• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

FUD: 30fps is enough

I can remember when 100hz TVs came out and you could deffo tell the different in smoothness when watching a film or football game for example. I saw a side by side comparison and when the ball got kicked up field you could see it much easily on the 100hz TV compared to the 50hz TV.
So if this so called science is true which FUD are claiming then why are tech giants putting money into getting faster refresh rates?

Even on my desktop on 120hz when moving my program windows about i can instantly tell the smoothness compared to my old 60hz monitor. Not a massive difference but you can really feel it and see it.
 
drunkenmaster said:
So the difference between 15 and 30fps is bigger than the difference between 60 and 120 and it's around that mark, 120, where while it's likely better it's gotten to a point it's basically good enough.

Frame rate and hz can sometimes be used interchangeably sometimes not, I think frame rate is important but 60fps on a 120hz screen is way better than on a 60hz screen. Smoother, but really the electronics side of the screen is simply designed to give more responsiveness, the screens have significantly less blur as they pixels are simply faster on faster screens. Frame rate compounds the effect with high hz as spinning around in a circle cut into 120 segments rather than 30 will offer a vastly smoother experience.


Ubisoft are retards and Faud has always basically been a moron willing to spout whatever press release he gets.

Too many people seem simply unaware that much of the tech site industry is companies PR sending a press release to lots of sites and most of those sites just regurgitate it. Like or dislike Charlie, he goes digging for stories, Faud reposts whatever gets sent to his inbox and 95% of tech sites do the same. Very few do journalism. Most guys at his level do likely get some incentives because he does some reviews here and there, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a few gfx card or two here and there, a couple ad buys from Nvidia maybe, and they have over the years certainly been pro Nvidia and more willing than not to regurgitate this kind of tripe they have done from Ubisoft.
Click to expand...

Its based on a pageviews per month level.

When you are under the radar in pageviews a month you basically either grab things from here and there (easier) or try to be an authority in the niche (which isn't that easy) taking a different perspective.

When you start pumping out page after page and get those precious pageviews they start coming to you and add you to press lists.

Now if your getting a few million pageviews a month things start to get interesting, you NDA or do agreements with bonuses depending on what they want you to do (damage control, hype) basically bias reviews.

I'm not saying that most people aren't aware of this , but ad revenue isn't where it was a few years ago and its easier to earn with a one off (paid) bias review than it is with pageviews.

Those that survive either have a unique business model, pump thousands of pages of content a year or get paid for reviews
 
Last edited:
When 100HZ TV 's came out, it was CRT's and the 100HZ was fake frame insertion same as most LCD TV's today.

CRT monitors were really whatever HZ you choose.

The 1st thing any good TV review site told you to do was turn that setting off it makes movies look weird but it can help sports and today on LCD TV's its called the Soap Opera Effect.
 
I will accept 119fps during large battles. 120fps at all other times.

30 fps acceptable for menu / loading screen.

Seriously though, this is groundhog day. Another Ubisoft game, would you be surprised if it was poorly implemented for the PC ?
 
Last edited:
jh30uk said:
When 100HZ TV 's came out, it was CRT's and the 100HZ was fake frame insertion same as most LCD TV's today.

CRT monitors were really whatever HZ you choose.

The 1st thing any good TV review site told you to do was turn that setting off it makes movies look weird but it can help sports and today on LCD TV's its called the Soap Opera Effect.
Click to expand...

Never the less you can still tell the difference between 30 to 60Hz and even upto 100/120/144 Hz

Which is my point.
 
60fps should be a minimum, both tv and movies wise nowdays, we're not limited by a god damn movie spool speed. hobbit exists and people didn't give too much sheibe.
 
Ubisofts pr machine must be paying well these days.

Makes you wonder if these cornholes have actually sat and played a good pc game at 60+fps or on a 120/144hz monitor.
 
Orangey said:
One thing I have noticed is they have been baiting like crazy with the gamergate / men are evil / feminazi crap lately. Must be desperate for clicks, maybe they're about to go under.
Click to expand...

The funny thing being this was exactly the sort of thing gamergate was formed against: a biased mouthpiece under the guise of games 'journalism'.
 
Seem to have lost the plot. Watching and playing are 2 different things. To have the interaction with the image changes things completely.
 
What a hilarious point in gaming we are right now. To say that there is not much difference between 30 and 60 is beyond retarded.

I would even call someone insanely stupid for not seeing a difference between 60 and 120.
 
I can feel a difference between 30fps vs 60fps and 120fps thing people mistake is that we just don't see the frame rate difference we also feel the difference.

This site trying to tell us 30fps and 120fps they is no difference they Barking mad.
 
The reason 48fps tv looks weird is really simply one thing and one thing only, we are used to 24fps, nothing else. It simply looks different, which it should, but when you're used to one thing different feels weird.

If we all had 48fps and 99% of content was filmed in 48 or 60fps, after 2 months max it would be completely normal. If you watched 24fps content again you'd find that looked weird.

it's just the way eyes work, you adjust and adapt. I had a ilyama... 454a or something sounds about right. 1600x1200 monitor back in, god knows how long ago. 120hz at that res and it was awesome. Got a LCD which was probably actually 75hz. It felt weird, I used both together for a while and after a week I hated both and I realised it was simply because I was staring at two very different things. My eyes felt tired/strained all the time and it was horrible.

Turned off the CRT, within a few days I felt comfortable with the LCD and eye strain was gone. It was more comfortable to view than the 120hz CRT, less flicker, less eye strain, but less smooth in games. It was a trade off but it was a million times better for reading the net on, etc.

With almost any new screen I can feel the improvement or if it's worse almost straight away but I still feel a little uneasy with a new screen for several hours or days.

With LCD's I think 24fps got significantly worse for films mostly due to blurring/ghosting, in films with no quick action you really don't notice it but any fast panning shots usually do show up as being sub par. The thing is film by design adapts to low frame rate. Directors will usually on purpose avoid overly fast panning or jumping the camera round a lot. In game you turn around completely pretty damn often. It's an entirely different medium and you can't plan or expect a player to never turn around fast to help low frame rates look better. Game dev's that don't know all this should hire someone who does.
 
I laughed, A casual gaming idiot trying to compare movies and games. Movies in 24p are borderline acceptable and depend highly on the shooting technique and skill of the director. Old directors would do slow steady panning shots and it would be dream like, Especially the 1980's action movies. Compare that to Ironclad shot with someone with parkinsons doing thier take on the Blair Witch and 24p suddenly has lots of glaring issues.


Im fine with people going 60fps in movies for those shaky cam movies, Maybe they will become interactive game/movies in a way with 60fps and lots of in your face amatuer cam moments. But ill take my 24p steady cam movies like Indiana Jones and all the other 80's classics anyday of the week.


Even attempting movement with a mouse inside a game below 60fps is another world entirely. I did it for ten years almost and recently made the hop back to 120hz. And i wont be going back no matter what people say because the truth is panning with that low fps is just not feasble long term. It is bad for the eyes and health and it does not resembles anything in real life. I find im more connected with more realism the higher the frame rates goes in games. And the same can be said for movies hence the soap opera or realism effect.


Its realism because, Thats natural to our eyes.
 
Speaking of funny effects, try running Wolfenstein New Order with uncapped framerate and full ultra. The difference in speed is comical between 30fps and >60. It's like the Benny Hill music starts playing... how iD of all people screwed up that engine so badly I do not know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom