Why Frame-Rate is more important than Resolution?

Easy! It's because the lower the frame-rate the more detail you lose while moving. So at the end, higher resolution means nothing unless you're going to play something like Tetris or maybe GOW which has a fixed camera (only during gameplay because the camera moves with you during QTEs and stuff).

:cool:

But is not just that, high frame-rate comes with other perks too like: less latency in the gameplay and almost unnoticeable dejudder effect.

But what's the dejudder effect you ask? Well, if you play games or watch movies on a flat-screen then you already know what this ultra annoying thing that makes your eyes hurt real bad is, especially when playing first person games. This is the reason why scams like 120hz clear motion exist (to raise the price of the TV) but in reality that sh1t doesn't work very well and when it comes to games is even worse. Yes it fixes the dejudder but at the cost of insane latency and it still causes some artifacts that ruin the consistency of the overall image.

The Wikipedia definition of this phenomenon: "Normally, when a fixed framerate display such as an LCD screen is used to display a video source whose framerate is less than that of the screen, frames are often simply duplicated as necessary (e.g. 3:2 pulldown) to match the video refresh, which may introduce a visual artifact known as judder, perceived as "jumpiness" in the picture."

Now, what are the benefits of higher resolution? Slightly clearer text and sharper picture (but only when the camera is not moving). -Frame-Rate wins because it gives us better picture and less latency. So 720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps all day.

------------other details

How do game developers combat the dejudder effect? With camera-based motion blur but even then on games like Uncharted and Assassins Creed is still persistently noticeable even with all the effects working on trying to soften this annoyingness.

Now what you mothafukas think? You still think that Resolution is more important? Because I'm telling you, at least for gaming, Frame-Rate > Resolution.  :)

Who says otherwise?Blabadon

but i want both?

I can have both

Easy! It's because the lower the frame-rate the more detail you lose while moving. So at the end, higher resolution means nothing unless you're going to play something like Tetris or maybe GOW which has a fixed camera (only during gameplay because the camera moves with you during QTEs and stuff).

:cool:

But is not just that, high frame-rate comes with other perks too like: less latency in the gameplay and almost unnoticeable dejudder effect.

 

But what's the dejudder effect you ask? Well, if you play games or watch movies on a flat-screen then you already know what this ultra annoying thing that makes your eyes hurt real bad is, especially when playing first person games. This is the reason why scams like 120hz clear motion exist (to raise the price of the TV) but in reality that sh1t doesn't work very well and when it comes to games is even worse. Yes it fixes the dejudder but at the cost of insane latency and it still causes some artifacts that ruin the consistency of the overall image.

The Wikipedia definition of this phenomenon: "Normally, when a fixed framerate display such as an LCD screen is used to display a video source whose framerate is less than that of the screen, frames are often simply duplicated as necessary (e.g. 3:2 pulldown) to match the video refresh, which may introduce a visual artifact known as judder, perceived as "jumpiness" in the picture."

Now, what are the benefits of higher resolution? Slightly clearer text and sharper picture (but only when the camera is not moving). -Frame-Rate wins because it gives us better picture and less latency. So 720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps all day.

 

------------other details

How do game developers combat the dejudder effect? With camera-based motion blur but even then on games like Uncharted and Assassins Creed is still persistently noticeable even with all the effects working on trying to soften this annoyingness.

 

Now what you mothafukas think? You still think that Resolution is more important? Because I'm telling you, at least for gaming, Frame-Rate > Resolution.  :)

Gue1

I agree though, I would take 720p60.

they are both equally important. what use is a good frame rate if the visuals are not good. although i do think 720p is fine for gaming.AcidThunder

You can play poor visuals, you can't play a slideshow.

I prefer 60fps + 720p over 30fps + 1080p aswell, but that's because my current TV doesn't handle 1080p.

As long as, next gen, we don't see subHD and sub30fps games anymore, i'm ok.

Hmm quite a bit at odds with what you and your moronic brethren claimed last gen.WilliamRLBaker

lol Don't work like that 

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I can have both. Why settle for a hamburger when you can have a banquet. clyde46

[QUOTE="AcidThunder"]they are both equally important. what use is a good frame rate if the visuals are not good. although i do think 720p is fine for gaming.N30F3N1X

You can play poor visuals, you can't play a slideshow.

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

[QUOTE="AcidThunder"]they are both equally important. what use is a good frame rate if the visuals are not good. although i do think 720p is fine for gaming.AcidThunder

You can play poor visuals, you can't play a slideshow.

I play on PC, I don't ahve to choose.

[QUOTE="AcidThunder"][QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

You can play poor visuals, you can't play a slideshow.

millerlight89

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="AcidThunder"] but would you like to play poor visuals?locopatho

I'm fine with 30fps if it stays there all the time.

If you have a PC you don't have to sacrifice. lol dumb ass thread. 

meanwhile in PC gaming:

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Hmm quite a bit at odds with what you and your moronic brethren claimed last gen.themajormayor

I suppose I can manage with a smaller 1024x768 monitor in a pinch:

In fact. I'm thinking of buying an old 19" 4:3 (1280x1024) LCD monitor. A high vertical res of 1024 still gives a good image. You just don't get as much view from the sides.

I can have both

wis3boi

I'd take a lower resolution to a higher framerate any day of the f*cking year.

90% of games are fine with 30 FPS. As long as it is consistent, there will be no problem.senses_fail_06

"Fine" isn't good enough. I prefer when my games look great

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]90% of games are fine with 30 FPS. As long as it is consistent, there will be no problem.seanmcloughlin

"Fine" isn't good enough. I prefer when my games look great

If you have a PC you don't have to sacrifice. lol dumb ass thread. 

ninjapirate2000

I can have both. Why settle for a hamburger when you can have a banquet. clyde46

Because we don't all want to be fat like herms

Modern console games look better then the majority of PC games ever made. When PC gamers say a console game like Gears 3 or Uncharted 3 look bad, they are saying that the majority of their games look bad too.locopatho

Nice play on the wording. Modern console games against  all  PC games? Naturally, in comparison, console games are gonna beat most of them. We're talking  tens of thousands  of games in the PC library.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]90% of games are fine with 30 FPS. As long as it is consistent, there will be no problem.senses_fail_06

"Fine" isn't good enough. I prefer when my games look great

But aren't you already sacrficing ten thousand dollars into unnecessary hardware? As opposed to a 300$ console?SuddenlySudden

Are you writing that from your mom's oven?

[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

If you have a PC you don't have to sacrifice. lol dumb ass thread. 

SuddenlySudden

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Modern console games look better then the majority of PC games ever made. When PC gamers say a console game like Gears 3 or Uncharted 3 look bad, they are saying that the majority of their games look bad too.lundy86_4

Nice play on the wording. Modern console games against  all  PC games? Naturally, in comparison, console games are gonna beat most of them. We're talking  tens of thousands  of games in the PC library.

Well it doesn't have to be games made from 1980 or so. But, due to the scale and ease of putting a game on PC, which is hundreds to thousands and thousands of games out there, some high budget, some indie style, and a great bunch just 8 hour programming projects

Well it doesn't have to be games made from 1980 or so. But, due to the scale and ease of putting a game on PC, which is hundreds to thousands and thousands of games out there, some high budget, some indie style, and a great bunch just 8 hour programming projects

StrifeDelivery

Not at all. Regardless, it's clearly a one-sided response, when you pit only  modern  console games against  all  PC games. It's, by and large, an irrelevant topic.

Also, taking into account the huge boost in popularity for XBLA and PSN DL titles... Yeah...

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]90% of games are fine with 30 FPS. As long as it is consistent, there will be no problem.senses_fail_06

"Fine" isn't good enough. I prefer when my games look great

Not needed and not good are different things. 

Almost always 60 fps looks better than 30, stuff looks smoother on screen and camera pans are much better and less straining on the eyes to pick ou details. Sure FPS games benefit the most from 60 fps but almost every single game I played looked better at 60 as opposed to 30. Even dark souls, which I said before I tried it would look better at 30 cos that's how it was designed and always looked but then I tried 60 and it was such a huge difference and so much better.

No one can say something like Uncharted, which works fine at 30, wouldn't look better at 60. 

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

Well it doesn't have to be games made from 1980 or so. But, due to the scale and ease of putting a game on PC, which is hundreds to thousands and thousands of games out there, some high budget, some indie style, and a great bunch just 8 hour programming projects

lundy86_4

Not at all. Regardless, it's clearly a one-sided response, when you pit only  modern  console games against  all  PC games. It's, by and large, an irrelevant topic.

Also, taking into account the huge boost in popularity for XBLA and PSN DL titles... Yeah...

In my example, I didn't pit modern console games against all PC games. I did generation wise. If you look at the entire spectrum of PC gaming, from high-budget top-tier games to made in 4 hours in flash, which such a huge number falling into the latter category, to then say, that, on an average, that PC gaming looks better then console gaming, is false.

Of course, I know some people are going to take this the wrong way.

In my example, I didn't pit modern console games against all PC games. I did generation wise. If you look at the entire spectrum of PC gaming, from high-budget top-tier games to made in 4 hours in flash, which such a huge number falling into the latter category, to then say, that, on an average, that PC gaming looks better then console gaming, is false.

Of course, I know some people are going to take this the wrong way.

StrifeDelivery

This is not something I disagree with. I just disagreed with the initial lopsided argument. I'm not saying it's incorrect, in fact, my response largely showed that.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]90% of games are fine with 30 FPS. As long as it is consistent, there will be no problem.senses_fail_06

"Fine" isn't good enough. I prefer when my games look great

why would they look better at lower frame rates?

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

In my example, I didn't pit modern console games against all PC games. I did generation wise. If you look at the entire spectrum of PC gaming, from high-budget top-tier games to made in 4 hours in flash, which such a huge number falling into the latter category, to then say, that, on an average, that PC gaming looks better then console gaming, is false.

Of course, I know some people are going to take this the wrong way.

lundy86_4

This is not something I disagree with. I just disagreed with the initial lopsided argument. I'm not saying it's incorrect, in fact, my response largely showed that.

Hmm, alright fair enough. True that the initial statement (modern vs. ALL) is definitely one-sided. 

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Hmm quite a bit at odds with what you and your moronic brethren claimed last gen.themajormayor

My circle jerk senses are tingling...

I'd take a lower resolution to a higher framerate any day of the f*cking year.

Frostbite24

I agree with anything you say..... anyone with a sig like that has to be a genius.