So I'll start off by saying I was at one point a console gamer. I ended up shifting to a PC after buying a PS4 and realizing that it was struggling to keep up with modern games. One thing I kept doing though was keeping my fps at 30. My first graphics cards were a 650 ti and a 760, so it made sense to stay at 1080p30 so that I could still get some high graphical settings. More than that though, due to gaming on console I suppose 30 fps felt normal and didn't bother me at all.
Since upgrading to my current setup including a 970 however, I've started setting fps to 60 cause, well, I can. I must admit it didn't take me long to get used to it to the point that 30 fps looks unnatural. That being said, I recently started playing Assassins Creed Syndicate and decided that since animations are rendered at 30 fps the whole game would feel more normal at 30 fps. Honestly, it didn't take me long to adapt once again.
That leads to my point, can any fps (within reason) be adapted to? I'm sure, just as I got used to 60 fps I could grow accustom to 100 or 144. Is it really necessary though? Is the best fps the highest perceivable fps, or individual preference? Is it possible we'll get used to films shot at 48 fps vs 24?
Basically yes. I used to play crysis back in the day and anything more than 10 FPS was amazing. I had so much fun overclocking my system trying to squeeze 1 or 2 more frames out of that game.
While I think your eyes can adjust to pretty much anything within reason I think games differ from films in that the FPS also affects your input latency, which is a much more noticeable thing. A higher frame rate can improve your gaming performance, especially is competitive multiplayer games.
I've heard that if you watch more than 10 minutes of a 48 film it will stop looking weird and you will find it difficult to go back to normal. But I've never been able to get more than 10 minutes. I know it doesn't make much sense but I guess it's part of film convention to have a frame rate of 24 and anything higher than that feels jarring and strange, like other convention breaks.
Having said that I use software called SVP to up-convert movies to 60 FPS in real time. But I use settings which do it in a pretty subtle way. Things feel smooth but not 'soap opera' like. I find it hard to watch movies at other people's houses because I've gotten used to my configuration.
Until today as I post this, I have been at console quality with my build bouncing between a 9800 GT and a 250 X for certain games as each are good competitors for each other @ 30 FPS (believe it or not my 9800 gives me 300 FPS in league of legends while the 250X gives about 80, but BOTH give 34 FPS flat in rocket league). I now have an R7 370 and can run everything at high or ultra at 60 FPS no problem.
I am uncomfortable as hell.
I have gotten used to the lag time in some shooters that a 30 FPS cap gave me and in trying to play rocket league today I was either way too early or way too late (in terms of goalie you are either on time or they score). Some games gave me more FPS and some games DID NOT run. GTA 5 being an example.
I'll say yes to this. I'm going to have to adjust now x.x
If I'm playing something single player that lags with me the fps needs to be smooth but I'm not concerned so much with it. But things like multi-player first person shooters require as much tweaking and modifying as I feel is safe for my hardware.
I never had a high end PC before Sandy Bridge. I just couldn't afford it because of a gambling addiction I had.... Sad, I know..
From 2008 to 2009, I was using a single core Intel Atom netbook. That was horrible. Some games "ran" and others failed. The same time that I had that netbook, I still had my old build that I made in 2003. An Athlon XP 2700+ paired with a Radeon 9200 SE, 512MB of RAM, Asus A7V8X-X MoBo. That thing was dying. Sometimes it would boot up fine. Other times, it would fail, and I had to do my voodoo ritual routine just to get it running.
Single digit to low double digit FPS gaming is no stranger to me. HOWEVER, I'm never letting myself go through that again.
Diminishing returns as fps increases. Information is passed from pupil to brain, and in that time there are delays, that your brain fills in the gap for. Your eyes, based on the limitations in processing information, pretty much can't see passed around 70 some frames.
However there haven't been any real scientific studies done, on FPS since the early 20th century. So the above explanation may not be true. Research is needed.
Totally agree I can't the difference after 70FPs. Saved a boatload of money going with 75Hz monitors over 120/144hz. 30 or above is totally playable. "Good" motion blur helps as well.
It's been interesting reading your responses, and I'm almost surprised that many seem to agree that it's very easy to be accustom to lower fps, whereas I've seen many people saying "everything below 60 is just a slide show". I do admit though that it does seem to depend on factors like the game, graphical settings and visual effects that are in place.
For me, inconsistency is a much worse culprit in gaming. I cannot stand screen tearing or the frame time lag that comes with variation in fps. I will certainly choose 30 fps over a range between 30 and 45. V sync I normally use because I experience screen tearing, even when fps is capped at 30 or 60? Maybe someone can tell me what causes this?
I've been a console gamer for most of my life and now currently have a 980 ti so... while mostly everything i play is 60 fps at all times 1440p it doesn't bother me when I go to play my modded Skyrim and I only get lke 35-40 fps. anything above 30 is acceptable to me (assuming it's not because of crappy optomization by the developer but that's another story) anything below is terrible. In first person shooters however I find anything below 45 to be complete crap due to the twitchy nature of playing.
for first person shooters i have to have 60 fps as a baseline. for everything else anything over 30 is gravy train. but i have a semi decent 290x so i am usually able to get around 70fps in most games.
For me, honestly I cannot adapt to anything below 30FPS, not that I even like playing in 30FPS but at least it is somewhat playable. I am using this shitty laptop and some games I have installed in the past run like shit even at the lowest settings. Portal 2, Warframe (kinda expected), and even Stanley Parable (A source engine walking simulator game) ran terrible to the point it was unplayable to me. I need to have a higher FPS in order to immerse myself in the game otherwise choppy movement will bother me to hell.
I used to not be able to tolerate anything below 60fps, but since getting a Freesync (MG279Q) monitor I honestly don't even pay attention anymore. I can tell still tell when frame rate is below 60 of course, but as long as it's between the 31-110fps Freesync range gameplay is still as smooth as I can ask for.
There also a lot to be said of the response times too as I've used CRTs and plasma longer than LCD and it's only recently that the LCD tech, for gaming at least, as become fast enough to usurp those techs. I hated LCD TVs when they first came and couldn't understand why anyone would want to watch the juddery mess they were.
Anyway more recently I went to 144Hz for a while. Then UHD back at 60Hz and now i have my monitor set at 100Hz but artifically limit games to 75fps. I'm very happy with the gaming experience at that refresh and the 100Hz makes the desktop generally smoother.
When i was able to maintain 60 fps on the UHD monitor I was fine with that too to be honest but it was just harder to do that in a lot of games so that's why i compromised with 3440x1440 @ 75fps.
I have played consoles since the Odyssey 2 came out and when it comes to pcs I have mostly had average to just above average pcs and I can say I easily adapt to different fps as long as it is reasonable. 30 fps to 60 fps is fine and guaranteed I must have played a console game where it dipped below 30 and it didn't bother me. Anyway happy gaming everyone!