SAINT DRAGON: Amiga

[Retro-Nerd]

It depends on the genre. A slow paced stealth game is ok in 30fps. A fast action shooter not. You can clearly see that when the camera turns around. It's not smooth enough in 30fps.

[manossg]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. Anyone can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

TBH, I also can't tell the difference. I don't really care as well, since my hypothesis is that fps and fun do not correlate, except when fps are so low that the game is not playable.

I would really like a list of Amiga shoot'em'ups with their respective fps, to check this hypothesis, though.

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by manossg

TBH, I also can't tell the difference. I don't really care as well, since my hypothesis is that fps and fun do not correlate, except when fps are so low that the game is not playable.

You would notice it, if you observed the same game running at 25 fps and 50 fps.

And I am quite sure, that you'd prefer the 50fps version if you had experienced that once.

[manossg]

Originally Posted by Steril707

You would notice it, if you observed the same game running at 25 fps and 50 fps.

And I am quite sure, that you'd prefer the 50fps version if you had experienced that once.

That is highly possible, even though this argument is more in the style of 'I would prefer to be rich and healthy, than be poor and sick', as we say in Greece. Of course I would rather have smoother scrolling and animation, more colours, better sounding sounding samples etc. But these do not make the game (even though they can break it sometimes). And the sum is greater than the parts of technical stuff.

I remember watching a video of the remake of stunt car racer for windows, iirc. Yes, it was smoother and more technically advanced than the Amiga version, but I will choose the miggy version anytime. Granted, it's mainly the nostalgia factor, but even this weighs more for me than technicalities.

[Muzkat]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

I'm sorry, but that's simply untrue. Anyone can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

Well, I used to play Mortal Kombat X on my PS4. Apparently it ran at 60 FPS but would switch to 30 FPS to render certain special moves (X-Ray manouveres, fatalities etc).

Now perhaps it was my distance from the screen - I used to sit 1 to 2 metres away - but I couldn't tell the difference.

Perhaps my eyes are just wonky

[Tigerskunk]

Depends on the game, really...

For me, Vanquish by Platinum games on the PS3 is one of the best action games ever.

I was really surprised when I heard, that the game runs in 30 FPS. A very stable 30 fps, though.

So, it's definitely possible to make good action games with 30 (or 25 fps).

That extra smoothness you get with 60 (or 50) fps is very nice, though, imo.

[roondar]

TL;DR; I don't think it's as black and white as "everyone can see 60Hz" vs "no one can see 60Hz".

The whole frame rate discussion is actually a much more difficult topic than it's normally made out to be. Human perception is incredibly complicated, more so because people are actually different - some people can hear much higher frequency tones than others, or detect colours better than others. Reaction times also vary significantly between individuals. It's not unreasonable to assume the same goes for the ability to detect temporal resolution/frame rates. Complicating matters even more is that action game focussed gamers are effectively training themselves at looking carefully at small and fast moving objects, which might make them better at this detection than the average person or gamers that prefer slower paced stuff.

As such, I'd say it's not that far of a stretch to argue that the amount of fast paced 60FPS action games you play will have a major role in determining what frame rate you can still perceive and what frame rate you'll end up preferring.

But it's even more complicated because it really rather matters how fast the objects you are looking at are actually moving. If you scroll a screen by 1 pixel every 25th of a second, no one can ever see a difference between running that on a 25Hz update cycle vs a 50Hz update cycle. The same goes for objects displayed - if an object only moves at a low speed, higher frame rates will not make a difference in how "smooth" it looks*.

Conversely, moving the screen or objects at higher speeds requires higher frame rates to keep the smooth look. Of course, since older video games don't use motion blur this becomes more of an issue. So yeah, fast paced games really ought to run at 50Hz or 60Hz. But even then, not every object would need to be updated every frame for it still to be 100% smooth

*) This plays a role in video & film - good directors know exactly how fast something can move before it stops looking smooth.

[dreadnought]

I believe anybody can see the difference between 30/60 - it's just many people don't know what to look for, or simply don't have a frame or of reference (or need to look for it in the first place, because they just play games).

You can try this: http://www.30vs60fps.com/ or many similar vids/sites. There's no way you can't see it in an fps game once it's presented this way (baring some special cases).
It's less visible in 2D or third-person games, ane yes, also depends on display, distance and other factors. I was playing San Andreas on PS2 recently and marvekled at how awesome the engine actually is (and the game amazingly playable) - after coming from endless tweaking my PC rig in order to run maxed out GTA V at > 60 fps.

As for its revelance, sure it's much much better to have 60 fps (or 90-120 mmmm, yummy than not (which is why 4K does not interest me) but 30 fps can be also perfectly playable. I remember that well from my Quake 2 obsessive days: we always maxed out rigs and configs but there would be that kid with a broken mouse and less-than-30fps framerate at a LAN party, who would decimate everybody, simply because he adapted to it and was just very good.

[lmimmfn]

Originally Posted by Steril707

Depends on the game, really...

For me, Vanquish by Platinum games on the PS3 is one of the best action games ever.

I was really surprised when I heard, that the game runs in 30 FPS. A very stable 30 fps, though.

So, it's definitely possible to make good action games with 30 (or 25 fps).

That extra smoothness you get with 60 (or 50) fps is very nice, though, imo.

30 FPS is ok for action games( higher input lag though ) if the frame pacing is good, but 60 FPS if you compare the same game is much better. Tbh though unless you've tried it but 100+ FPS with gsynch/free synch is sublime, GTA V with that is just so smooth, it is not something you would think you would notice though.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I believe anybody can see the difference between 30/60 - it's just many people don't know what to look for, or simply don't have a frame or of reference (or need to look for it in the first place, because they just play games).

You can try this: http://www.30vs60fps.com/ or many similar vids/sites. There's no way you can't see it in an fps game once it's presented this way (baring some special cases).

Oh, I'd agree most people should be able to see it (especially in side to side experiments like that). I've certainly never had trouble seeing the difference myself. But if someone says they can't (or perhaps can only see it in these kind of tests), I feel it's frankly weird to claim that they really can see the difference when playing a game. After all, who are we to tell others what they can and can't perceive?

Like I said, perception is complicated

Edit: it's especially interesting for Amiga games though... Some Amiga games use this weird hybrid where the player and it's logic (and sometimes the scrolling too) are updated every frame, but the enemies aren't. Now, I'm not saying that's unique to the Amiga per se, but I can't recall other systems using this strategy. But at any rate, that should alleviate at least one of the two main issues with low frame rates in games, namely input latency and the "floatiness" that this causes.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by roondar

Oh, I'd agree most people should be able to see it (especially in side to side experiments like that). I've certainly never had trouble seeing the difference myself. But if someone says they can't (or perhaps can only see it in these kind of tests), I feel it's frankly weird to claim that they really can see the difference when playing a game. After all, who are we to tell others what they can and can't perceive?

Like I said, perception is complicated

Perception itself is not that complicated, at least not in the case we are discussing.Learning and recognition play a big part here too. If somebody says they still can't see the difference after being demonstrated comparative examples and shown what to look for, then of course we have to accept that. Even so, it could mean that "I see it but it does not bother me" which is yet another thing.

Otherwise it's simply a case of "not knowing" and not "not seeing". EG, when I started emulating retro games (I believe it was on the wide screen of a PSP) I did not know aspect ratio is a thing. So I kind of "did not see it" too. Then I read about it, saw some examples and understood what the deal is.

Input lag is yet another example, perhaps subtlest of them all and hardest to detect. But this subject is closer to the murky waters of audiophile-level arguments (flac vs v0, abx tests, etc) here. But then, my original comment was in regard to 30fps vs 60fps and it's a completely different league.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Perception itself is not that complicated, at least not in the case we are discussing.

It actually is, though.

PC Gamer did an article on whether you can see the difference a while back. It was really rather interesting. They asked a couple of scientist about this issue and it turns out to be complicated and messy. In no small part because the two scientists actually kind of disagreed on the matter

One thing they did both agree on was that anything over 24Hz will not help out in our ability to play games, due to our brains limited ability to track images. Which actually really surprised me.

Note: I'm not linking to the article here. When I checked back on it just now I got a whole bunch of virus warnings due to some bad ads running right now and that doesn't feel like a nice thing to offer as a link.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by roondar

One thing they did both agree on was that anything over 24Hz will not help out in our ability to play games, due to our brains limited ability to track images. Which actually really surprised me.

I think this speaks volumes about their credibility Like I said earlier in my Quake example it's possible than an individual playing at 30 fps will beat one playing at 60, but I can bet any money that if you conducted a large-scale test the majority of people would have better results when playing with higher fps. If I may subvert the well-known phrase, "it is known". The pro esports players don't max their rigs out only because of hardware endorsements.

For a small scale try, you can show the linked "test" to anybody and ask them if they really can't see the difference. 30-60 fps is quite a big leap, unlike, say 60-90. I'm sure some individuals won't be able to see it but this is why I mentioned "special cases" few posts ago. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority will.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I think this speaks volumes about their credibility Like I said earlier in my Quake example it's possible than an individual playing at 30 fps will beat one playing at 60, but I can bet any money that if you conducted a large-scale test the majority of people would have better results when playing with higher fps. If I may subvert the well-known phrase, "it is known". The pro esports players don't max their rigs out only because of hardware endorsements.

For a small scale try, you can show the linked "test" to anybody and ask them if they really can't see the difference. 30-60 fps is quite a big leap, unlike, say 60-90. I'm sure some individuals won't be able to see it but this is why I mentioned "special cases" few posts ago. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority will.

And I think this is where I’ll stop. Suffice to say I don’t agree with questioning the credibility of experts you disagree with.

[gimbal]

Its hard to describe what the difference is between 30FPS and 60FPS. Both are smooth, but 50/60FPS is really silky smooth. I compare 30FPS to a badly done 3D movie, the brain constantly goes "Nope, that's wrong. Wrong. No. Unnatural. I need to fill in blanks here and here and here and here and here. Wrong."

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by roondar

And I think this is where I’ll stop. Suffice to say I don’t agree with questioning the credibility of experts you disagree with.

If they're saying anything over 24 hz isn't beneficial, they're clearly not experts. In fact I doubt they've ever played a game in their entire lives.

Get them all to play a multiplayer game of COD that's limited to 24 fps. They'll take that ridiculous statement back REAL quick.

[Tigerskunk]

Just watch this...
[ Show youtube player ]

30/25 fps is perfectly playable.
But 60/50 feels just so much more smooth.

[manossg]

Originally Posted by Steril707

Just watch this...
[ Show youtube player ]

30/25 fps is perfectly playable.
But 60/50 feels just so much more smooth.

Watched it and ok, if I look very hard for it I think I can tell the difference, but it really is subtle.

[viddi]

Some games have a great movie / cartoon feeling @25 fps.

I prefer Streets of Rage 1 over its sequels (also better gfx imo).
And Resident Evil 4 on the GC is a much cooler experience in 25 fps. too.
The remakes and remastered versions feel so wrong in 50/60 fps.