that's not a problem. If some people saw it and the majority didn't see the "weirdness" at 24 fps then that's fair enough. But the statement still stands that absolute statements about something as nebulous as weirdness shouldn't be put down to a single factor, even if the vast majority of people agree with such a statement. It causes people who saw weirdness for another reason to question their own interpretation, which is unfair I would argue.
I'd actually argue for games that require quick timings should have higher framerates than 60fps. Take Geometry Dash for example. Easier levels might not require that quick of a reaction time, but harder levels like insane or extreme demons absolutely do, especially for levels oriented around timing. The extra frames you get to see when upgrading from 60fps to say 120fps can be the difference between hitting an obstacle or surviving. I've also heard that higher framerates help in CS:GO, it being whether or not you're able to react to an opponent, but I've never actually played CS:GO so I can't say anything on it.
Changing my monitor from a 60hz to a 144hz made me a better player at FPS games. My aim accuracy went up a huge and noticeable degree. Put a controller in my hand with autoaim and give me 30fps? That's like telling sprinters they have to race on their knees and they aren't allowed to lift them off the ground.
***** No difference in input lag at all, both 1ms. The image is smoother so I land my hits on targets more often. There is lightboost on this thing but I rarely use it. If I'm running a game in stereoscopic 3D and take the glasses off for a bit it's enabled and fairly noticeable. I can't say I can tell a huge difference between 120hz, 144hz and 160hz. But 144 > 60 by a landslide.
+scarfacemperor actually 30 fps is a more average visual fps , when a movie has only 24 fps they usually use motion blur to smoothen it out wich works fine if used at just the right times , not like games do
Jonathan Park which conveniently makes less pixels to calculate per second. That's one of the things I hate about console gaming : you don't have the choice of the settings.
+Qawn LELEK That's also b/s, human eye doesn't see in "FPS" and can detect the difference between much higher framerates than either 24 or 30 (or 60). scarfacemperor most likely mocked at the people who believe all of that PR damage control of people who say 24 FPS is as high as we can notice (and the same goes for people who say it about 30 FPS).
+scarfacemperor The human eye can see over 24 FPS, 24 FPS is just the border between, "Oh, I'm looking at a slideshow." and "Oh, I'm seeing a smooth continuous image."
I _hate_ motion blur. I've refused to play games that didn't have an option to turn it off. I saw The Hobbit in HDR and it was _wonderful_ - well, the film sucked, but it looked great - and I'm looking forward to 48frames becoming the norm.
Oh, and v-sync is usually on my default? I can't even remember the last 360 game that even had it. It's one of the reasons I've never wanted a console. Most of the games I see (and this purely anecdotal) suffer frame tearing and look awful.
+Inquisitor M Mostly agree. I don't have any particular problems with motion blur though. Obviously it depends how well it's done. But if you actually flick your head from side to side as quick as you can in a shooter (on pc. with a mouse.) your vision will blur. Interestingly, when you are focusing on a screen that is stationary relative to your eyes, even with a really fast moving in game camera, your vision won't blur like it would in the real world. Because of this, games can look very fake on pc. With a gamepad it's not such a big problem because you can't move the camera around as quickly. Maybe motion blur isn't as good as it needs to be yet, but I think once they get it right it will much better for immersion. (it will probably be particularly important in VR)
+LionShard That one I don't really get unless you have a very wide screen or 3 monitor setup or something. And as a developer, a wide range of field of view is a nightmare, especially for a first person game. You have to make sure that your animations look good all the time and don't clip through the screen.
+foufoufun0 Most games have the view model field of view separate from the world field of view. Also, many people get simulation sickness from low fields of view. On top of this, an fov slider wouldn't really matter on a 3 monitor setup, as fov is represented by the degrees you would see on a 4:3 monitor. On a 16:9 monitor you could see more than 90 degrees if your fov is set to 90.
reaching 60fps > graphics More than 60fps < graphics But if your PC can run every game on ultra at 4k and 144hz, don't even think about lowering anything.
@@detachsoup6061 content =/= melodramas for make girls cry. content = games which you will still playing trough entire decades, and if with mods, better.
I know this is a year old, but that point you made at the end is how i feel about 4k gaming. 1080p is great number. We should be working to make things look amazing at that level. Its the sweet spot for canvas sizes, and i would love to see developers have full creative control within the limitations of 1080p 60fps, rather than stretching the canvas and then having to prioritise resources all over again.
Frame rate is more important than raw graphics for me. I game mostly on a laptop, so one of the first things I do when playing a new game is fiddle with the video settings to find what leaves me with the smoothest experience. Because if I have to choose between really nice graphics but occasional immersion-shattering slowdown/stuttering, or "meh" graphics but no slowdown at all, the second option is much more immersive for me. Actually, unless the game I'm playing absolutely NEEDS nice shadows, I slam that setting down to the lowest possible setting first. I actually couldn't bring myself to play Dark Souls on my old laptop (even with the fix) because it stuttered frequently, and it just outright ruined any possible immersion.
+Aegix Drakan to me it depends on what im playing. In eltie dangerous i crank every thing up without a care in the world, i use gimballed weapons so low fps does not affect my gameplay at all. But when im playing Unreal Tournament i set everything to low because frames matter in that game
+SafetySkull I wish game devs could take advantage of the higher limits. I'm saying that as a console gamer because I suck at computers and grew up in a family where "download" meant "get virus"! XD
When I tried running skyrim on my 144hz monitor I discovered that It's physics are tied to the framerate, and as soon as its above 60 fps (you gotta force off Vsync in your gpu drivers) the physics just go berserk. when i played the intro the carriage spun wildly around the horse.
+Korey D I renember when a game on SNES, Mega Drive and Dos used to be quite different. One good Example is Alladin or another is Rayman, the PS1, Saturn and Dos versions had different backgrounds, music and even cage locations on each version. Imagen the new Tomb Raider being way different on PS3, 360 and PC nowdays. If these contracts didnt exist you'd be getting that.
+Pavol “Zero86Sk” Almassy You wouldn't get major differences because nowadays these games are developer on very high-level engines and development environments with the sole purpose of being compatible and able to output executable packages for multiple major platforms (one popular example is Unity). Back in the day games were mostly developed in low level programming languages with much more specific instructions for each architecture, and often development teams had at least one developer for each platform, each developing a conceptually similar but totally different code in practice. So whenever one platform was drastically different or weaker (Amiga for example), or whenever a port for a specific platform was decided upon later in development, it'd mean basically rewriting the whole game from scratch on a completely different platform using different toolkits. Hence the many differences. There's a very interesting set of interviews of game developers on Double Fine's UA-cam channel, the first one is an hour long playthrough with the game designed behind the 1994 Lion King video game. He talks precisely about that and it's a very interesting watch if that interests you or anyone else here.
+Korey D Of course they are real. People get pretty annoyed when they see that the PC version looks and plays way better because everything is smoother. When it happened in the last console generation publishers always deflected and said "the consoles are x years old, they just can't do it". When the current gen came out (XBone/PS4) and it became apparent they still couldnt handle 1080p@60fps the big console corporations, especially MS, started paying off 3rd party devs/publishers to not work on enhanced/unlocked editions for PC releases.
Fun fact, the standarization of 24 FPS happened because of sound. Before "the talkies", framerates were set on a movie by movie bases. 8, 12, 18, whatever suited the particular movie (was there a lot of motion, or mostly slow, paning shots?). When sound was introduced, it was recorded on a little strip at the sides of the film. When Moe slaps Curly, you need that slap to happen just as the frame where Moes hand connects to Curlys face is shown; at 12 FPS, that slap sound could occur up to 1/12th out of sync with what is being displayed; that was enough to sound wrong. 24 FPS was the lowest framerate where the sound was in sync well enough to not be distractingly wrong.
in farcary 3 as well. In towns, you can play knife throwing games with money (not real, just in game money to buy weapons...) and when you're trying to aim, there's a jiggle, so you need to constantly move you mouse in order to aim properly, but i noticed that if the framerate is higher, the jiggle is faster and stronger XD so if i wanted to make easy money, i just had to crank the graphics to the max, have a 20 fps, have almost no jiggle and win every game, and when going into action, lower the graphics, having fps above 60 and voilà XD
the part he explains about vsynce helped me fix my monitor issue cause i forgot at one point turn it off and forgot to switch it back. this channel keeps making my life better.
+Andy Azael Though economics still come into play. If your game doesn't need quick reflexes, like, say, Journey, then prioritizing visual fidelity will probably improve user experience more than 60fps.
+Andy Azael If you are talking about motion blur then you're wrong. Motion blur is important because that's how our eyes see things in the real world. You can see motion blur every time you move your eyes quickly or see something else move quickly.
Cinematic look is only achived when you film the video from real life in 24 frames per sec, you won't get that from a game because it's mechanically different. I'm with you, I have no idea why this argument is a thing 0_0... But I must say that not all games need 60 fps. I got annoyed when dark souls came to pc without 60 fps, but I wouldn't cry if "Tomas was alone" is locked in 30 fps.
+Atticus Zed Titanfall actually had a similar glitch at launch. The higher your framerate, the faster your gun would shoot. It was later patched out though.
+Atticus Zed Dark souls 2 does something like that if i remember right, something to do with poison damage hurts you more at higher frames because there are more ticks or something.
I love that a Koopa Troopa was used for that "damage tied to frame rate" thing mentions, which is funny because now we can just point to the steam port of Vanquish and just say "THAT!!!"
Can you do a video about the success of Super Smash Brothers Melee as a competitive fighting game? not only is this game far from typical, it has survived a dedicated competitive community patch-less for 14 years. Hell, the biggest Melee tournament of all time was earlier this year. There has to be something special there.
Graphics are nice but to me it's just a money sink. FF13 had great graphics, does that make it a good game? no. it was boring because the gameplay sucked. we as consumers really need to stop being impressed by the flashy graphics in trailers and basing our purchase on that, otherwise we are just going to continue to get great looking games that play like ass.
+BitSmall People can make their own decisions on what they want. If they were so upset over the experience they were ultimately given, then that'd show in future sales. Your opinion doesn't necessarily mirror the majority.
+LX I would argue, however, that most of the gaming public simply isn't educated on framerate. I used to love the flashiest graphics; I thought that made a game. Higher framerate? Who needs it, stop whining you elitists. But once I got a PC that could handle higher framerates, my opinion immediately changed. I don't go so far to say games that are locked at 30 are unplayable. But 60 is objectively better, smoother, and prettier, even with worse graphics. It's easier on the eyes from a aesthetic and mechanical level. But I would have never known had I learned about framerate first hand. And only very recently are current gen consoles making AAA games that run at 60, the Last of Us remake being a good example where console users can see the side-by-side difference. I feel like many opinions will change as more devs for console begin using higher framerates.
Chris Fox So basically you write off people disagreeing with you by saying they just don't know better. Better framerate is better. As it is with anything visually. Better lighting is better. Better physics are better. Better textures are better. Its about balancing, and 60fps isn't so important to everyone that it needs to be on the top of the priority list.
***** you misunderstand me. by "graphics" i mean actual graphics, like textures, particle-effects, models, and light rendering. not fps. spending money on developing high fps is fine because it enhances the gameplay by increasing responsiveness. I know this is a video about fps so i can understand why you'd misinterpret what i mean by 'graphics'. I was commenting more on 7:45 than the rest of the video. sorry for not making this clear.
+keyblader007 Pixel Density is essentially the difference. Look at the pixels in an Atari game or Minecraft. Higher resolutions are essentially just making those individual pieces smaller and smaller for higher degrees of representation.
Those are resolutions, basically the number of pixels that are displayed to the screen. The i or p at the end stands for either Interlaced or Progressive. The former displays every other line of each frame (saving bandwidth), while the latter displays the whole image every frame.
+Kiddy Dong I know all that but it's still confusing. I'd love to see Extra Credits explain it in their simple answer style with pictures and examples. Like I said I researched this a lot but still don't get all the pieces.
+CaitSeith I appreciate that but I don't want explanations, I just want Extra Credits to see my comment and follow up with a video one day. Nothing more.
+keyblader007 What's so hard to understand? The numbers only refer to the number of pixels rows on screen (except 4K which is the number of pixel columns, thanks Sony smh).
...seriously? SERIOUSLY? How is _this_ a debate over which there is so much hatred and rage? If you prefer to run at 60+, that's fine. Do that. If you like to save money/processing power by playing at 30, do that. Don't worry about what other people are doing with the settings on their games. I legitimately do not understand why this comment section is such a flame war.
***** I've seen so many people who have been arguing for 60fps here also try and marginalize people who have different tastes in gaming than them. its pretty pathetic.
+CommandoDude Well, I don't play many twitch-based games (because I tend to freeze up in tense situations rather than instinctively react), but I would definitely agree with the people saying that higher framerates make for a better gaming experience, at least with reaction-heavy games. Look, take something like Minecraft (and yes, I am aware that that game runs badly on most systems, but bear with me). I've played it on my old PC and gotten about 30 frames on average, sometimes worse, and, when it's at 30 frames, it's playable but it does, indeed, look like I'm playing a television show. I've played it on my newer desktop and gotten 60 frames or more, and it feels and looks better. Most of the other games I play are either well-optimized for older systems or are free rougelikes; so, I don't have much else I can compare with. Even with that, it is noticeable going from one to that other. And heck, both my mother and my father have noticed that sometimes, when we watch television at other people's homes or look at the televisions playing at Walmart, the images on them move in a fast, bizarre fashion due to increased frame rate on some modern televisions (though they don't know why the weird movement happens...). Neither of them have ever played anything beyond some Wii games with my younger sibling and Bejeweled, and they can see it.
The debate started again because some marketing guys (looking at you Ubisoft) literally said that 30fps are better for some genres like Action/Adventures and 60fps make the experience worse, which is just plain nonsense. 60fps make a game run smoother and to some people thats better, which makes the whole subject actually subjective. To me, higher framerates make games more enjoyable and I can actually notice strain on my eyes when i play something below 60. I dont say 30 fps is bad, its servicable but nothing to write home about. Saying that 30 fps could be better than 60 in some games to me is just nonsense though.
Raphael Schwarz I could see 30fps potentially looking better for something like Heavy Rain, but that was basically an interactive movie; so the whole '24 frame comfort zone' thing would apply. For most other games, the frame rate either doesn't matter or it looks better at 60.
I looked all over and couldn't find a link but I saw a science documentary several years back where videos of action, car racing, boxing etc were show to audiences at different frame rates. All i remember is that the study showed a significant higher excitement level, faster heart rate etc. The higher the frames per second. it caped off at 120fps but the difference was significant.
A great example that you miss are rythm games. The feeling of gameplay and input on time on those games are way too much important. Developing one of this games made my team decide that keeping 30fps was the right way to do it.
+MyChico333 lol ya i did a rant but decided to take it down but it was just talking about 30 not bad if the game is story not fancy like the last of us or fall out because story is important to me witcher and dragon age they are pretty but the story isn't 30 or 60$ game i would buy because i am not into the settings
Finally got you on my recommended list! I saw some videos drone you forever ago and forgot to subscribe and I've been trying to find your channel ever since! And now youtube finally put your channel on my recommended :D
I think you might have a mistake at 4:45.... Most monitors refresh rates are 60 hertz. As long as the monitor isn't super old it probably has a 60 hertz refresh rate.
+gameguy301 I'll the PS4 version eventually but for the sake of beating game to avoid internet spoilers, I'll have play the inferior PS3 but it's still fun nonetheless with fultons, mother base, cardboard boxes, etc.
gameguy301 So even though it always said "PS4 version" on all the demos, Who the hell made you believe that the specs on a PS4 and PS3 would be the same for this game? Your wallet?
Stephen Mc Devitt Kojima is one of the five developers I trust to make me buy a video game system just for the experience of their games. Saved up not just for the game, but the system so I wouldn't get hit with spoilers. But this game is as long as Peace Walker, may be even more, Back to mother base....
shindean look you said "across all consoles" if you cant remember your own post i cant help you. I was just pointing out that was wrong. and no im not playing on PS3, I'm playing on PC so I can play at 1440p at 60FPS.
i love this channel. side note* your voice reminds me SO MUCH of that one teacher elf on the movie Elf with will Ferrell. All i'm hearing during this episode is: "alright before we learn about the newest in extreme graphic chip processors, lets recite the code of the elves"
+KNG Gamer Intel what satellite said, they made vsync sound like something you want to be enabled in every game without mentioning many downsides. The worst thing about vsync is the inoput lag which makes your movement very sluggish in fps or third person games.
Funny thing actually about the per-frame calculation hilarity, I tried playing Skyrim on 120FPS (on a 120Hz monitor) and noticed that every time I entered a room or loaded objects in a room, they would literally fly everywhere as if they were shot out of a gun, sometimes killing me or other NPCs. I couldn't figure out what the hell was causing it until some searching, and when I reduced my framerate to 60 the problem stopped happening. I decided that 120Hz wasn't worth the trouble and gave the monitor to my brother after that.
+Jykinturah Sparkle It's only like that for a handful of games, mostly rushed console ports. These days the vast majority of devs have realized it's a bad idea to tie game logic to FPS.
Hyperdimension: Silica Exactly, nobody cares about the actual game anymore and most games nowadays tell you what to do and are very linear, and there's no walking off the path, games play themselves nowadays.
What are both of you two talking about? For one I’ve seen very few people say they buy a game for the graphics, most people agree harangues are nice but not important. As for the linear thing, what? Most games are sprawling open worlds now, years ago your claim would of made more sense. But even then the claim that linear is bad is shortsighted, sure some people don’t like linear games, fair enough, but that’s a big leap from playing themselves.
+Vaiin Heaven many games do... many games have unlocked (variable) FPS as an option, or even available options to lock it at 120, 300 and so on. Variable FPS + V-Sync on a monitor with 144Hz = 144fps. I'm disappointed that Extra Credits didn't mention the Euler method....
Vaiin Heaven A lot of games lock at 60 or 120 and sometimes I can't get that frame rate anyway, but less modern or 2d games can often get that frame rate.
I just hate people who say the only way to play USA 60 FPS, we played on 30FPS before, what's the problem now, I understand it's nice it's just makes me mad when FPS hors say the only to play game is at 60 FPS or ur a peasant, and that any game w/ less should burn, people need to stop being picky
Some people can get pretty judgemental, yeah. But they have a valid argument. In gaming, 60fps is objectively better than 30. Does that mean all games that don't run at 60 are bad? No. But if you have an agenda to make games more user friendly, nagging developers when they don't meet that mark is a method of consumer protest.
Yes 60 FPS is good, but I don't like when people say EVERY Game has to have 60FPS or its for peasant butt suckers, I like 60 FPS and yes I like it, but people who judge almost strictly on 60 Frames make me mad,
+Chris Fox (heychrisfox) true, I'm ok w/ 60 FPS as a standard for FPS games, action games etc. but puzzle games, platformers, just annoying how people judge almost only on FPS "not 60 FPS, games bad 0/10" is what annoys me, like how local co-op was straight up removed from halo 5 to keep it at 60 FPS all the time, which they could just keep local campaign at less and keep it at 60 for every else, that's what makes me mad when FPS hors get features cut out so it's at a perfect 60 FPS, so I just don't like people judging games on FPS or getting features cut for 60 frames!
Michael Brocaglia Unfortunatly a lot of time and budget that could go into such decision making instead ends up focusing on platform optimization and pushing tech that probably shouldn't be pushed on certain platforms.
I remember back in 1999 when I was taking programming class, I experimented with instruction call cycles tied with Clockspeed, timer, and refresh rate. I knew then that relying on timer was the best solution. Even me as a kid knowing that, developers today still chooses to do otherwise boggles my mind.
I've never been too concerned with framerate, unless it goes so low as to make it nauseating or unplayable. Gamers today are kind of spoiled...you only ever hear "Is 30fps good enough?" or "60fps or bust." (I hadn't seen far enough into the video to see that latter phrase stated verbatim.) You never hear "this game has major framerate drops" or "there's a lot of slowdown at these points" anymore. It shows how game makers have more or less perfected stopping (or hiding) framerate drops and slowdown. Remember the original N64 release of Banjo-Tooie, how it needed the Expansion Pak because the Nintendo 64's built-in RAM and CPU couldn't handle it? The game STILL often dipped down to 8 or even 4 frames per second at certain points. And then there's Epic Mickey. Every single version of that game had not only framerate drops any time more than four enemies were onscreen, but the game would slow to half its regular speed, especially in Mean Street and the jungle areas of Pirates of the Wasteland.
This really reminds me of when Dark Souls 2 got upgraded to new consoles and weapons and armor broke twice as fast due to the game running at 60 FPS as opposed to the original 30 FPS
+CommandoDude No, people could tell. My parents and I noticed that the newer televisions showing movies at Walmart looked weird compared to our television at home, and we didn't realize until much later that differing frame-rates were the cause. We may not have known what the problem was, but we noticed it.
On some games, yes, on some games, no. Dont talk to me under 60 fps if im playing csgo, But i dont care about the fps in a game like world of warships.
bigtryguy "buggy, broken game like Minecraft." One, bugs are the things known as Seeing through walls without hacks on or glitching through a block. And if it was broken, explain to me why it has over 24 million active users and half of youtube in some-way-shape or form involved with minecraft. Also, this name of mine is extremely outdated. Sure, still play minecraft but thats less than 10% of my game time. Most of its games like Armored warfare, GTA 5, Gmod, Diep.io (now, diep is actually harder than it seems....) CS:GO (bet ya a penny ya will die 50 times at that frame rate while i'll be 360 no-scoping you no problem) And some more that are on my steam list that i dont play much. 15 fps i can do Armored warfare, Gmod, CS:GO and GTA 5 just fine. If i get 15 fps on diep chances are i will get a different kind of lag that is just plain annoying that makes my want to throw my computer at my window (aka, Decent framerate but when i press w, my tank dosnt move, gets killed, not because of my fps, because of my slow-ass internet.) So all of you bettered drop stereo types because they are nothing but based on the tiny things that dont affect things much or the bottom 5% of a community.
First Minecraft is extremely buggy (both those you used as examples are present, plus many many more) and broken as is seen by attempting PvP combat with anyone without low ping. Buggy or broken doesn't necessarily mean not fun, otherwise Goat Sim wouldn't be a thing, however, in some of the particularly broken games (including Minecraft) give large advantages to those with low ping through things like not calculating knockback while the player is lagging. Not saying Minecraft is not enjoyable, what I'm saying is playing many games with low FPS is less of a feat then playing them normally, and is certainly not something to brag about.
My laptop was designed to be top-of-the-line for games...three years ago. Even so, it chugs when trying to run Skyrim at faster than 10 fps. I had to buy a cooling table just to keep it from melting itself from the inside out. I ended up getting very good at fighting things at 15 fps, out of necessity.
Fun fact: Undertale, you know, that indie darling from last year? It's stuck at 30 fps permanently because Toby Fox programmed a bunch of stuff to calculate per-frame, because it was his first complete game project. Oops.
If I can play it and it looks nice, I don't care what fps it is. If people start demanding everything has to be locked at 60 FPS, they better be willing to pay to upgrade my rig to run that stuff.
+L. Wolf Downgrading from current hardware is bound to make people angry, especially if it is to pander to a smaller audience. Also, just because a game is locked at 60, doesn't mean you have to be running it at 60. Most games with higher frame rates give the option to lock at 30 or 60 or unlimited. Also, don't demand people to buy you shit just because they want to push standards.
+L. Wolf People usually complain about having any sort of lock. What they should be doing is including options to lock the framerate at whatever number the player wants as well as an option to keep the framerate unlocked. In fact, that's how pretty much all non-console port PC games work.
VintageLJ I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "locked". If you can switch it to 30 or unlimited, then it's not really locked now is it?
60Hz is the standard for pretty much every monitor on the market (Not sure about TVs?) so yes: Every game should AT LEAST support (give the option) 60FPS! It's objectively better for games edit: graphics are most important in pre-release advertisement material sure. A 30 fps trailer looks smooth like a movie. Only when you play it yourself can you feel the lag.
I do appreciate the diversity within the drawn characters in all your episodes. For League of Legends, anything below 60fps is painful but the worst thing imaginable is flcutuating frame rates cuz it looks like shitty call of duty lag.
I wonder why they didn't mention that some people think that the human eye cannot physically see the difference between 30 and 60fps when you clearly can. And if a game is outside of the two factors you said when limiting the FPS (cant release a different version than console, or the game is tied to FPS) why cant a game on PC have graphics and FPS? Why does it need to be locked? Take for example the newest Toy Soldiers game, Warchest. for a while that was locked at 30fps on PC. The previous versions of that franchise ran at 60FPS on my rig, and I know that one could have too, but they still locked it. Then after a couple weeks they unlocked it to a cap of 60, which is great. point is, if my rig can handle playing the game at 60fps, and its not bound to the 2 things mentioned, why cap it to 30 at all? Also, i can still see a clear difference between 45fps and 30. its not nearly as noticeable as 30vs60 but I can clearly tell when a game is starting to drop from 60 but not yet hit 30, and I can also tell when a game that averages at 30 goes up a little but does not reach 60. So only being able to tell the difference when the numbers are in multiples of 30 seems false to me. That or I have very sensitive eyes
+Mr. Person It could be that you have a monitor that's not locked to show frame rates in multiples of 30. Which is why you might notice a difference like that. The whole 45 dropping to 30 and not noticing argument was built around the fact that some monitors are locked to only display frame rates in multiples of 30.
+Mr. Person My guess for your locking fps at 30 question is this. If you set the bar lower (30 fps), you don't have to optimize as much. Optimization can be a lot of minute, tedious work which can thus be very expensive. If you just say, "Eh, 30 is good enough, let's ship it" you can be saving a lot of money. Depending on the type of game, this is fine, not everything needs to be 60 or higher (please don't kill me). However for games that focus on action, combat, or fast motion, in my opinion, higher fps is better.
+Jeremiah Shelton No modern monitor works like that. Their argument was based on a development decision to ONLY show 30 FPS or less. So if a game is really running at 45, the game will still only display 30. That way, if it drops from 45 to 30, you won't see it because the output of the display hasn't changed at all. This can only happen if a game is locked to a certain framerate, not the monitor itself.
+TheEmeraldboy100 no it should be why, framerate is very subject to diminishing returns. Once you get to the 120 mark the difference between it and 60 is negligible in terms of player perception but is twice as strenuous on the GPU in regards to rendering. Same goes with resolution, there's a reason HD TVs looked amazing while 4K TVs just look slightly better.
+JamesFLivingstone 4K TVs do show more detail, you can tell between grains of sand, shades of grass, foliage, droplets, etc. It might sound frivolous, but it is indeed a clearer image. Imagine a Pikmin game in which you could easily tell between each single Pikmin.
Vvonter oh no there is a difference for sure, but that difference in perception when compared to say the jumps between a 480p image and 720p is far less noticeable. 4k resolution takes four times the rendering power of 1080p but (IMHO) does not offer enough of a step up to justify that render cost for the GPU or economic investment for the game creator or consumer. I guess if you love 4K enough to spend money on an expensive screen and GPU, and are also economically well off enough to feel comfortable making that investment then absolutely go do that, more power to you, but do realise you are a niche in the market and that if devs and publishers don't cater to you it is because the majority of consumers don't see that as a reason to buy.
***** I don't own a 4K TV since while nice, the issue they have it's the content. There's not a lot of 4K content yet, and little that there is expensive. My point was it' s a step up regardless of how much of step it is, I can see a difference and I think as games are getting more detailed 4K resolution could help that detail stand out. Like for example Castlevania LoS or Bayonetta have very detailed enemies, but some of that detail is lost because of how far the camera does pan out. I'm sure one day it'll be more common since there's a difference.
Vvonter well it becomes a race of economics at that point, as engineers develop 4k TVs at cheaper costs they will sell at cheaper prices and so the accosiated risk of selling the product will be reduced making production more viable and thus the cycle repeats. Thing is from a development stand point you DO need that reduced risk otherwise your spending development resources on a feature that won't drive significant sales nor be experienced by more than a slither of your audience, it may be sad but its also kinda neccesary, for the time being anyway.
The "frame rate tied to calculation" issue happens with NFS Rivals. Unless you change some settings apart from just the frame rate limit, physics go crazy.
Semi Zero Gravity Undertale is a pixel story driven slower paced game. It doesn't require high fps. Fps matters in games which are higher pace such as racing games or shooters.
Alina It would give you a huge advantage, but there is a very slight difference. You won't notice it unless you've been gaming for a while. Higher refresh monitor basically redraws and renders pixels faster. High refresh monitor + a computer that can run games on high fps = Smooooth.
Once you go 60, you can NEVER go back. A very good number of people have probably never taken the time to see the difference, or have never actually experienced it before. That's why graphics matter more when sales are considered. People look at screenshots for games and don't wonder if the game play itself will be what they want, rather how shiny the gun is. The same goes for higher multiples of 30, but 60 is the bare minimum for a smooth experience so you'd be needlessly paying more to play at 120 fps or something ridiculous like that.
+DarthVaizard I've played at both. 60 is better, just not THAT much better with the sacrifices that are made to make it happen. Only people who think 60 is the bare minimum are those who have gorged themselves on it to the point 30fps feels weird. Millions play at 30fps without a concern in the world, so its certainly an issue on your side over anything else.
+DarthVaizard On a similar note, once you go 144 HZ monitor with a graphics card capable of reaching those marks, you can never go back to 60. It's a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.
+LX Seriously, what sacrifices? I've seen this pop up a few times with the whole 'it's too much of an effort to optimize it' thing, and to that I ask... *why*? If you are making video game, you should be making sure that it runs as best as it can. Yes, there comes a point where it is impractical to optimize any more, but developers should at least try to make their game run well. Besides, if they can get it to run around 60, even just at peak, all the better for people with below-average systems, who might be about to run it at 30.
George Andrews I'm talking about consoles and other systems with set hardware. Once you get into variable hardware, optimization becomes a million times more complicated.
+DarthVaizard I always play at 80-90 fps so in case my computer goes crazy for a moment the fps will still be above 60, that way i can play without noticing anything strange. I mostly play Mobas so that doesn't require too much anyways.
I love the quality and art style of these videos :D I've been binge watching them all and i just want to say thank you for supplying such fascinating information!
so, it's not game-play that's affected by the frame-rate, but the player's skill is. however, devs should target a STABLE frame-rate rather than a high one...
Thanks for making that episode. I never understood other gamers' obsession with framerate at all. On my old PC, my favorite game usually ran between 7 and 13 FPS and it was noticable that it wasn't as fluent, but it played fine despite being an action RPG. Sometimes it dropped to 3 FPS, which was unpleasant but not unbearable if it was just for short moments.Then I got my new gaming PC, and now I can run it at over 100 FPS, but honestly, everything above 15 looks the same to me ._. So I limited it to 60 FPS, but it's all just the same to me...
Yeah, if I turn motion blur off in some games, the game looks just... weird. Unnatural. Motion blur when making quick turns looks nice in a shooter, even if it's a slight disadvantage. If I were ultra competitive, sure, I'd probably turn them off. But stylistically, it makes the game look transitionally smoother, if not more crisp.
+RPGgrenade simulated motion blur relies on our understanding of how the eye percieves motion down to any framerate, play a source game and play with motion blue on that, that feels far better than most titles, and it's very lightwieght
+lizardclaw11 I don't. I've had to turn it off before, though that was just with one game and it may not have been implemented well. Or it could just have been the motion blur combined with my vision problems.
I was quite surprised that you didn't mention this, so here i am. Now, i understand that this can be a little bit hard to understand, but it's pretty nice to know. As you said, on the computer the images need to be rendered and that's a key word. From a programmer point of view, the game is a program that actually never ends unless the user choose to do so or the machine was shut down. This is pretty easy to understand, just think about this for a second. If you don't choose to exit from like a menu, you could stay there forever. This means that a videogame in simple terms is just a loop. This means that at the very very very basic code of a videogame there must be a loop which refresh the game. Usually, at the end of the loop after all calculations have been done the image gets rendered/refreshed. This means from an hardware point of view that FPS are just how many times the computer can execute the loop in one second. However i love your videos and keep up with the good work, these are just some technical stuff :p
+Inhimilis Logical fallacies don't make something wrong. It is possible, and probably easier, to do exactly what I suggested. Your suggestion has a much easier approach that we already use.
Oooh, very good vid. Always wondered what the fuss about fps was. Though I still stand by content over graphics, hate motion blur in games, and feel like people complaining about low fps is a bit much. 20-30 is honestly good enough.
7:44 Sorry but that sounds dumb even for a business perspective... "Lets pour tons of money into graphics, that way we get more sales" yeah but you just blew a bunch of money to get better graphics, meaning you probably aren't making more money and quite possibly even losing some, compared to doing what you were doing already which is just working on the game and getting it running smoothly. A great example of this are AAA games such as the recent Tomb Raider, where they sold millions of copies yet we're still disappointed with sales... There's a major issue if you can sell around 10 million of something and barely break even.
The true reason is that dev companies don't want people who have both a PC and a console to buy the PC version of the game. So they cap the PC so there's no difference. That's why they lock the frame rate... so a player don't choose the PC version because it's better, making the PC basically a platform where only people without consoles play. Every one knows PC is a better platform in every way, but is also less lucrative, and less controllable for the companies. One good example is PES2016 where the PC version is the same as the PS3 and X360... and not the much better PS4 and Xone.
+Mateus Bittencourt "Better in every way"...if it weren't for console exclusives. I agree that the PC is much more consumer friendly as a platform, but the harsh reality is that there's a large chunk of games that just aren't available. Eventually, I just said "fuck it" and bought them all. Once I can finally afford a PS4, there shouldn't be a single game I'm not able to play! (aside from XB1, which I'm honestly indifferent towards)
interesting fact: killing floor 2 renders its weapon animations at insanely high framerates, so that when its slowed down, you can see individual parts moving.
Matthew Love thats smart.
Robert Harris one weird thing about framerate: movies traditionally play at 25 fps, which is still true today even though we can make it faster. When people make films like 'the hobbit' at 60 fps, the film looks too smooth to some viewers. To get an authentic movie feel, people actually prefer 25 fps.
Matthew Love thats literaly what the video said...
Robert Harris crap!!! its been so long since ive watched this video, i forgot about it!!!
Like me. My aunt has a high def TV but I just can't stand watching movies on it because it just seems so "fake." And when I say "fake" I mean it's as sort of a double meaning. Like it's fake because it looks too real.
Or, rather, it looks about as cinematic as watching a play.
"24 frames is what we know and love" Great now ubisoft are going to quote you for eternity.
Lucian Leesonja Isn't that for movies only?
+Holy Devil Lmao
Lucian Leesonja I think Ubi prefers something closer to ten frames per second.
I'm from Europe, and I know and love my 25 fps.
But you people from USA don't even get 24 fps, you actually have 23.976
A Pedo In a Speedo
Rainbow 6 Siege: Am I a joke to you?
6:25 If you're looking for a recent real life example of this, on the pc version of Dark Souls 2 at 60 fps, weapons degraded twice as quickly. Basically your weapon degrades every time your weapon touches something during its active frames; twice as many frames means twice as much degradation. And weapon degradation was already a problem at 30 fps, haha.
redrounin dang I guess that’s why my my weapons don’t degrade at all on my Nokia.
redrounin thats a joke right?
If it wasn't
FPS doesn't affect the game
Just what you see
It is still 60 frames in a second
Destiny 2 does this with physics calculations like NfS Rivals too
Mocho Gamer it does with dark souls because of the way it was programmed. It doesn't affect it for most games.
Mocho, some games are affected by FPS variations, mostly due to lazy coding. There's the aforementioned Dark Souls 2, Payday 2 has AI calculations and max vehicle speed tied to FPS, Nuclear Throne is locked to 30 because pretty much everything there is tied to frames (the game would literally run 2x as fast at 60).
Most games don't do this, but some absolutely do. I'll take PC over consoles any day, but it's not good to pretend that framerate variance doesn't ever affect anything
Personally, I've always felt that *_consistent_* framerate is most important.
Sure, 60fps and above is _great_, don't get me wrong. But I've never felt that being "stuck" at 30fps was so bad, so long as it's a _consistent_ 30fps.
+Paradox Acres It is sluggish. The human eye can see past 24 or 30 FPS easily. So if you play the same game at 2 different FPS then it will feel sluggish.
129das Depends on the person, really.
I think Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, for example, (infamous for being so aggressive & hard to please, where games are concerned) actually said he prefers 30fps over 60.
So it actually depends on the person. It's kinda like Cars: some people don't mind not having a super-fast, sports car with all the upgrades.
+Paradox Acres Did Yahtzee say that? Pretty sure he said 30fps can appear smoother if 60fps can't be maintained - which is the point you made. It's a point I agree with - started playing Arkham Knight recently (still not properly patched at this point) and trying to run the game at 60fps makes for a lot of stuttering and dips whereas it feels pretty damn smooth at 30fps because of the consistency. To begin with it feels a little sluggish, especially if I have just come from playing a 60fps game, but I find I quickly adapt to the lower framerate. If I can run a game at 60fps then I will always pick that over 30fps but if not I am more than happy to lock it to 30.
+129das Checked google to see if this is bullshit, here's the answer. "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."
***** I honestly can't remember Yahtzee's exact words, but..yeah, he's infamous for being one of the few people who actually likes 30fps.
I know what you mean. What's the point of 60fps if it constantly dips & stutters. No matter if it's 30fps or 60fps (or higher), the most important thing is that the framerate's consistent & smooth.
So those parity agreements are actually a thing? I just thought it was developers being lazy with their PC ports.
+Scrustle i doubt that frame rate would be explicitly mentioned in the contract, but it has certainly happened that the contract said that the pc version was not allowed to be technically superior, wwhich inherently meant, no super-HD texture sets, no fancier lighting shaders and in some cases no high fps option
+Scrustle of course they are real. People get pretty annoyed when they see that the PC version looks and plays way better because everything is smoother.
+Scrustle I think lack of optimization on the port is a big reason, too. So I wouldn't start assuming every time it happens, its some sort of back room deal.
Yeah, as was already said, the exact words "don't you dare alter the framerate" would never be in the contract. but "don't you dare change the game from the console version" would be, so if they're not allowed legally to upgrade of update the game, they won't. better to release a bad port than get sued.
+Scrustle Those parity agreements are likely there for content and gameplay. Like "the character's powers can't be more awesome in other other platform" or "aiming/walking/running must feel as good as any platform".
I spent many more hours on UA-cam (30fps and 60fps) and PC games than watching 24fps movies, that's why I did not think 48fps Hobbit looked strange to me. There is a thing called "soap opera effect" where the smoothness of higher frame rates are associated to soap opera. I don't watch soap opera.
Ming Tang This is it! Why don't more people bring it up?
i personally prefer to call it "alienation effect" in that only an alienated person can think a more natural movement flow is actually more unnatural.
But cinema is a form of art, so why is realism so eagerly defended when it comes to cinema? I don't see people defending ultrarealistic paintings, so why should people defend movies being ultra realistic in the sense of movement and flow? As I see it, motion blur and other artifacts related to lower framerates have kind of become an artistic element of cinema (or at least some genre of cinema). The same can be said about games that have realistic graphics, which after all, try to replicate what we see in movies in terms of cinematography because we're already used to its artistic aspect in movies
Considering realism was for a long time the holy grail for both sculptures and paintings I don't think you can just say that realism isn't important. And ultra realistic paintings are a thing which are pretty well known.
Ming Tang It's a little bit like switching from a 75Hz monitor back down to a 60Hz monitor. Or even more notable from a 120Hz one to a 75Hz one.
I ALWAYS disable motion blur.
+akimboDEEZ I do to but I also disable Depth of field if possible because I hate blurry things. If i wanted to see blurry things I would remove my glasses.
AZERTY HuitCinqDeux How i forget about DoF, Yup i disable everything that makes it blury. With the exception of film-grain or vignette depending on how they game looks with it.
+AZERTY HuitCinqDeux Oh? look at the ceiling fan or try moving your fingers rapidly. Motion results in blur in real life glasses or no.
Nothing like the artificial blur in games. Too much motion blur and I feel sick, too much DOF and I can't see distant enemies.
+akimboDEEZ Likewise. DoF too. I like to look at my whole screen. I don't focus only on what's in the middle and I don't want to wait for my fake eyes to adjust to turning around when my real eyes have already adjusted. Everything on screen matters to me.
Now do a video about FOV.
My two cents: First and third person games should never be locked at anything lower than 90. It makes people sick and others cramped and claustrophobic.
And also, console devs, please give FOV options on console versions. Some people (like me) have a setup where their TV is the same distance from them as a PC monitor would. Right now my TV and monitor are equidistant, so it's much easier on the eyes to have 90 FPS.
+Inventor Raccoon Bungie in particular is really bad about this. The Halo games always had pitiful FOV, and the same is really true of Destiny right now. It's their favorite performance saver trick, along with the large weapon models, but it's always so disorienting in PvP, and CQC PvE.
+Inventor Raccoon the reason that fov is so low on console game is because when you're across the room, it feels more natural than if you're up close, this is the target demographic (people on couches across the room) vs pc which is usually slightly more than arms length away, try playing quake at max fov and sitting across the room
+Inventor Raccoon what monitor do you have, if you don't have a 120/144hz+ monitor then running higher than 60 fps on a 60hz monitor only has slight benefits, vsync off and about 75 fps being thrown at a 60hz screen makes a sort of 15 frame stability buffer, but it doesn't show more than 60 fps
***** I know that. That's the target. However, there are people who literally cannot buy your game because they cannot play it without getting sick.
Also, woops, I typed FPS instead of FOV.
I need that 60fps Animal Crossing game XD
cyncynshop get a pc, emulate the game, mod it, and boom, animal crossing at 4k and 60fps
@@michaelscarn5625 Well, you'd need bigger textures and better models... but yeah.
Ray tracing too
wait until march 2020
Double yee haw
In what universe is 30Hz a standard refresh rate? A majority of monitors run at 60Hz. Specialized Monitors run at 120-144Hz
TVs can run at 30 cuz up until recently there wasn't much content above that rate. This is changing though and 30 is being fazed out.
+bensemus x
30HZ introduces an annoying bobbing to the image on screen. It begins to hurt the eyes.
+bensemus x
30Hz introduces an annoying bobbing to the image on screen. It begins to hurt the eyes.
+Solkia2010 Yes 60Hz is the widest spread standard but 30 is also used a lot. Until recently youtube was limited to 30fps max. HDMI was limited to 30fps for resolutions higher than 1080p, later on they boosted it to 1440p and recently the latest HDMI standard can do 4K at 60fps but next to no device supports it yet.
Today still most digital TV broadcasting(DVB-T DVB-C) is in 30fps so its not going anywhere and for a good reason. That is because 30fps is a nice round fraction of 60 while at the same time being the lowest framerate that people still think of as being smooth. (For once we are trying to leave behind that legacy PAL and NTSC of 25fps and 29.97fps and interlacing and all that crap that should just die already)
berni8k refresh rate isn't the same as framerate. you can have a 30FPS game/show/movie on a 60Hz refresh rate.
This is why PC games have a menu for graphics settings. Want ALL the fancy world detail? Crank em way up. Want to stay above 60 fps no matter what? Turn a few things that barely make a difference off. Simple as that.
+berni8k unless im playing unreal tournament i go for the best graphics i can at 45 fps. I would like to note that i have a 120hz monitor so i see a lot more of my 45 frames than someone with a 60hz screen does so it doesnt bother me nearly as much.
+Brendan Forish Yeah 120fps monitors will reduce stutter caused by not having your framerate glued to 60 since having them refresh faster means the next finished frame doesn't have to wait as long to be shown.
I personally like to drop my settings a little to get 60. Some settings make pretty much no visual difference but might take a lot of gpu power. I have a decent PC (gtx770 and a i7 4790K) but modern games do take quite some ooomph to get then going 60 at max settings.
you forgot to throw in resolution, too. I always like to balance so that I can run it at 60 fps with 1440p resolution, and see where that lands me in terms of visual quality.
The higher the framerate, the less eyestrain games will cause, because the eyes and brain have to work less to bridge the gaps between the frames. At frame rates above 100 or so, the eyestrain is zero, and you can game for hours without negative effects. :D
Anyone who hasn't tried frame rates above 60 should really try it. It's reaaaaallly cool.
If I had the computer
There's more to eye strain than fps: distance from display, blue light level, ambient light, pixel density and more. If those factors were perfect while playing a 30fps game you wouldn't get eye strain because of the framerate
Yea,I play at 120ish fps,played on my sister's laptop and I couldn't believe how unresponsive/micro laggy 60 fps felt
Ps I play cs
let me just buy an expensive af PC to not experience eyestrain
My Monitor usually runs at 60 which is probably the optimal Framerate if you’re building an entry-level or mid-range rig seeing as it’s cheap and realistic, but for some reason, if i turn off or enable certain settings, some games apparently run at far more. I have a problem where UEBS peaks at around ~9000 FPS when it’s loading, which is really weird.
Nice to hear someone talking about this issue without getting frothy and aggressive about it. I've always wondered the basic technical behind the scenes stuff, but people don't want to get into that. They wants their frames forget you all.
New episode! Frame rate explained in 8 minutes. #ExtraCredits
+Extra Credits I'm not 100% on this at all, but couldn't another reason that The Hobbit might have looked slightly off for some people was the fact that the scenes were shot with 3D in mind? I don't think its fair to say that the "weirdness" of the Hobbit was due only to the framerate since a lot of the scenes that were shot for 3D looked particularly over-bloomed with colour when viewed without 3D technology.
Not that the framerate difference couldn't have looked weird to some people, but I think its fair to put in the distinction when talking about a general oddness of something, since talking about weirdness or oddness is very ambiguous and might lead some people to attribute the "weirdness" that they felt only to the framerate, rather than other aspects that also might have appeared off to them.
+Extra Credits thats 9 minutes(8:57)
+Ste ik Well, I've seen old movies that have been adjusted to 60fps (or the TV shows them at 60fps) and they still look weird to me. We have been watching TV and movies for all of our lives on 24fps, and our brains expect them to feel in a certain way. When the image on the screen appears more "life-like" than your brain expects it, there is a cognitive dissonance, a difference between what you expect and what you get, and thus the weird feeling. Quite sure that generations that grow up watching TV or playing games with higher fps will feel different about it
Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez I'm sorry for not coming across clearly, but my argument isn't at all that no one could possibly be unused higher framerates in T.V. or film. Instead I'm saying that the claim "the reason The Hobbit feels weird is FPS" doesn't leave enough room for other points about why it might seem weird, namely the 3D to non-3D issues or indeed any possible reason for such weirdness.
Kristafer Vale I understand that it might not seem weird to all audiences, that's not a problem. If some people saw it and the majority didn't see the "weirdness" at 24 fps then that's fair enough. But the statement still stands that absolute statements about something as nebulous as weirdness shouldn't be put down to a single factor, even if the vast majority of people agree with such a statement. It causes people who saw weirdness for another reason to question their own interpretation, which is unfair I would argue.
+Extra Credits LOL BLIGHTTOWN.
Fighting games for example in which have to react possibly every time. Has to always be 60fps
Tony Peluso racing games too.
I'd actually argue for games that require quick timings should have higher framerates than 60fps. Take Geometry Dash for example. Easier levels might not require that quick of a reaction time, but harder levels like insane or extreme demons absolutely do, especially for levels oriented around timing. The extra frames you get to see when upgrading from 60fps to say 120fps can be the difference between hitting an obstacle or surviving. I've also heard that higher framerates help in CS:GO, it being whether or not you're able to react to an opponent, but I've never actually played CS:GO so I can't say anything on it.
i have a pentium 4. 20 fps is like heaven to me xD.
rip
420
did you OC it yet? from what i remember they can OC quite a bit.
g4560 is great.
Damn... Do you want some build tips? I can help you build a cheap system.
Great pictures in this one:
"24...30...60..100..why?!"
6:03
Changing my monitor from a 60hz to a 144hz made me a better player at FPS games. My aim accuracy went up a huge and noticeable degree.
Put a controller in my hand with autoaim and give me 30fps? That's like telling sprinters they have to race on their knees and they aren't allowed to lift them off the ground.
+anonymous They are both 1ms 1080p displays. The difference is easy to feel when you're doing something you're very familiar with.
***** No difference in input lag at all, both 1ms. The image is smoother so I land my hits on targets more often. There is lightboost on this thing but I rarely use it. If I'm running a game in stereoscopic 3D and take the glasses off for a bit it's enabled and fairly noticeable.
I can't say I can tell a huge difference between 120hz, 144hz and 160hz. But 144 > 60 by a landslide.
+anonymous You obviously need hardware that's capable of running a high FPS. Consoles don't support it at all.
***** You're wrong.
***** You're massively wrong. I know because I've tested it. Seeing the difference between 120 and 144 can be harder, but 90 and 120 is huge.
But but but... the human eye can not see over 24 FPS, it's more cinematographic ! That guy from Ubisoft said so !
+scarfacemperor actually 30 fps is a more average visual fps , when a movie has only 24 fps they usually use motion blur to smoothen it out wich works fine if used at just the right times , not like games do
The order 1886 logic: 24 fps and black bars wakes the game more "cinematic"
Jonathan Park which conveniently makes less pixels to calculate per second.
That's one of the things I hate about console gaming : you don't have the choice of the settings.
+Qawn LELEK That's also b/s, human eye doesn't see in "FPS" and can detect the difference between much higher framerates than either 24 or 30 (or 60). scarfacemperor most likely mocked at the people who believe all of that PR damage control of people who say 24 FPS is as high as we can notice (and the same goes for people who say it about 30 FPS).
+scarfacemperor The human eye can see over 24 FPS, 24 FPS is just the border between, "Oh, I'm looking at a slideshow." and "Oh, I'm seeing a smooth continuous image."
I _hate_ motion blur. I've refused to play games that didn't have an option to turn it off. I saw The Hobbit in HDR and it was _wonderful_ - well, the film sucked, but it looked great - and I'm looking forward to 48frames becoming the norm.
Oh, and v-sync is usually on my default? I can't even remember the last 360 game that even had it. It's one of the reasons I've never wanted a console. Most of the games I see (and this purely anecdotal) suffer frame tearing and look awful.
+Inquisitor M XB360 games dont usually have a setting for it so one can only assume its always on.
+Inquisitor M Games with Motion Blur, V-sync and without a FOV slider should be banned
+rodrigopaim82 V-Sync isn't a bad thing. Usually you can turn it off, which makes it a non-problem. Locking at 30 is horrible, though.
+Inquisitor M Mostly agree. I don't have any particular problems with motion blur though. Obviously it depends how well it's done. But if you actually flick your head from side to side as quick as you can in a shooter (on pc. with a mouse.) your vision will blur. Interestingly, when you are focusing on a screen that is stationary relative to your eyes, even with a really fast moving in game camera, your vision won't blur like it would in the real world. Because of this, games can look very fake on pc. With a gamepad it's not such a big problem because you can't move the camera around as quickly. Maybe motion blur isn't as good as it needs to be yet, but I think once they get it right it will much better for immersion. (it will probably be particularly important in VR)
This explains why today's best looking games have no content
without witcher 3
+Jannis G. *Excluding
Huzi37709 sry, my english isn't the best.
+Jannis G. It's ok :)
cought cought driveclub cought cought
Next episode - FOV sliders!
+LionShard TB would be proud.
+LionShard That one I don't really get unless you have a very wide screen or 3 monitor setup or something. And as a developer, a wide range of field of view is a nightmare, especially for a first person game. You have to make sure that your animations look good all the time and don't clip through the screen.
+LionShard I actually like this idea.
+foufoufun0 Most games have the view model field of view separate from the world field of view. Also, many people get simulation sickness from low fields of view.
On top of this, an fov slider wouldn't really matter on a 3 monitor setup, as fov is represented by the degrees you would see on a 4:3 monitor. On a 16:9 monitor you could see more than 90 degrees if your fov is set to 90.
+LionShard That would be cool. I NEVER understood the hubbub about FoV and never mess with it myself.
reaching 60fps > graphics
More than 60fps < graphics
But if your PC can run every game on ultra at 4k and 144hz, don't even think about lowering anything.
Content>graphics
@@detachsoup6061 content =/= melodramas for make girls cry.
content = games which you will still playing trough entire decades, and if with mods, better.
PC > Console
I know this is a year old, but that point you made at the end is how i feel about 4k gaming.
1080p is great number. We should be working to make things look amazing at that level.
Its the sweet spot for canvas sizes, and i would love to see developers have full creative control within the limitations of 1080p 60fps, rather than stretching the canvas and then having to prioritise resources all over again.
1920x1080 120 fps, perfection in play
@@jonathanhamstra3319 Perfection only if you can't afford or choose not to buy a 1440p monitor for whatever reason
My sweet spot is 1440p/144hz
Frame rate is more important than raw graphics for me. I game mostly on a laptop, so one of the first things I do when playing a new game is fiddle with the video settings to find what leaves me with the smoothest experience.
Because if I have to choose between really nice graphics but occasional immersion-shattering slowdown/stuttering, or "meh" graphics but no slowdown at all, the second option is much more immersive for me. Actually, unless the game I'm playing absolutely NEEDS nice shadows, I slam that setting down to the lowest possible setting first.
I actually couldn't bring myself to play Dark Souls on my old laptop (even with the fix) because it stuttered frequently, and it just outright ruined any possible immersion.
+Aegix Drakan It is 50/50 for me but I like to run my games at 60 if I can.
I'm ok dude
+佳楽冴子夜 shadows are crazy noticeable, i still turn them off most of the time, but when they are on it makes a big difference.
+Aegix Drakan to me it depends on what im playing. In eltie dangerous i crank every thing up without a care in the world, i use gimballed weapons so low fps does not affect my gameplay at all. But when im playing Unreal Tournament i set everything to low because frames matter in that game
+Aegix Drakan Why not build a desktop PC than trying to strain your poor laptop with games?
6:07 There it is. Yet another example of people playing consoles somehow affecting PC gamers.
+SafetySkull I wish game devs could take advantage of the higher limits. I'm saying that as a console gamer because I suck at computers and grew up in a family where "download" meant "get virus"! XD
Anti Skillshot You only need to look to Arkham Knight to see how consoles can affect PCs.
Well back in the Windows XP days "download" really did mean "get virus"
XP was great and all but its security flatout sucked.
I love playing on my console BUT why on earth would you cap the PC version? That's just fucking stupid
+SafetySkull Not "people playing consoles" but "fuckwads owning console companies".
When I tried running skyrim on my 144hz monitor I discovered that It's physics are tied to the framerate, and as soon as its above 60 fps (you gotta force off Vsync in your gpu drivers) the physics just go berserk. when i played the intro the carriage spun wildly around the horse.
Vsync is better turned off unless you're actually experiencing screen tearing because it causes input delay.
On DMC5, turning V-Sync on will increase the framerate.
Those contractual agreements actually exist? Christ...
+Korey D I renember when a game on SNES, Mega Drive and Dos used to be quite different. One good Example is Alladin or another is Rayman, the PS1, Saturn and Dos versions had different backgrounds, music and even cage locations on each version. Imagen the new Tomb Raider being way different on PS3, 360 and PC nowdays. If these contracts didnt exist you'd be getting that.
+Korey D well, console manufactures are kind of whiny bitches when it comes to the notion of parity, so yes.
+Korey D Yeah, they do. And they are one of the main reasons why consoles do so well despite their utterly inferior hardware.
+Pavol “Zero86Sk” Almassy You wouldn't get major differences because nowadays these games are developer on very high-level engines and development environments with the sole purpose of being compatible and able to output executable packages for multiple major platforms (one popular example is Unity).
Back in the day games were mostly developed in low level programming languages with much more specific instructions for each architecture, and often development teams had at least one developer for each platform, each developing a conceptually similar but totally different code in practice. So whenever one platform was drastically different or weaker (Amiga for example), or whenever a port for a specific platform was decided upon later in development, it'd mean basically rewriting the whole game from scratch on a completely different platform using different toolkits. Hence the many differences.
There's a very interesting set of interviews of game developers on Double Fine's UA-cam channel, the first one is an hour long playthrough with the game designed behind the 1994 Lion King video game. He talks precisely about that and it's a very interesting watch if that interests you or anyone else here.
+Korey D Of course they are real. People get pretty annoyed when they see that
the PC version looks and plays way better because everything is
smoother. When it happened in the last console generation publishers always deflected and said "the consoles are x years old, they just can't do it".
When the current gen came out (XBone/PS4) and it became apparent they still couldnt handle 1080p@60fps the big console corporations, especially MS, started paying off 3rd party devs/publishers to not work on enhanced/unlocked editions for PC releases.
what? The drop from 45 to 30 isn't invisible! It's actually extremely obvious.
Crowbar He said this is when v sync is on.
VauschthePuca when Vsync is on your framerate is locked to 30 fps or 60 fps. You cant have 45 with vsync on so what are you talking about?
Crowbar
Exactly. It's rendering at 45fps but you're seeing 30, so if the card's rendering dips to 30 you won't notice.
VauschthePuca the framerate is locked. The card is rendering at 30fps.
Crowbar That's not how it works, with v sync on you're only limiting what your monitor can display, not your gpu.
Fun fact, the standarization of 24 FPS happened because of sound. Before "the talkies", framerates were set on a movie by movie bases. 8, 12, 18, whatever suited the particular movie (was there a lot of motion, or mostly slow, paning shots?). When sound was introduced, it was recorded on a little strip at the sides of the film. When Moe slaps Curly, you need that slap to happen just as the frame where Moes hand connects to Curlys face is shown; at 12 FPS, that slap sound could occur up to 1/12th out of sync with what is being displayed; that was enough to sound wrong. 24 FPS was the lowest framerate where the sound was in sync well enough to not be distractingly wrong.
Gameplay linked to framerate?
"Cough" bethesda, "cough, cough", fallout 76
Dark Souls 1 is also synced to framerate for many things. Falling speed, speed of combat animations, etc.
in farcary 3 as well. In towns, you can play knife throwing games with money (not real, just in game money to buy weapons...) and when you're trying to aim, there's a jiggle, so you need to constantly move you mouse in order to aim properly, but i noticed that if the framerate is higher, the jiggle is faster and stronger XD so if i wanted to make easy money, i just had to crank the graphics to the max, have a 20 fps, have almost no jiggle and win every game, and when going into action, lower the graphics, having fps above 60 and voilà XD
6:45 "One calculation per frame, **one man machine gun**"
_War Flashbacks to Touhou Project 6-8 without VSync patch_
I've been binge watching your videos every since I found your channel yesterday and I can't believe you don't have more subs
same. but today.
Same but another year later
Same but 4 years later.
Same, but jearly 5 years later
6:38 one of the best animation moments of the series
the part he explains about vsynce helped me fix my monitor issue cause i forgot at one point turn it off and forgot to switch it back. this channel keeps making my life better.
60fps is objectively better than 30fps in video games... That "Cinematic Look" is just marketing non-sense.
+Andy Azael Though economics still come into play. If your game doesn't need quick reflexes, like, say, Journey, then prioritizing visual fidelity will probably improve user experience more than 60fps.
+Andy Azael yeah everyone knows 24 fps is way more cinematic ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)
+Andy Azael Yeah I need to play my Pokemon and Animal Crossing games in 60 fps. That is truly the only way to enjoy those games.
+Andy Azael If you are talking about motion blur then you're wrong. Motion blur is important because that's how our eyes see things in the real world. You can see motion blur every time you move your eyes quickly or see something else move quickly.
Cinematic look is only achived when you film the video from real life in 24 frames per sec, you won't get that from a game because it's mechanically different.
I'm with you, I have no idea why this argument is a thing 0_0...
But I must say that not all games need 60 fps.
I got annoyed when dark souls came to pc without 60 fps, but I wouldn't cry if "Tomas was alone" is locked in 30 fps.
Wow. That would actually be pretty funny to have an enemy's difficulty tied to how many frames per second your graphics card is processing.
+Atticus Zed That's more or less how many old DOS games ran and is the reason why old computers have the turbo button.
+Atticus Zed Titanfall actually had a similar glitch at launch. The higher your framerate, the faster your gun would shoot.
It was later patched out though.
+Atticus Zed Dark souls 2 does something like that if i remember right, something to do with poison damage hurts you more at higher frames because there are more ticks or something.
GoAwayGoogle Oh shit duuuuuude.
And the poison damage is a bitch already. D:
Good thing my processor is HORRENDOUS. :D
....
:|
+Atticus Zed i mean just enable vsync and youre good.
I love that a Koopa Troopa was used for that "damage tied to frame rate" thing mentions, which is funny because now we can just point to the steam port of Vanquish and just say "THAT!!!"
Can you do a video about the success of Super Smash Brothers Melee as a competitive fighting game? not only is this game far from typical, it has survived a dedicated competitive community patch-less for 14 years. Hell, the biggest Melee tournament of all time was earlier this year. There has to be something special there.
Graphics are nice but to me it's just a money sink. FF13 had great graphics, does that make it a good game? no. it was boring because the gameplay sucked.
we as consumers really need to stop being impressed by the flashy graphics in trailers and basing our purchase on that, otherwise we are just going to continue to get great looking games that play like ass.
+BitSmall People can make their own decisions on what they want. If they were so upset over the experience they were ultimately given, then that'd show in future sales. Your opinion doesn't necessarily mirror the majority.
+LX I would argue, however, that most of the gaming public simply isn't educated on framerate. I used to love the flashiest graphics; I thought that made a game. Higher framerate? Who needs it, stop whining you elitists.
But once I got a PC that could handle higher framerates, my opinion immediately changed. I don't go so far to say games that are locked at 30 are unplayable. But 60 is objectively better, smoother, and prettier, even with worse graphics. It's easier on the eyes from a aesthetic and mechanical level.
But I would have never known had I learned about framerate first hand. And only very recently are current gen consoles making AAA games that run at 60, the Last of Us remake being a good example where console users can see the side-by-side difference. I feel like many opinions will change as more devs for console begin using higher framerates.
Chris Fox So basically you write off people disagreeing with you by saying they just don't know better.
Better framerate is better. As it is with anything visually. Better lighting is better. Better physics are better. Better textures are better. Its about balancing, and 60fps isn't so important to everyone that it needs to be on the top of the priority list.
***** Thank you for proving my point with your testimony demonstrating how laughable the PC community can be.
***** you misunderstand me. by "graphics" i mean actual graphics, like textures, particle-effects, models, and light rendering. not fps.
spending money on developing high fps is fine because it enhances the gameplay by increasing responsiveness.
I know this is a video about fps so i can understand why you'd misinterpret what i mean by 'graphics'. I was commenting more on 7:45 than the rest of the video. sorry for not making this clear.
>the option over 100 is displayed as: why
Me with my 240 hz monitor: Ha, I don't know.
Do a graphics episode, 480p vs 720p vs 1080i/p and that vs 4K. Because I don't fully understand the differences despite hours of research.
+keyblader007 Pixel Density is essentially the difference. Look at the pixels in an Atari game or Minecraft. Higher resolutions are essentially just making those individual pieces smaller and smaller for higher degrees of representation.
Those are resolutions, basically the number of pixels that are displayed to the screen. The i or p at the end stands for either Interlaced or Progressive. The former displays every other line of each frame (saving bandwidth), while the latter displays the whole image every frame.
+Kiddy Dong I know all that but it's still confusing. I'd love to see Extra Credits explain it in their simple answer style with pictures and examples. Like I said I researched this a lot but still don't get all the pieces.
+CaitSeith I appreciate that but I don't want explanations, I just want Extra Credits to see my comment and follow up with a video one day. Nothing more.
+keyblader007 What's so hard to understand? The numbers only refer to the number of pixels rows on screen (except 4K which is the number of pixel columns, thanks Sony smh).
...seriously? SERIOUSLY? How is _this_ a debate over which there is so much hatred and rage? If you prefer to run at 60+, that's fine. Do that. If you like to save money/processing power by playing at 30, do that. Don't worry about what other people are doing with the settings on their games. I legitimately do not understand why this comment section is such a flame war.
+Jake Pillsbury Because PC master race children don't like the idea of people having different opinions
***** I've seen so many people who have been arguing for 60fps here also try and marginalize people who have different tastes in gaming than them. its pretty pathetic.
+CommandoDude
Well, I don't play many twitch-based games (because I tend to freeze up in tense situations rather than instinctively react), but I would definitely agree with the people saying that higher framerates make for a better gaming experience, at least with reaction-heavy games. Look, take something like Minecraft (and yes, I am aware that that game runs badly on most systems, but bear with me). I've played it on my old PC and gotten about 30 frames on average, sometimes worse, and, when it's at 30 frames, it's playable but it does, indeed, look like I'm playing a television show. I've played it on my newer desktop and gotten 60 frames or more, and it feels and looks better. Most of the other games I play are either well-optimized for older systems or are free rougelikes; so, I don't have much else I can compare with. Even with that, it is noticeable going from one to that other.
And heck, both my mother and my father have noticed that sometimes, when we watch television at other people's homes or look at the televisions playing at Walmart, the images on them move in a fast, bizarre fashion due to increased frame rate on some modern televisions (though they don't know why the weird movement happens...). Neither of them have ever played anything beyond some Wii games with my younger sibling and Bejeweled, and they can see it.
The debate started again because some marketing guys (looking at you Ubisoft) literally said that 30fps are better for some genres like Action/Adventures and 60fps make the experience worse, which is just plain nonsense. 60fps make a game run smoother and to some people thats better, which makes the whole subject actually subjective. To me, higher framerates make games more enjoyable and I can actually notice strain on my eyes when i play something below 60. I dont say 30 fps is bad, its servicable but nothing to write home about. Saying that 30 fps could be better than 60 in some games to me is just nonsense though.
Raphael Schwarz
I could see 30fps potentially looking better for something like Heavy Rain, but that was basically an interactive movie; so the whole '24 frame comfort zone' thing would apply. For most other games, the frame rate either doesn't matter or it looks better at 60.
I looked all over and couldn't find a link but I saw a science documentary several years back where videos of action, car racing, boxing etc were show to audiences at different frame rates. All i remember is that the study showed a significant higher excitement level, faster heart rate etc. The higher the frames per second. it caped off at 120fps but the difference was significant.
A great example that you miss are rythm games. The feeling of gameplay and input on time on those games are way too much important. Developing one of this games made my team decide that keeping 30fps was the right way to do it.
At the end of the day, smoother shit is still shit.
+MyChico333 lol ya i did a rant but decided to take it down but it was just talking about 30 not bad if the game is story not fancy like the last of us or fall out because story is important to me witcher and dragon age they are pretty but the story isn't 30 or 60$ game i would buy because i am not into the settings
At the end of the day, good looking shit is still shit as well. The smoother shit might at least feel better to control.
+cavemancolton At the end of the day, Both are shit and it's all about opinion
Chrono Trigger runs at 60fps and those menus feel great to navigate as a result.
+MyChico333 Smooth shit is smooth shit, everything else is constipation :D
Finally got you on my recommended list! I saw some videos drone you forever ago and forgot to subscribe and I've been trying to find your channel ever since! And now youtube finally put your channel on my recommended :D
I think you might have a mistake at 4:45....
Most monitors refresh rates are 60 hertz. As long as the monitor isn't super old it probably has a 60 hertz refresh rate.
+RyanTH98 Yeah, that mistake bothered me too.
+RyanTH98 Old monitors actually refreshed even faster - only the cheapest CRTs available refreshed at 60Hz, most could do 75 or 85Hz at least.
+RyanTH98 I think he was talking about TVs not monitors.
Kojima:
60 FPS across all consoles and PC
Yes, you can hate Konami for robbing us from a developer who wasn't locking the specs.
+shindean the 360 and ps3 versions are 30fps
just scroll to the bottom www.konami.jp/mgs5/tpp/jp/products/compare.php5
+gameguy301 I'll the PS4 version eventually but for the sake of beating game to avoid internet spoilers, I'll have play the inferior PS3 but it's still fun nonetheless with fultons, mother base, cardboard boxes, etc.
gameguy301
So even though it always said "PS4 version" on all the demos, Who the hell made you believe that the specs on a PS4 and PS3 would be the same for this game?
Your wallet?
Stephen Mc Devitt
Kojima is one of the five developers I trust to make me buy a video game system just for the experience of their games. Saved up not just for the game, but the system so I wouldn't get hit with spoilers.
But this game is as long as Peace Walker, may be even more,
Back to mother base....
shindean look you said "across all consoles" if you cant remember your own post i cant help you. I was just pointing out that was wrong. and no im not playing on PS3, I'm playing on PC so I can play at 1440p at 60FPS.
i love this channel.
side note* your voice reminds me SO MUCH of that one teacher elf on the movie Elf with will Ferrell. All i'm hearing during this episode is: "alright before we learn about the newest in extreme graphic chip processors, lets recite the code of the elves"
Thanks for exlaining vsync
+KNG Gamer Intel This wasn't a very good explanation of vsync. There are much better ones, search on youtube for them if you are interested.
+KNG Gamer Intel
what satellite said, they made vsync sound like something you want to be enabled in every game without mentioning many downsides. The worst thing about vsync is the inoput lag which makes your movement very sluggish in fps or third person games.
lampenpam Well I never knew that. ***** I think after I'm done revamping my YT channel I'll most probably look into this.
i actually love high frame rate movies and videos. to me, more frames is always better, no exceptions, especially in games
Thank goodness we have G-sync and VRR now, and displays can just show framed however fast they are being rendered.
Funny thing actually about the per-frame calculation hilarity, I tried playing Skyrim on 120FPS (on a 120Hz monitor) and noticed that every time I entered a room or loaded objects in a room, they would literally fly everywhere as if they were shot out of a gun, sometimes killing me or other NPCs. I couldn't figure out what the hell was causing it until some searching, and when I reduced my framerate to 60 the problem stopped happening. I decided that 120Hz wasn't worth the trouble and gave the monitor to my brother after that.
+Jykinturah Sparkle It's only like that for a handful of games, mostly rushed console ports. These days the vast majority of devs have realized it's a bad idea to tie game logic to FPS.
its really stupid that graphics are #1 priority..
Hyperdimension: Silica Exactly, nobody cares about the actual game anymore and most games nowadays tell you what to do and are very linear, and there's no walking off the path, games play themselves nowadays.
What are both of you two talking about?
For one I’ve seen very few people say they buy a game for the graphics, most people agree harangues are nice but not important.
As for the linear thing, what? Most games are sprawling open worlds now, years ago your claim would of made more sense. But even then the claim that linear is bad is shortsighted, sure some people don’t like linear games, fair enough, but that’s a big leap from playing themselves.
That hammer bro for the "calculations on the frame" thing might actually be more fitting than you think, depending on how they programmed it
phhhh 60? 144 fps for life.
+P3dotme Which game runs at that fps? holy shit
+P3dotme every steam forum complaining that their framerate dropped from 200 to 60...
+Vaiin Heaven many games do... many games have unlocked (variable) FPS as an option, or even available options to lock it at 120, 300 and so on. Variable FPS + V-Sync on a monitor with 144Hz = 144fps.
I'm disappointed that Extra Credits didn't mention the Euler method....
+P3dotme Preach brother
Vaiin Heaven A lot of games lock at 60 or 120 and sometimes I can't get that frame rate anyway, but less modern or 2d games can often get that frame rate.
I just hate people who say the only way to play USA 60 FPS, we played on 30FPS before, what's the problem now, I understand it's nice it's just makes me mad when FPS hors say the only to play game is at 60 FPS or ur a peasant, and that any game w/ less should burn, people need to stop being picky
P.S I'm not saying 60FPS is bad or we should Tay w/ 30, just stop judging games just because there FPS!
Some people can get pretty judgemental, yeah. But they have a valid argument. In gaming, 60fps is objectively better than 30. Does that mean all games that don't run at 60 are bad? No. But if you have an agenda to make games more user friendly, nagging developers when they don't meet that mark is a method of consumer protest.
Yes 60 FPS is good, but I don't like when people say EVERY Game has to have 60FPS or its for peasant butt suckers, I like 60 FPS and yes I like it, but people who judge almost strictly on 60 Frames make me mad,
+Chris Fox (heychrisfox) true, I'm ok w/ 60 FPS as a standard for FPS games, action games etc. but puzzle games, platformers, just annoying how people judge almost only on FPS "not 60 FPS, games bad 0/10" is what annoys me, like how local co-op was straight up removed from halo 5 to keep it at 60 FPS all the time, which they could just keep local campaign at less and keep it at 60 for every else, that's what makes me mad when FPS hors get features cut out so it's at a perfect 60 FPS, so I just don't like people judging games on FPS or getting features cut for 60 frames!
+佳楽冴子夜 I get it, but having stuff less for 60 FPS isn't a bad thing for some games!
I just love the Blighttown reference when talking about rendering nightmares.
I actually liked the fact the hobbit movies were at 48 fps
because im not a console peasant
no one cares what you play on go away.
NoodleTree 82 people care.
Elitist pc player being stupid. What else is new?
Classy Doctor It's funny how some people (preferably console peasents) take this joke far too serious.
ChaosNe0 I'm aware it's a joke, just in case you're wondering.
5:46
That's me literally all the time
Given the choice between 1080p with 30hz and 720p with 60hz I'd definitely take the 720p as long as it doesn't effect models or lighting.
i feel like devs need to focus on making a GOOD GAME before they make it all fancy
Michael Brocaglia Unfortunatly a lot of time and budget that could go into such decision making instead ends up focusing on platform optimization and pushing tech that probably shouldn't be pushed on certain platforms.
As a PC supremecist I refuse to play any game that runs at under 300 FPS.
So, you can't play crysis?
@@sonnyrynsaard3567 Pfft. That was four years ago. Today it's 3000fps or go home, son.
I remember back in 1999 when I was taking programming class, I experimented with instruction call cycles tied with Clockspeed, timer, and refresh rate. I knew then that relying on timer was the best solution. Even me as a kid knowing that, developers today still chooses to do otherwise boggles my mind.
I've never been too concerned with framerate, unless it goes so low as to make it nauseating or unplayable.
Gamers today are kind of spoiled...you only ever hear "Is 30fps good enough?" or "60fps or bust." (I hadn't seen far enough into the video to see that latter phrase stated verbatim.) You never hear "this game has major framerate drops" or "there's a lot of slowdown at these points" anymore. It shows how game makers have more or less perfected stopping (or hiding) framerate drops and slowdown.
Remember the original N64 release of Banjo-Tooie, how it needed the Expansion Pak because the Nintendo 64's built-in RAM and CPU couldn't handle it? The game STILL often dipped down to 8 or even 4 frames per second at certain points.
And then there's Epic Mickey. Every single version of that game had not only framerate drops any time more than four enemies were onscreen, but the game would slow to half its regular speed, especially in Mean Street and the jungle areas of Pirates of the Wasteland.
Where the fuck are you finding monitors with 30Hz limits? The standard is 60Hz
Charming_Prism
The past
This really reminds me of when Dark Souls 2 got upgraded to new consoles and weapons and armor broke twice as fast due to the game running at 60 FPS as opposed to the original 30 FPS
30 fps in games feels choppy.
30 FPS in fast paced games does, yes. But be honest would you notice 30fps as opposed to 60 in say, a match 3 game? Or a hidden object?
You would barely notice it in a turn based game
+Kyle Welch Match 3 game with those fancy animations? Likely yes.
+CommandoDude No, people could tell. My parents and I noticed that the newer televisions showing movies at Walmart looked weird compared to our television at home, and we didn't realize until much later that differing frame-rates were the cause. We may not have known what the problem was, but we noticed it.
+CommandoDude Dude, the average CS player can tell between 60 and 120. 30fps is obvious.
who else here can play almost any game perfectly fine at 15 fps? Now thats some skill if you perform good at a low fps rate.
It helps if you're on a buggy, broken game like Minecraft.
On some games, yes, on some games, no.
Dont talk to me under 60 fps if im playing csgo, But i dont care about the fps in a game like world of warships.
bigtryguy "buggy, broken game like Minecraft." One, bugs are the things known as Seeing through walls without hacks on or glitching through a block. And if it was broken, explain to me why it has over 24 million active users and half of youtube in some-way-shape or form involved with minecraft. Also, this name of mine is extremely outdated. Sure, still play minecraft but thats less than 10% of my game time. Most of its games like Armored warfare, GTA 5, Gmod, Diep.io (now, diep is actually harder than it seems....) CS:GO (bet ya a penny ya will die 50 times at that frame rate while i'll be 360 no-scoping you no problem) And some more that are on my steam list that i dont play much. 15 fps i can do Armored warfare, Gmod, CS:GO and GTA 5 just fine. If i get 15 fps on diep chances are i will get a different kind of lag that is just plain annoying that makes my want to throw my computer at my window (aka, Decent framerate but when i press w, my tank dosnt move, gets killed, not because of my fps, because of my slow-ass internet.) So all of you bettered drop stereo types because they are nothing but based on the tiny things that dont affect things much or the bottom 5% of a community.
First Minecraft is extremely buggy (both those you used as examples are present, plus many many more) and broken as is seen by attempting PvP combat with anyone without low ping. Buggy or broken doesn't necessarily mean not fun, otherwise Goat Sim wouldn't be a thing, however, in some of the particularly broken games (including Minecraft) give large advantages to those with low ping through things like not calculating knockback while the player is lagging. Not saying Minecraft is not enjoyable, what I'm saying is playing many games with low FPS is less of a feat then playing them normally, and is certainly not something to brag about.
My laptop was designed to be top-of-the-line for games...three years ago. Even so, it chugs when trying to run Skyrim at faster than 10 fps. I had to buy a cooling table just to keep it from melting itself from the inside out.
I ended up getting very good at fighting things at 15 fps, out of necessity.
Fun fact: Undertale, you know, that indie darling from last year? It's stuck at 30 fps permanently because Toby Fox programmed a bunch of stuff to calculate per-frame, because it was his first complete game project. Oops.
Elaine Wang What is the recommended programming method?
Elaine Wang a game like undertale doesn't even need 60fps anyway
Scientistic Thug Could be useful during the Sans fight.
the sans fight does 1 damage per FRAME that you touch the attacks, so if you can make the game's framerate drop, sans' dps is lowered.
Piklup OH? Exploit?
If I can play it and it looks nice, I don't care what fps it is. If people start demanding everything has to be locked at 60 FPS, they better be willing to pay to upgrade my rig to run that stuff.
+L. Wolf How about just make a decent engine and solid physics so they can stop worrying from the get-go?
Glampkoo
Because no matter what they do, gamers are never happy.
+L. Wolf Downgrading from current hardware is bound to make people angry, especially if it is to pander to a smaller audience. Also, just because a game is locked at 60, doesn't mean you have to be running it at 60. Most games with higher frame rates give the option to lock at 30 or 60 or unlimited.
Also, don't demand people to buy you shit just because they want to push standards.
+L. Wolf People usually complain about having any sort of lock. What they should be doing is including options to lock the framerate at whatever number the player wants as well as an option to keep the framerate unlocked. In fact, that's how pretty much all non-console port PC games work.
VintageLJ
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "locked". If you can switch it to 30 or unlimited, then it's not really locked now is it?
60Hz is the standard for pretty much every monitor on the market (Not sure about TVs?) so yes:
Every game should AT LEAST support (give the option) 60FPS! It's objectively better for games
edit: graphics are most important in pre-release advertisement material sure. A 30 fps trailer looks smooth like a movie. Only when you play it yourself can you feel the lag.
+Iorveth Wait, if movies are at 24fps then how is it better to go farther from that number?
LOL Icon
Try capping your fps at 24 and you'll know why it's not optimal :D
I do appreciate the diversity within the drawn characters in all your episodes.
For League of Legends, anything below 60fps is painful but the worst thing imaginable is flcutuating frame rates cuz it looks like shitty call of duty lag.
I wonder why they didn't mention that some people think that the human eye cannot physically see the difference between 30 and 60fps when you clearly can.
And if a game is outside of the two factors you said when limiting the FPS (cant release a different version than console, or the game is tied to FPS) why cant a game on PC have graphics and FPS? Why does it need to be locked?
Take for example the newest Toy Soldiers game, Warchest. for a while that was locked at 30fps on PC. The previous versions of that franchise ran at 60FPS on my rig, and I know that one could have too, but they still locked it. Then after a couple weeks they unlocked it to a cap of 60, which is great. point is, if my rig can handle playing the game at 60fps, and its not bound to the 2 things mentioned, why cap it to 30 at all?
Also, i can still see a clear difference between 45fps and 30. its not nearly as noticeable as 30vs60 but I can clearly tell when a game is starting to drop from 60 but not yet hit 30, and I can also tell when a game that averages at 30 goes up a little but does not reach 60. So only being able to tell the difference when the numbers are in multiples of 30 seems false to me. That or I have very sensitive eyes
+Mr. Person It could be that you have a monitor that's not locked to show frame rates in multiples of 30. Which is why you might notice a difference like that. The whole 45 dropping to 30 and not noticing argument was built around the fact that some monitors are locked to only display frame rates in multiples of 30.
Jeremiah Shelton I dunno if mine is or not, its actually only a 60 hertz monitor so I cant see above 60 like the new higher end monitors can
+Mr. Person My guess for your locking fps at 30 question is this. If you set the bar lower (30 fps), you don't have to optimize as much. Optimization can be a lot of minute, tedious work which can thus be very expensive. If you just say, "Eh, 30 is good enough, let's ship it" you can be saving a lot of money.
Depending on the type of game, this is fine, not everything needs to be 60 or higher (please don't kill me). However for games that focus on action, combat, or fast motion, in my opinion, higher fps is better.
+Jeremiah Shelton No modern monitor works like that. Their argument was based on a development decision to ONLY show 30 FPS or less. So if a game is really running at 45, the game will still only display 30. That way, if it drops from 45 to 30, you won't see it because the output of the display hasn't changed at all. This can only happen if a game is locked to a certain framerate, not the monitor itself.
+Mr. Person Because most of the people that think that don't have a medical degree and can be safely ignored.
The max framerate on 3:14 should be "Why not?"
+TheEmeraldboy100 no it should be why, framerate is very subject to diminishing returns. Once you get to the 120 mark the difference between it and 60 is negligible in terms of player perception but is twice as strenuous on the GPU in regards to rendering. Same goes with resolution, there's a reason HD TVs looked amazing while 4K TVs just look slightly better.
+JamesFLivingstone 4K TVs do show more detail, you can tell between grains of sand, shades of grass, foliage, droplets, etc. It might sound frivolous, but it is indeed a clearer image. Imagine a Pikmin game in which you could easily tell between each single Pikmin.
Vvonter
oh no there is a difference for sure, but that difference in perception when compared to say the jumps between a 480p image and 720p is far less noticeable. 4k resolution takes four times the rendering power of 1080p but (IMHO) does not offer enough of a step up to justify that render cost for the GPU or economic investment for the game creator or consumer.
I guess if you love 4K enough to spend money on an expensive screen and GPU, and are also economically well off enough to feel comfortable making that investment then absolutely go do that, more power to you, but do realise you are a niche in the market and that if devs and publishers don't cater to you it is because the majority of consumers don't see that as a reason to buy.
***** I don't own a 4K TV since while nice, the issue they have it's the content. There's not a lot of 4K content yet, and little that there is expensive. My point was it' s a step up regardless of how much of step it is, I can see a difference and I think as games are getting more detailed 4K resolution could help that detail stand out. Like for example Castlevania LoS or Bayonetta have very detailed enemies, but some of that detail is lost because of how far the camera does pan out. I'm sure one day it'll be more common since there's a difference.
Vvonter well it becomes a race of economics at that point, as engineers develop 4k TVs at cheaper costs they will sell at cheaper prices and so the accosiated risk of selling the product will be reduced making production more viable and thus the cycle repeats.
Thing is from a development stand point you DO need that reduced risk otherwise your spending development resources on a feature that won't drive significant sales nor be experienced by more than a slither of your audience, it may be sad but its also kinda neccesary, for the time being anyway.
The "frame rate tied to calculation" issue happens with NFS Rivals. Unless you change some settings apart from just the frame rate limit, physics go crazy.
Those who say frame rate and resolution doesn't matter, are probably new to video games. Or console peasants trying to defend their Xbox One.
Semi Zero Gravity Undertale is a pixel story driven slower paced game. It doesn't require high fps. Fps matters in games which are higher pace such as racing games or shooters.
+Danny Dang for shooters is the most important things, then the fiber optic and the good mouse but for racing games why?
Alina I'm not sure I understand your question. May you reword it?
Danny Dang why would you want to have a high refresh monitor on a racing game, what's the advantage?
Alina It would give you a huge advantage, but there is a very slight difference. You won't notice it unless you've been gaming for a while. Higher refresh monitor basically redraws and renders pixels faster. High refresh monitor + a computer that can run games on high fps = Smooooth.
Once you go 60, you can NEVER go back. A very good number of people have probably never taken the time to see the difference, or have never actually experienced it before. That's why graphics matter more when sales are considered. People look at screenshots for games and don't wonder if the game play itself will be what they want, rather how shiny the gun is.
The same goes for higher multiples of 30, but 60 is the bare minimum for a smooth experience so you'd be needlessly paying more to play at 120 fps or something ridiculous like that.
+DarthVaizard I've played at both. 60 is better, just not THAT much better with the sacrifices that are made to make it happen.
Only people who think 60 is the bare minimum are those who have gorged themselves on it to the point 30fps feels weird. Millions play at 30fps without a concern in the world, so its certainly an issue on your side over anything else.
+DarthVaizard On a similar note, once you go 144 HZ monitor with a graphics card capable of reaching those marks, you can never go back to 60. It's a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.
+LX Seriously, what sacrifices? I've seen this pop up a few times with the whole 'it's too much of an effort to optimize it' thing, and to that I ask... *why*? If you are making video game, you should be making sure that it runs as best as it can. Yes, there comes a point where it is impractical to optimize any more, but developers should at least try to make their game run well. Besides, if they can get it to run around 60, even just at peak, all the better for people with below-average systems, who might be about to run it at 30.
George Andrews I'm talking about consoles and other systems with set hardware.
Once you get into variable hardware, optimization becomes a million times more complicated.
+DarthVaizard I always play at 80-90 fps so in case my computer goes crazy for a moment the fps will still be above 60, that way i can play without noticing anything strange. I mostly play Mobas so that doesn't require too much anyways.
I love the quality and art style of these videos :D I've been binge watching them all and i just want to say thank you for supplying such fascinating information!
so, it's not game-play that's affected by the frame-rate, but the player's skill is. however, devs should target a STABLE frame-rate rather than a high one...
EVERYONE CAN TELL 30 FPS APPART FROM 60 FPS
mv vo only on youtube videos
Garip bir kanal and games. And other visual media.
mv vo I can’t. Granted I’m not use to 60 so maybe in five years that won’t be true, but for now it is.
Not really. Those who aren't gamers, can't really distinguish between them
Nope
Thanks for making that episode. I never understood other gamers' obsession with framerate at all. On my old PC, my favorite game usually ran between 7 and 13 FPS and it was noticable that it wasn't as fluent, but it played fine despite being an action RPG. Sometimes it dropped to 3 FPS, which was unpleasant but not unbearable if it was just for short moments.Then I got my new gaming PC, and now I can run it at over 100 FPS, but honestly, everything above 15 looks the same to me ._. So I limited it to 60 FPS, but it's all just the same to me...
Is this why f. ex. in Unity 3D you should use FixedUpdate () instead of Update () especially in physics calculations such as OnCollision ()?
+SirCutRy yes
dat Time.deltaTime don't ever forget it. :D
well den
+SirCutRy I'm still learning unity, but does that mean instead of updating every frame possible it''s updating at a set separate pace?
The Zero Zero i guess soo
But who likes motion blur. Blegh
+lizardclaw11 every human being ever... you see it everyday , you know. The problem isn't that it's there, the problem is they apply WAY TOO MUCH.
Yeah, if I turn motion blur off in some games, the game looks just... weird. Unnatural. Motion blur when making quick turns looks nice in a shooter, even if it's a slight disadvantage. If I were ultra competitive, sure, I'd probably turn them off. But stylistically, it makes the game look transitionally smoother, if not more crisp.
+RPGgrenade simulated motion blur relies on our understanding of how the eye percieves motion down to any framerate, play a source game and play with motion blue on that, that feels far better than most titles, and it's very lightwieght
***** yep
+lizardclaw11 I don't. I've had to turn it off before, though that was just with one game and it may not have been implemented well. Or it could just have been the motion blur combined with my vision problems.
I was quite surprised that you didn't mention this, so here i am. Now, i understand that this can be a little bit hard to understand, but it's pretty nice to know. As you said, on the computer the images need to be rendered and that's a key word. From a programmer point of view, the game is a program that actually never ends unless the user choose to do so or the machine was shut down. This is pretty easy to understand, just think about this for a second. If you don't choose to exit from like a menu, you could stay there forever. This means that a videogame in simple terms is just a loop. This means that at the very very very basic code of a videogame there must be a loop which refresh the game. Usually, at the end of the loop after all calculations have been done the image gets rendered/refreshed. This means from an hardware point of view that FPS are just how many times the computer can execute the loop in one second.
However i love your videos and keep up with the good work, these are just some technical stuff :p
lmao. My PC monitor is 144hz, not 30 xD
30 vs. 60? 120 is what we should aim for, with 60 being the minimum.
+Inhimilis so... go code yourself a game then.
J C smart, just like if you want your government to support your policy to just make your own country.
+Inhimilis a logical fallacy answered by a logical fallacy.
J C good to know you accepted your flawed thinking :D
+Inhimilis Logical fallacies don't make something wrong. It is possible, and probably easier, to do exactly what I suggested. Your suggestion has a much easier approach that we already use.
Oooh, very good vid. Always wondered what the fuss about fps was. Though I still stand by content over graphics, hate motion blur in games, and feel like people complaining about low fps is a bit much. 20-30 is honestly good enough.
7:44 Sorry but that sounds dumb even for a business perspective... "Lets pour tons of money into graphics, that way we get more sales" yeah but you just blew a bunch of money to get better graphics, meaning you probably aren't making more money and quite possibly even losing some, compared to doing what you were doing already which is just working on the game and getting it running smoothly.
A great example of this are AAA games such as the recent Tomb Raider, where they sold millions of copies yet we're still disappointed with sales... There's a major issue if you can sell around 10 million of something and barely break even.
This video has such a low frame rate. Maybe 0.5 fps average, often dropping far lower. I am very disappointed.
That was really informative, thank you!
Sure, higher framerates make an optucal difference, but they don't make a game more fun.
+akawhut 1.Gameplay 2.Art style 3.Graphics 4.Performance
It can as they said about controls.
+Vladislav Zinchenko I would switch out the last two, performance is key for good gameplay in some games
+akawhut try playing at 6 frames per second and you will have VERY poor gameplay, but at some point you will cease to notice.
+Vladislav Zinchenko graphics are included in art style, some games have made 8-bit look good(shovel knight I am looking at you)
The true reason is that dev companies don't want people who have both a PC and a console to buy the PC version of the game. So they cap the PC so there's no difference. That's why they lock the frame rate... so a player don't choose the PC version because it's better, making the PC basically a platform where only people without consoles play.
Every one knows PC is a better platform in every way, but is also less lucrative, and less controllable for the companies. One good example is PES2016 where the PC version is the same as the PS3 and X360... and not the much better PS4 and Xone.
+Mateus Bittencourt And pretty much every Koei Tecmo game ever ported to pc
+Mateus Bittencourt "Better in every way"...if it weren't for console exclusives. I agree that the PC is much more consumer friendly as a platform, but the harsh reality is that there's a large chunk of games that just aren't available. Eventually, I just said "fuck it" and bought them all. Once I can finally afford a PS4, there shouldn't be a single game I'm not able to play! (aside from XB1, which I'm honestly indifferent towards)
***** XB 1 games are all probably going to be on pc from here on out anyways
***** That's my point... PC is better in every way... so they make the PC version worse... or even never launch on PC.
+Nintendotron64 Because you are buying them.
Haven't watched the episode yet, so glad this is being discussed and addressed though
I can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and I don't even consider myself a "pro gamer"
144Hz is love. 144Hz is life
Great video...really appreciate the informative, easy to understand discussion on frame rate!
Mid range PC...
Cant get 60FPS...
Wat?
Qwert Z mid range is probably non gamer mid range. Something like 700 dollars. Mid range gaming pc of 1500 probably will
LoTR Builders pre built or nah?
Yeah. A 400 pc can run 60fps just fine on high settings on modern games
LoTR Builders a 700$ computer is only mod range if you get robbed or buy Apple lol.