-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry: Beyond 60FPS: How Running Games at 144FPS/240FPS Can Improve The Gameplay Experience
- Thread starter spam musubi
- Start date
You wot love?
The amount of action doesnt actually change just the number of frames you actually see per second and how often the game refreshes internally.
Only games with game logic tied to frames does the amount of action actually change when frame rate changes.
For me that kind of high framerate gaming has been mostly restricted to small monitors, and my gaming preference is 55" TV or greater and a 5.1 surround system.
That's a bunch of bullshit. 60fps is and always will be just perfect. Sure higher is better, but we're still a long way from 'even just' 60 being something of a standard, so this push for 144 seems incredibly optimistic to me, 240 even more so. Unless you're good playing Quake 3 on a 2080.
Consistency and what developers designed their game for is what matters.
Gameplay might become easier or harder if input method used by player is different to what game was primarily designed for(Resident Evil 4 Wii or easier aiming and battles with ai when using a m/kb in primarily console shooters, as examples) or framerate is lower or higher than intended.
Same for graphics tbh... you might see what you were not supposed to or if assets are not able to keep up with resolution boost, then game can look worse in higher resolution than original resolution.
Another example is Final Fantasy XV, this game animations look weird at anything higher than 30fps, so game was clearly designed to be played at that framerate.
Oh yeah, all that is applicable to curated SP experiences, no one cares about nuances like that for competitive MP.
PS. Best version of RE4 is on GameCube. Original resolution on CRT display, or as alternative, OG resolution + MSAA in Dolphin emulator on LCD display. Using GC controller of course šš
Gameplay might become easier or harder if input method used by player is different to what game was primarily designed for(Resident Evil 4 Wii or easier aiming and battles with ai when using a m/kb in primarily console shooters, as examples) or framerate is lower or higher than intended.
Same for graphics tbh... you might see what you were not supposed to or if assets are not able to keep up with resolution boost, then game can look worse in higher resolution than original resolution.
Another example is Final Fantasy XV, this game animations look weird at anything higher than 30fps, so game was clearly designed to be played at that framerate.
Oh yeah, all that is applicable to curated SP experiences, no one cares about nuances like that for competitive MP.
PS. Best version of RE4 is on GameCube. Original resolution on CRT display, or as alternative, OG resolution + MSAA in Dolphin emulator on LCD display. Using GC controller of course šš
Last edited:
Nope - it's data in the wild, so that's telling you "the median player with a GTX1080 has a better K/D than the median player with a 1050", but they're different people - they're not giving different video cards to a group of players and see how their performance changes across different rigs or whatever.
Depends on the game, but on PC going from around 60-100 fps in Apex definitely helped my game. Easier to spot small movements in the distance and fast moving stuff close up. Resolution has no impact on this. I will always go for framerate over anything in a competitive FPS. I'm not a pro player, I just want to do my best.
In a totally different way, this kind of reminds me of people I would know who played Quake without textures so players stood out more easily.
In a totally different way, this kind of reminds me of people I would know who played Quake without textures so players stood out more easily.
I can play 30 fps games on the PS4 just fine, but playing at higher frame rates games like Battlefield or Borderlands with all the effects and particles and shit it looks better and feels better.
But I can also see why people would like to get better looks at just 60hz. I am all for that medium point of good enough fidelity with higher framerates
But I can also see why people would like to get better looks at just 60hz. I am all for that medium point of good enough fidelity with higher framerates
I really wanna check out games in 120/144fps but I ain't got no monitor supporting more than 60 and I'm not going to buy a new monitor when my current one is still fine.
I don't know why but I suffer from motion sickness from some 60fps games especially Naughty Dog remasters.
I wonder if that would be worse for me with 144fps.
I wonder if that would be worse for me with 144fps.
The main reason I used to play at 4K (and downsample to 1080p before that), was to alleviate aliasing. With the amount of blurring done in modern games from TAA and other post-processing effects combined with the distance I sit from my 4K TV, I don't mind playing at 1080p if it means I get something like Metro Exodus's raytraced lighting in return. Mostly because I'm really not getting much, if anything, from the added resolution.
So assuming you have the hardware to do it, how much fiddling around is there to be done to get games to run at those FPS, Im sure it depends on the game but roughly speaking how many games work out of the box versus having to fiddle with patchers, ini edits, mods etc?
Thats the main detractor for me, I have an ultra wide monitor but just kind of gave up on playing games in 21:9 as I dont have the time to look for mods to force games to run like that.
Thats the main detractor for me, I have an ultra wide monitor but just kind of gave up on playing games in 21:9 as I dont have the time to look for mods to force games to run like that.
You buried the lead, looks like playing PUBG more than 35 hours a week is a waste of time, lol!
I wonder what the chart would look like for resolution at the same frame rate. I'm doing 1440p165hz, though definitely not hitting a consistent 160+ fps in anything but Rocket League.
Come on Intel/Nvidia, shrink some dies, crank some yields, do some architectural magic and get me some 4k320hz.
I wonder what the chart would look like for resolution at the same frame rate. I'm doing 1440p165hz, though definitely not hitting a consistent 160+ fps in anything but Rocket League.
Come on Intel/Nvidia, shrink some dies, crank some yields, do some architectural magic and get me some 4k320hz.
Powering games at that fps is insane. Unfortunately it'll probably never be a reality on consoles unless we get more console games that give us graphics/performance toggles.
Just have to play older games
I bet you could do Quake 2 or Quake 3 at 4k/320
I like to play on a TV so until there are non insanely expensive high refresh TVs I'm gonna stick with just 4K haha.
Higher framerates really does nothing for me beyond 60 fps, I really hate 30 fps though. The real game changer is freesync/gsync support. Everything feels so smooth when your monitor adjusts to your current frame rate. If a game supports ultra widescreen, I'll play it with gsync support, otherwise I'll play at 4k 60 fps on my TV, although no gsync there sucks.
It's total bliss, made the jump to high framerates on PC in 2013 and I'm never going back. 60hz legit feels like a disgusting slideshow nowadays for me if I'm playing a first person game with the mouse (and that's what I'm usually playing). Weirdly 60fps feels okey if I'm playing a 3rd person game on a big tv sitting far away in the couch with a controller.
High framerate gaming is awesome but it'll always be a bit too niche for me and out of my price range to boot.
When I got my first 144Hz GSYNC monitor a few years ago I was amazed at how much better games felt. First game that I tried that I think really made a difference was Bulletstorm. Unfortunately for that game you have to download a utility to edit the ini files since they're encrypted. I don't think you need to do that on the new version...
That said, I think 60 is perfectly fine for me too. I think going from 60 to 30 is a bigger "hit." Lol, I played Witcher 3 on my PC first at near 60 (enough for my then-new Gsync monitor), and going to the Xbox One version after that was terrible. It took me like two weeks to "get used to" how it felt on console after playing it on PC before I could start enjoying myself again.
That said, I think 60 is perfectly fine for me too. I think going from 60 to 30 is a bigger "hit." Lol, I played Witcher 3 on my PC first at near 60 (enough for my then-new Gsync monitor), and going to the Xbox One version after that was terrible. It took me like two weeks to "get used to" how it felt on console after playing it on PC before I could start enjoying myself again.
This is really great video. Demonstrates the benefits of high refresh well. I am still on 55 Panny plasma with 60hz and happy since it allows me to downsample from 4k with my 2080ti in most games. But this video definitely tempts me to get some 120 or 144 ultrawide.
On most games a higher framerate will only make the game more fluid, not faster. As you can see on the Digital Foundry Counter Stryke comparison, the gameplay speed is synced regardless of the framerate difference.
The resolution boost ruining assets argument never holds any weight for me, since people happily buy "remasters" in the millions that don't touch texture resolution, in fact very few of them do. i really don't see that as an issue except for when texture seams become noticeable.
But yeah i agree RE4 on a CRT is cool & Mouse/Wiimote does make it easier.
most games It just works like resolutions. Some games will be capped and can't be unlocked, and a few will need an ini edit or mod.
Super well said and I agree 110%.
Cool if people do care about performance. I once did many, many years ago thinking it would give me some kind of edge. Maybe it even did.
Nowadays I just like the eye candy and 60 FPS.
Should I just check out Microcenter to see what all the fuss about these 144 hz monitors that you all won't shut the fuck up about?
was the issue before that the monitors from 8 years or ago or so were always the strong bottleneck, so any benefit over 60 FPS wans't realized?
I have a another question to check to see if this exists:
27 inch 144 hz 2K monitor that allows split screen display (meaning I can have multiple inputs coming in from two different devices and both can be displayed (OR I can switch between one display and the other)
was the issue before that the monitors from 8 years or ago or so were always the strong bottleneck, so any benefit over 60 FPS wans't realized?
I have a another question to check to see if this exists:
27 inch 144 hz 2K monitor that allows split screen display (meaning I can have multiple inputs coming in from two different devices and both can be displayed (OR I can switch between one display and the other)
I'm going to have to increase my frame rates, and give it a try. I've been locking everything down to 60fps.
Kind of a weird video to make a thread about since it is an ad. But leave it to DF to make an informative/entertaining ad. I'm happy they are getting some sponsorship deals.
I now need to buy a gaming monitor.
I now need to buy a gaming monitor.
I just jumped from 144hz to 240hz.
Waiting eagerly to receive my new monitor. My i7 8700 will be rocking pretty hard. Not sure about my 1070 gtx.
Waiting eagerly to receive my new monitor. My i7 8700 will be rocking pretty hard. Not sure about my 1070 gtx.
Linus did a good example of this idea as well. Was pretty much different staff playing on monitors with varying refresh rates and play the same situation over and over and seeing how it will effect gameplay (mostly ended up being about accuracy and response time). Hopefully PS5/XB2 start supporting fps above 60...but I doubt it will be the case in most games to even reach that since HDMI 2.1 is only starting to come out recently.
Everything below 300 is a slideshow to my cyborg eyes. At 30 fps, I write my novel between frames.
Jokes aside, I find it weird that people think 60fps is not enough. Then again, I can really see the difference between 120hz refresh on newer iPad Pros and 60 on older, so I guess there is a difference.
Legends say, if you play at 30, all games are double the length than if you play at 60.