Do you care about Frames Per Second?

I don't. I also only care about the gameplay of the game, and I've noticed that games that use 30 FPS tend to play better.

 

What games out have 60fps?

 

Call of Duty and Battlefield PC

 

Well if had to choose between 1080i or 1080p then i would obviously choose 1080p. This is kinda the same thing but in the end you can't even really tell the difference so I don't really care. I do however think it would be stupid if your friends said that they don't like a game because it only has 30FPS.

 

From an average Joe point of view, I really don't think it matters so much, as long as the game doesn't look choppy.

 

The consistency of the frames is more important than the actual speed, but I can certainly appreciate games that run at 60 even if others don't.

 

^That. FPS isnt really an issue unless its starts affecting the gameplay, so in that case FPS>gameplay>FPS.

It can suck to play a game that doesnt run at optimal performance, but if youre playing on an Xbox then it usually shouldnt be a problem. On PC, however, if your system specs dont quite meet the minimum requirements to run the game, then you'll likely run into lag issues that make the experience playing the game lackluster and annoying.

EDIT: The "^That" part of my post was referring to Brocs post. Chrono got in before I posted mine.

 

As long as it stays above 30, its faster than the human eye can register. So I think I'll say "**** you" to double that any day, because half of the frames=less wasted power.

 

This.

I, personally, see 60fps as a complete waste of power. It could be used doing lots of other things.

Hence why I laughed my ass off when infinity ward started bragging about 60fps...

 

As long as it's not as bad as my minecraft (1-5 fps... thanks, horrible computer!), I don't really care.

 

Wow, you get 5 fps in that? Ya, that's why I don't play it much.

OT: So long as it is pretty smooth looking I don't particularly care. I think high fps could be nice but if they are running so fast to cover up for gameplay flaws *cough* CoD*cough* then I'm not going to be so happy with it. Main thing is I don't want lag in the frames when I slow up an arms depot or something.

 

As long as the game's playable and it's consistent. I don't want any lag suddenly after having no issues when lots of stuff hits the screen all at once.

 

what section of "60 fps" games are you wanting to discus?
In another thread where it was argued, 60fps is better ( ¬.¬ ) I pointed out that 60FPS lowers the technical capabilities on most hardware setups, which means physics engines and graphic engines are less powerful.

Think about it this way, 30fps = double the processing capability of 60fps. So you can get double of mediocre graphics, or less frames and much better graphics and physics.

 

That only means that we can't easily distinguish each individual frame above that speed, not that we don't notice a difference. It's a common misconception, though.

 

The human eye cannot detect the difference in a moving object above 22.5 frames per second. In fact old animations used to run at 22.5 frames per second and it's even a setting that can be turned on in old Macromedia Flash (now Adobe Flash).

The reason why higher frames per second is considered better is because of frame persistence. At 30 fps, loss of framerate can drop to a point where the action becomes choppy during heavy animation. 30 FPS is also much harder to render smooth particle effects like fire, dust, flowing water, etc. These are very animation intensive and will cause lapses of frame rate.

At 60 fps the processing power uses double the energy but frame persistency will stay well within undetectable to the eye range.

So, to answer the original question it really doesn't matter. The fps rate does not make a game better or worse, its the processing power of the system that the game runs on and the engine the game runs off of.

 

I'd like it if someone could provide a legitimate source for the maximum framerate the human eye can perceive, because I've heard everything from 22.5 to 100.

My understanding was that the 20-25 range was the minimum in order to stop seeing frames and see a fluid image, but that the human eye can tell the difference in fluidity of the image up to 60-70 fps.

 

Well, it's not a set number. All eyes are different. Some say sexes have different averages, some say just age contributes to it. But really, there is no "perfect" number. Just that range which you said.

 

^ wait...what? Visual acuity is not a gender lines thing, it's a genetic human eye thing.

 

Exactly, genetic meaning it differs from person to person.