You are just a slowpoke man, no offense. But don't generalise, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean others can't.It could be that I've been dealing with low-end rigs for years, but 30 fps is just fine for me. I don't have any trouble playing above 30.
20 is the bare minimum. Obvious performance issues and what not make it a headache to play.
I have never even seen 70+ fps, and I manage to be pretty competitive online. You guys either have some hyper-evolved eyes and reflexes that let you take advantage of such an FPS.
I mean, most console games are locked in at 30-60 fps, and there isn't any drop in quality or visual difference to me. Not to mention that most modern LCD monitors are locked in at 60fps.
Frankly, I think you guys are talking out of your bums.
He did give room for the possibility that we did both see and feel what he did not, but he just thinks the most likely thing that we are a bit nutty somehow. Ugh, games LOCKED to 30. Absolutely disgusting. I remember buying GTA3 for my PS2 long time ago and then the huge letdown from how it was limited in code to 25-30fps - always. Luckily there were awesome games that were able to go to 50 (PAL TVs run at 50, NTSC 60 but with lower resolution. Games were localized to each standard).anything below 100 is too little. 120 would be best.
You are just a slowpoke man, no offense. But don't generalise, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean others can't.
Has to be above 60 for me, if you say 30 is good, oh man your eyes are wierd. Its clunky and unresponsive as hell.
50.
30 FPS= Apart from looking like, well, terrible, even if I did want to play at this level my ability to aim would be SEVERELY impaired.
Still people are saying that human eye cant see difference after 30 fps. Its very easy to see difference....
You can get on top of scoreboard without making a single shot during the whole round, so it is not an argument. And stop repeating wrong assumptions about human eye, do your research first. It does also give an advantage in aiming because your perceived input lag (which is actually output lag, here basically the delay between input and feedback) is increased with low fps.I got like ~25 FPS on RO2, don't see it to be much of a problem, not much difference either with my brother's PC ~50 fps.
The human eye can capture an average 30 fps anyway.
With an average 25FPS, I'm very frequently on the top of the scoreboard as a rifleman.
I never said you can't see the difference.
It's sure looks better above but you don't have any aiming or reacting advantage.