and they promised us 1080p + 60fps

[QUOTE="real_nimrod"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Its important to the visual quality. /argument. skrat_01

IF its so important then in theory it should affect game scores...

Insomniac recently did a thing about how important frame rate was to sales and reviews, and they came out that it really did maater...Sales aren't affected by fps, Reviews aren't affected by fps...we can all draw our own conclusions about how important it really is (once we move away from the fanboy world of system wars to reall life that is)

real_nimrod

Are you actually trying to imply that game performance (FPS wise) matters only to fanboys?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="real_nimrod"]

IF its so important then in theory it should affect game scores...

i_am_interested

[QUOTE="real_nimrod"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Its important to the visual quality. /argument. skrat_01

IF its so important then in theory it should affect game scores...

You are correct that Dragon age on 360 got 0.5 less than dragon age on PS3...however, and i quote from the review here "thisversion maintains a smoother frame rate than on the PlayStation 3, where things might get jittery when swiveling the camera around"...so the game with a superior frame rate got a lower mark than the other way round. Bottom line, there is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, i don't think its generally that important (and judging from insomniacs survey niether do most people), you clearly do (as do some of the hard core pc players on these forums..)

*edit* i do think btw a stable frame rate is important, it really pisses me off when it spazzes out on me lol but as some1 has alreadfy said, different argument

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="real_nimrod"]

IF its so important then in theory it should affect game scores...

real_nimrod

You are correct that Dragon age on 360 got 0.5 less than dragon age on PS3...however, and i quote from the review here "thisversion maintains a smoother frame rate than on the PlayStation 3, where things might get jittery when swiveling the camera around"...so the game with a superior frame rate got a lower mark than the other way round. Bottom line, there is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, i don't think its generally that important (and judging from insomniacs survey niether do most people), you clearly do (as do some of the hard core pc players on these forums..)

*edit* i do think btw a stable frame rate is important, it really pisses me off when it spazzes out on me lol but as some1 has alreadfy said, different argument

A lot of PC gamers drop the quality settings on online games to get the magic 60 FPS. I tend to go for lower textures and models and keep AA and AF on and the FPS high. Suffice to say Console online games don't really appeal to me.

To me, even 60 FPS is way too slow. Then again, I have Saiyan eyes. :P

[QUOTE="the-obiwan"]the problem with the pc is that is really expensive.KukicAdo

[QUOTE="pitty8982"]but you cannot deny that turning your console on, sprawling on the sofa munching junk food and just wait for the game to load is not a better feeling than sitting in front of a monitor and scramble about settings and appletinicrazy-player

[QUOTE="KukicAdo"][QUOTE="the-obiwan"]the problem with the pc is that is really expensive.jwsoul

most onboard sound is good now this isnt 1999 anymore, onboard networking and sound work just fine, youll see no noticeable improvement with add on cards.

also i wasnt aware a console came with a hdtv or speakers. wow ill have to pick one up now.

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

[QUOTE="pitty8982"] play a Tekken game at 30 fps. seriously? no.pitty8982

BS play HL2 at 30 fps and then switch to 60+... It's no where near the same. You can even see the difference between 60 and 80.

[QUOTE="pitty8982"][QUOTE="bigblunt537"]

BS play HL2 at 30 fps and then switch to 60+... It's no where near the same. You can even see the difference between 60 and 80.

Next-Gen-Tec

its actually even more noticeable when motion blur is applied.

[QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"][QUOTE="pitty8982"] yeah tell them! there are some games that are not good at 30 fps and you do notice it! washd123

its actually even more noticeable when motion blur is applied.

When you change setting on PC, blur uses more resources so maybe you notice. However 25fps with motion blur vs 25fps with no blur; the one with motion blur would look smoother.Next-Gen-Tec

maybe im not normal but it doesnt to me.

[QUOTE="italygamer"]

but I don't know you guys, 30 fps really bother my eyes, like they hurt and I get headache. dunno why.

DoomZaW

How can you even tell? at 25 FPS, the eyes will be registering it as a smooth moving picture anyways, so you can't really tell a difference between 25 and 90 FPS

This assertion is FALSE. 24 pictures per second was a standard in film industry because the most frames you put per second the most expensive is the copy, so they get a deal between MINIMUM amount of pictures per second and the cost to chose 24 fps as "credible sensation of movement", but this is no means the maximum amount of quality your eyes can perceive.

Also, CONSTANT 24 fps in a movie or 25 in TV broadcast has nothing to do with variable framerrate in a videogame.

[QUOTE="italygamer"]30 fps really bother my eyes, like they hurt and I get headache. dunno why.alextherussian

[QUOTE="crazy-player"][QUOTE="pitty8982"]but you cannot deny that turning your console on, sprawling on the sofa munching junk food and just wait for the game to load is not a better feeling than sitting in front of a monitor and scramble about settings and appletiniPoisonLenny

I have mine connected to my 46" Samsung in the games room. Although we do have a HTPC in the main room for internet browsing on the main TV.

The argument comes because people do. Most people I know don't have their consoles hooked up to the main TV in the lounge, it all depends if you're a gaming family or not and how much you earn.

Just because my mates little sister plays her 360 on a 15" TV in her bedroom doesn't mean all consoles are hooked up to 15" screens now does it. Plus you lose for stereotyping incorrectly.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

What makes it amusing is the marketing was so over the top, as in they were claiming things that were in complete contradiction to reality, promising capabilities that the PS3 has never demonstrated to date.

Do you know any PS3 games running at dual 720p resolution? Neither do I.

Marketing maybe, but it's the number of outright lies that make it noteworthy.

italygamer

PS. I mean it, too. Ads should be considered cases made to the general public and subject to the same criteria of truth (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but) as a witness at a trial.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="italygamer"]

but I don't know you guys, 30 fps really bother my eyes, like they hurt and I get headache. dunno why.

Ondoval

How can you even tell? at 25 FPS, the eyes will be registering it as a smooth moving picture anyways, so you can't really tell a difference between 25 and 90 FPS

This assertion is FALSE. 24 pictures per second was a standard in film industry because the most frames you put per second the most expensive is the copy, so they get a deal between MINIMUM amount of pictures per second and the cost to chose 24 fps as "credible sensation of movement", but this is no means the maximum amount of quality your eyes can perceive.

Also, CONSTANT 24 fps in a movie or 25 in TV broadcast has nothing to do with variable framerrate in a videogame.

People who don't live in the basement of their parents usually don't have their PC in the living room along with the "main" TV. I don't know where this argument is always coming from.PoisonLenny

Have you ever considered that those of us who haven't lived with our parents for 20 years pretty much have the money to do what we want? You know what they say when you ASSuME.

30 fps really bother my eyes, like they hurt and I get headache. dunno whyitalygamer

[QUOTE="wooooode"]Standard Movies and tv are 24 fps so how can you notice 30fps in a game.Epak_

How about reading this thread?

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="wooooode"]Standard Movies and tv are 24 fps so how can you notice 30fps in a game.wooooode

How about reading this thread?

Let me educate you a little here, since you seem incapable of doing the research yourself to know what the hell you are talking about.

30FPS in progressive scan is not the same as 30FPS in interlaced.

In an interlaced scan, which is most CRT TVs of past gens, the odd lines on the screen are updated, leaving the even lines as they were. Then the beam comes back and does the even lines of resolution. The result is that even though the whole picture is only changing 30 times a second, LOCALLY, things are changing at 60FPS (the beam makes 60 trips across the screen per second, 30 trips for the odd lines and 30 trips for the even lines).

In a progressive scan, the whole picture updates at once, so 30FPS seems a lot more jittery and stop-motion like than it does on interlaced scans.

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="wooooode"]Standard Movies and tv are 24 fps so how can you notice 30fps in a game.wooooode

How about reading this thread?