Why Frame-Rate is more important than Resolution?

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

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

Frostbite24

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

Gue1

That could not possibly be more wrong. Resolution always matters. Even more so in games with a lot of detail. 

As for the debate of which is more important... Don't care. If you have to think about it, maybe it's time to move on from consoles, get adult toys, and have both.

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"][QUOTE="senses_fail_06"] They do look great. They'll actually look better with lower frames. Again, 60 FPS performance is not needed for most games. senses_fail_06

Perhaps, but the comment, "they'll actually look better with lower frames" is simply asinine. Higher framerates always make everything look better, assuming you don't have to sacrifice all of your graphical fidelity to achieve it. That's why people who actually give a shit about having good looking,  and  well performing games, game on PC, where it's not an issue of whether the developer opted for better visuals or higher framerate. You can just have both.

pretty long initial post about judder to have no idea what you are talking about.

120hz isn't a gimmick it removes judder not because of motion smoothing but because 120 is divisible by 24 (the framerate of movies).. Thus there is no need to repeat frames unevenly in movies.

games are usually framelocked at 30 or 60fps thus judder isn't an issue regardless of refresh rate. OP made an entire thread about judder without knowing what it is.

My circle jerk senses are tingling...

Goyoshi12

Definitely one of the top 10 super powers I could do without.

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="Frostbite24"]You sir just made THE dumbest comment I've ever read here on SW. Congratulations.clyde46

I think what he's trying to get at (albeit poorly worded) is that if console devs made 60 fps their target, they would have to cut back on other visual goodies to maintain that, resulting in games that ran smoother, but didn't look as good as they do now, with a 30 fps target. Pretty sure he's not saying that the exact same image quality, running at 60 fps, would look worse than 30 fps. At least I hope that's what he meant. Would be incredibly dumb, otherwise.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="mitu123"]They're in 1080p...rjdofu

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="Frostbite24"]You sir just made THE dumbest comment I've ever read here on SW. Congratulations.Frostbite24

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

Mr_BillGates

Stop trying.

[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

lundy86_4

Stop trying.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

mitu123

Stop trying.

It's so sad :cry:

My circle jerk senses are tingling...

Goyoshi12

That's only the rash

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

My circle jerk senses are tingling...

wis3boi

THat's only the rash

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

Mr_BillGates

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

My circle jerk senses are tingling...

clyde46

THat's only the rash

Youre welcome ;)

We PC gamers pay thousands just to have both. Nothing is sweeter than running the latest console port at max resolution and 60FPS.

Mr_BillGates

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="Frostbite24"]You sir just made THE dumbest comment I've ever read here on SW. Congratulations.the_bi99man

Perhaps, but the comment, "they'll actually look better with lower frames" is simply asinine. 

No, no it's not :|. 

It's as simple and logical as can be. You can say it "performs" better or "runs" better at 60 FPS, but what you will physically be looking at will be a better looking picture with lower frames. Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen.

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="Frostbite24"]You sir just made THE dumbest comment I've ever read here on SW. Congratulations.clyde46

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"] Poor misinterpretation from a low minded lem. Games will obviously have higher resolution and more graphically fidelity if they don't have to push 60 frames. 360 and PS3 can do 60 FPS, the games would just look like ass. senses_fail_06

Perhaps, but the comment, "they'll actually look better with lower frames" is simply asinine. 

No, no it's not :|. 

It's as simple and logical as can be. You can say it "performs" better or "runs" better at 60 FPS, but what you will physically be looking at will be a better looking picture with lower frames. Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen.

That's not really true.  It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]

You sir just made THE dumbest comment I've ever read here on SW. Congratulations.Frostbite24

Poor misinterpretation from a low minded lem. Games will obviously have higher resolution and more graphically fidelity if they don't have to push 60 frames. 360 and PS3 can do 60 FPS, the games would just look like ass.

Could you generalize more? You're implying EVERY game released is pushing graphics to the limit and or every game released is using ALL the power afforded to them. Derp. Calling me a lem because I disagree with your non-console associated comment is a loser move too. I'm a hermit who owns all the consoles. Try again.

What exactly are you on about? Your post is very dodgy and really does not address the topic at hand. 

Almost every big budget title pushes graphics over performance. Look at the market FFS. Not quite sure how it is relevant though. All things considering, you don't even rebuttal what I am saying. I'll say it again: the game will look better if it runs at 30 frames instead of 60. If that is the dumbest thing you have ever read on SW, then fine. 

Doesn't make you right though :cool:

Oh and feel free to post your steam id, I'd love to see how big of a herm you really are...you certainly don't come off as one. 

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Perhaps, but the comment, "they'll actually look better with lower frames" is simply asinine. 

lostrib

No, no it's not :|. 

It's as simple and logical as can be. You can say it "performs" better or "runs" better at 60 FPS, but what you will physically be looking at will be a better looking picture with lower frames. Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen.

That's not really true.  It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

Do I look like a fool to you, or perhaps, are you just not quite sure what you are talking about? :|

Let me know before I address your comment. 

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

THat's only the rash

wis3boi

Youre welcome ;)

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

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

seanmcloughlin

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. 

I see what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree. The only problem is that, based upon what I am reading, you are comparing the same game at the same settings with the only difference being the frames. What would you rather play: Dark Souls at 30 frames with high detail or Dark Souls at low with 60 FPS. If it's a consistent FPS, I would imagine most take the high detail/lower frames.

Based upon all of my experience in SW, that is a pretty consistent thing among herms. I remember the gloating of Crysis on ultra with sub 30 FPS, as low as 22. They played it that way because it looked dramatically better and it was not a game that was dependent on higher frames.

Developers on consoles have to take shortcuts, I am not denying that. If the frames are steady I am fine "sacrificing" for 30 instead of 60 if it means the games look significantly better. Which they will. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

No, no it's not :|. 

It's as simple and logical as can be. You can say it "performs" better or "runs" better at 60 FPS, but what you will physically be looking at will be a better looking picture with lower frames. Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen.

senses_fail_06

That's not really true.  It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

Do I look like a fool to you, or perhaps, are you just not quite sure what you are talking about? :|

Let me know before I address your comment. 

you do seem like a fool

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

That's not really true.  It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

lostrib

Do I look like a fool to you, or perhaps, are you just not quite sure what you are talking about? :|

Let me know before I address your comment. 

you do seem like a fool

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

Do I look like a fool to you, or perhaps, are you just not quite sure what you are talking about? :|

Let me know before I address your comment. 

senses_fail_06

you do seem like a fool

^internet tough guy. Watch out!

That would probably make me laugh, and make you waste time looking like an ass. 

Who says otherwise? With PC gaming, you get better resolution and frame rates. So this all seems slightly mute.Blabadon

^internet tough guy. Watch out!

That would probably make me laugh, and make you waste time looking like an ass. 

How am I the tough guy? I gave you an out and you called me a fool. Seems like you are the instigator here, and it does not help that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. To say performance and graphics do not go hand and hand is ridiculous. 

That's not really true. It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

Right, assuming there is enough power for both or if you have magic beans, I guess. You're right sweetheart, some games can be ran at 60 FPS and be absolutely maxed out. I can do that with Quake, because I'm a badass. Oh wait, it's because the game is old as f*ck and I'm running it on tech that is 15 years past the game's release? Damn, and here I was thinking I was a badass.

Unless developers have suddenly reached the peak of graphical performance, then the choice occurs for developers (or given to consumers in the case of many PC games).

So tell me how is it possible to maintain both 60 frames and max settings, on a machine that physically cannot do both? Unless your comment was somehow related to a machine that clearly has superior tech than what it was developed for...in that case: NO F*CKING DUH MAN.

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"]

[QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]

Poor misinterpretation from a low minded lem. Games will obviously have higher resolution and more graphically fidelity if they don't have to push 60 frames. 360 and PS3 can do 60 FPS, the games would just look like ass. senses_fail_06

Could you generalize more? You're implying EVERY game released is pushing graphics to the limit and or every game released is using ALL the power afforded to them. Derp. Calling me a lem because I disagree with your non-console associated comment is a loser move too. I'm a hermit who owns all the consoles. Try again.

What exactly are you on about? Your post is very dodgy and really does not address the topic at hand. 

Almost every big budget title pushes graphics over performance. Look at the market FFS. Not quite sure how it is relevant though. All things considering, you don't even rebuttal what I am saying. I'll say it again: the game will look better if it runs at 30 frames instead of 60. If that is the dumbest thing you have ever read on SW, then fine. 

Doesn't make you right though :cool:

Oh and feel free to post your steam id, I'd love to see how big of a herm you really are...you certainly don't come off as one. 

[QUOTE=""]

^internet tough guy. Watch out!

That would probably make me laugh, and make you waste time looking like an ass. 

senses_fail_06

How am I the tough guy? I gave you an out and you called me a fool. Seems like you are the instigator here, and it does not help that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. To say performance and graphics do not go hand and hand is ridiculous. 

That's not really true. It is possible to maitain 60 frames at max settings

Right, assuming there is enough power for both or if you have magic beans, I guess. You're right sweetheart, some games can be ran at 60 FPS and be absolutely maxed out. I can do that with Quake, because I'm a badass. Oh wait, it's because the game is old as f*ck and I'm running it on tech that is 15 years past the game's release? Damn, and here I was thinking I was a badass.

Unless developers have suddenly reached the peak of graphical performance, then the choice occurs for developers (or given to consumers in the case of many PC games).

So tell me how is it possible to maintain both 60 frames and max settings, on a machine that physically cannot do both? Unless your comment was somehow related to a machine that clearly has superior tech than what it was developed for...in that case: NO F*CKING DUH MAN.

The tough guy comment was because of all your big talk about crushing and smashing things. Very intimidating, I was honestly shaking.

You statement was simply, "Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen."

And all I said, was that it's not necessarily true, you can have both. Using a current gen game rather than "old as f*ck" BF3 can be run at 60 fps at max/ultra settings.  Even crysis 3 can be run at very high at above 30fps.   If you can get max graphic fidelity at both 30 fps and 60 fps, I'm taking the 60 fps. Not sure why you had to get all puffy chesty about it and start capslocking things. Calm yo' t!ts, bro

Steam ID is Sidewinder_24. And yes, it is still the dumbest post I've seen on here which might not make me right but certainly makes you wrong. :lol:Frostbite24

According to steam, that ID does not exist. http://steamcommunity.com/id/Sidewinder_24

Oh well, not like a give a f*ck what you consider yourself on these forums anyways. Lots of former console guys pretending to be pro PC now. You can say what you want, but you can't fool me, lem. :wink:

And yes, it is still the dumbest post I've seen on here which might not make me right but certainly makes you wrong.

Frostbite24

FBM, your attempt at a rebuttal was poor at best. You clearly got caught up in your own poor comprehension. That was obvious in your "attempt" at responding.

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

The tough guy comment was because of all your big talk about crushing and smashing things. Very intimidating, I was honestly shaking.

You statement was simply, "Not having to push 60 frames = better looking/more shit on screen."

And all I said, was that it's not necessarily true, you can have both. Using a current gen game rather than "old as f*ck" BF3 can be run at 60 fps at max/ultra settings.  Even crysis 3 can be run at very high at above 30fps.   If you can get max graphic fidelity at both 30 fps and 60 fps, I'm taking the 60 fps. Not sure why you had to get all puffy chesty about it and start capslocking things. Calm yo' t!ts, bro

lostrib

 Even crysis 3 can be run at very high at above 30fps.lostrib

You just proved my point right there. I used quake as an example because it was the lowest common denominator, I thought you would understand it better. You may be able to get both max settings on a game and have 60 (or even more) FPS RIGHT NOW. You don't have infinite power or infinite resources. You'll never be able to have both forever with the same specs. When push comes to shove, you have to choose one. Your comment was so awful that either you are trolling me, should seek professional help, or it was beyond obvious. I hope to God it was trolling. Please, just tell me it was. Let me rest in peace tonight, I will have a tough time thinking someone is out there that is this lost. 

If you can get max graphic fidelity at both 30 fps and 60 fps, I'm taking the 60 fps.lostrib

Is there anyone arguing this? Nope no one.

Not sure why you had to get all puffy chesty about it and start capslocking things. Calm yo' t!ts, bro

lostrib

...and I'm the internet tough guy.

Lol. 

I dont even know what frame rate mean lol.. i know few people tried to explain it to me before but i forgot :lol:

i play games to have fun and talk to friends not care about.. frame rate whatever the fuk that shit means :P

I dont even know what frame rate mean lol.. i know few people tried to explain it to me before but i forgot :lol:

i play games to have fun and talk to friends not care about.. frame rate whatever the fuk that shit means :P

finalstar2007

:|

I can have both

wis3boi

Both ftw, why compromise.

I dont even know what frame rate mean lol.. i know few people tried to explain it to me before but i forgot :lol:

i play games to have fun and talk to friends not care about.. frame rate whatever the fuk that shit means :P

finalstar2007

LMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I dont even know what frame rate mean lol.. i know few people tried to explain it to me before but i forgot :lol:

i play games to have fun and talk to friends not care about.. frame rate whatever the fuk that shit means :P

finalstar2007

This isn't surprising.