surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Dearest EAPidgeon
I am sure you make great point about something-or-other... but GOD DAMN I LOVE THAT LAST PICTURE!!!
I am sure you make great point about something-or-other... but GOD DAMN I LOVE THAT LAST PICTURE!!!
Very interesting blog. I always thought of framerate in terms of the smoothness of the graphics and never thought about differences in how quickly your inputs are interpreted by the game. I don't game much on PC due to the fact that my computer can't run much of anything from the last several years, but it's good to know, nonetheless.
With Dark Souls, and I'm sure most games, the devs' hands are tied by the penny pinching publishers. Had the publishers had enough faith in the PC port, they could have hired a team more familiar with the platform, not used the roadblock known as GfWL, and actually provided the simplistic additions that users are adding themselves - some within minutes of the game's release. Surely Damnco Bandie could have paid for that. They'd'vd gotten my money if they did.
I switched over to console gaming years ago when I had issues running various games on my PC... but just a question, is it possible that lower framerates are used in many games to ensure that it's able to run on a larger number of PC's? Can older PC's or cheaper PC's handle a 60FPS rate and if not, by allowing some gamers to run at a higher frame rate, does it not in some ways break online play?
Possibly the difference wouldn't be an issue in a strictly single player game, but again, are devs/publishers tied by trying to sell the game to the broadest possible demographic... and not just those with newer/higher end gaming rigs?
Possibly the difference wouldn't be an issue in a strictly single player game, but again, are devs/publishers tied by trying to sell the game to the broadest possible demographic... and not just those with newer/higher end gaming rigs?
@Elsa
I wouldn't say you're necessarily incorrect because they are trying to sell to the largest number, the thing is however, when possible, you should be driving to desing the maximum experience capable at the higher, and even mid-range.
The issue is, many developers say they can't make the game go over the minimum specification when it comes to ports, when all that would be required is a bit of clever coding, in the case of PC it actually takes a user with newer nvidia drivers maybe 4 clicks to lock a game in at an adaptive half sync (newer version of vsync, less lag handles frame variation better, half=30fps max)
As for online play, there's a reason for the most part it's bs, the only thing it can generally cause is graphical errors on the clients end (if the game has a odd unfixed bug, but even then as shown by L.A Nore that's rare)
If you want a clean and easy example of FPS differences between players just look at onlone FPS on the PC, you can have players whose game can only run at 15 or 30 FPS but generally the only thing you'll notice is they're slower at aiming and turning.
The players don't get faster (I personally blame this misconception on emulators and I would need to research a bit to tell why emulators do get faster) but in the now the players have more response time at 60FPS then their peers, because they can see twice as many opportunities to enter their response as a 30 FPS player, basically imagine Jimmy sees 2 frames for Bob's every one frame, while they're both getting the same image, Jimmy is able to better respond because he has twice as msny opportunities as the game redraws.
If you've seen images at low FPS it looks like a slide-show, this is because for every say second you only see 15 frames of an animation instead of 60. Where if you're seeing 60 you would see far more images and because of that actually have a greater frame of time to respond, because you see what's coming twice as fast. So instead of waiting twice as long for your game to show you what's changed you only wait one.
Per say if you were fighting the Titanite Demon in Dark Souls at 30 fps technically you only see a new frame every 2/60 if a second, where at 60 fps you see a new frame every 1/60 of a second, this is how frame lag relates to input.
Because for every new frame the player can get a quicker idea on what's going on, and because of that re-act quicker, and consequentially with higher frames you recieve the rest of your actions twice as fast, but it does not actually make your character faster.
I wouldn't say you're necessarily incorrect because they are trying to sell to the largest number, the thing is however, when possible, you should be driving to desing the maximum experience capable at the higher, and even mid-range.
The issue is, many developers say they can't make the game go over the minimum specification when it comes to ports, when all that would be required is a bit of clever coding, in the case of PC it actually takes a user with newer nvidia drivers maybe 4 clicks to lock a game in at an adaptive half sync (newer version of vsync, less lag handles frame variation better, half=30fps max)
As for online play, there's a reason for the most part it's bs, the only thing it can generally cause is graphical errors on the clients end (if the game has a odd unfixed bug, but even then as shown by L.A Nore that's rare)
If you want a clean and easy example of FPS differences between players just look at onlone FPS on the PC, you can have players whose game can only run at 15 or 30 FPS but generally the only thing you'll notice is they're slower at aiming and turning.
The players don't get faster (I personally blame this misconception on emulators and I would need to research a bit to tell why emulators do get faster) but in the now the players have more response time at 60FPS then their peers, because they can see twice as many opportunities to enter their response as a 30 FPS player, basically imagine Jimmy sees 2 frames for Bob's every one frame, while they're both getting the same image, Jimmy is able to better respond because he has twice as msny opportunities as the game redraws.
If you've seen images at low FPS it looks like a slide-show, this is because for every say second you only see 15 frames of an animation instead of 60. Where if you're seeing 60 you would see far more images and because of that actually have a greater frame of time to respond, because you see what's coming twice as fast. So instead of waiting twice as long for your game to show you what's changed you only wait one.
Per say if you were fighting the Titanite Demon in Dark Souls at 30 fps technically you only see a new frame every 2/60 if a second, where at 60 fps you see a new frame every 1/60 of a second, this is how frame lag relates to input.
Because for every new frame the player can get a quicker idea on what's going on, and because of that re-act quicker, and consequentially with higher frames you recieve the rest of your actions twice as fast, but it does not actually make your character faster.
I'd submit that part of the solution is to educate more gamers on what the difference between 30 and 60 FPS looks like: I recall a news brief from some time back, wherein developer Insomniac said that Ratchet and Clank: Crack in Time would be their last 60 FPS game because most players never seemed to value the smoother framerate as an essential part of the presentation and playability alike (again, no idea if Insomniac was just pulling that out of thin air, but I'm inclined to believe them offhand). Anyone who plays, say, scrolling shooters or tourney fighters regularly can tell you how badly gimped one of those games is when it runs less than 60 FPS, but I doubt very many others could.
Bayonetta on PS3 is 30fps, half of the 360 version, and it's very playable... But every time I pop in my 360 version, the immediacy of inputs and smoothness of the animations is noticeable, almost to the point of being jarring! It can interfere with my ability to dodge at the correct times, because I press it too soon to activate the witch-time.
I think discussion about advantages between players in competitive play is nonsense, though. If I can't run a game at 60fps on my PC, I would be furious if I was unable to participate. You can be great with either refresh rate once you're used to it, and games are not the fucking olympics. By all means, put standardized hardware in tournaments, but for home gaming, we need to get this MLG stick out of our ass. Many people play their consoles in Standard Definition, on small 4:3 screens. I think that has far more of an impact than refresh rate. (this tirade was more inspired by a BF3 PC mod that pretties up the lighting and color, but causes people to be banned).
I think discussion about advantages between players in competitive play is nonsense, though. If I can't run a game at 60fps on my PC, I would be furious if I was unable to participate. You can be great with either refresh rate once you're used to it, and games are not the fucking olympics. By all means, put standardized hardware in tournaments, but for home gaming, we need to get this MLG stick out of our ass. Many people play their consoles in Standard Definition, on small 4:3 screens. I think that has far more of an impact than refresh rate. (this tirade was more inspired by a BF3 PC mod that pretties up the lighting and color, but causes people to be banned).
@Arttemis
Ah yes, I heard about that Battlefield 3 farce from one of my friends who (although he's great reads too much Facepunch News)they're banning people for non-native color correction (lol).
I wasn't saying that there is a complete disadvantage between frame-rates either on a non-competitive scene, just generally, if you had the a completely new player play his game at 60FPS, and then 30FPS, the 60FPS would probably do better then the 30FPS.
As for resolution I completely agree there, i'm used to 1080P and when I have to play on a small screen at a lower resolution on top of that, it's almost physically painful for my eyes.
I was actually still gaming probably around 2009-2010 on a max 1280x720 CRT, and if you get proficient you will do just as well, but a larger monitor is better, although it takes time to adapt.
This is a bit more PC skewed due to the extremely poor quality of ports on PC, where reputable developers lie when they say they can't put a game over 30FPS, but it was also directed somewhat at consoles, I feel developers may cop out just to give a stable 30FPS experience, instead of maybe a 60-45FPS one, more importantly however, if the consoles want to be successful next generation, 1080P isn't enough, they need to run at 60FPS as well, and this requires work on the developers end to "Optimize" their games properly for all systems.
As for the BF3 mod, it's probably not because of the mod itself, but because EA is a bit of a jerk, and they probably have it set to ban when there's any kind of DirectX Injector detected.
Ah yes, I heard about that Battlefield 3 farce from one of my friends who (although he's great reads too much Facepunch News)they're banning people for non-native color correction (lol).
I wasn't saying that there is a complete disadvantage between frame-rates either on a non-competitive scene, just generally, if you had the a completely new player play his game at 60FPS, and then 30FPS, the 60FPS would probably do better then the 30FPS.
As for resolution I completely agree there, i'm used to 1080P and when I have to play on a small screen at a lower resolution on top of that, it's almost physically painful for my eyes.
I was actually still gaming probably around 2009-2010 on a max 1280x720 CRT, and if you get proficient you will do just as well, but a larger monitor is better, although it takes time to adapt.
This is a bit more PC skewed due to the extremely poor quality of ports on PC, where reputable developers lie when they say they can't put a game over 30FPS, but it was also directed somewhat at consoles, I feel developers may cop out just to give a stable 30FPS experience, instead of maybe a 60-45FPS one, more importantly however, if the consoles want to be successful next generation, 1080P isn't enough, they need to run at 60FPS as well, and this requires work on the developers end to "Optimize" their games properly for all systems.
As for the BF3 mod, it's probably not because of the mod itself, but because EA is a bit of a jerk, and they probably have it set to ban when there's any kind of DirectX Injector detected.
