• gnzl@nc.gnzl.cl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      Looks more “cinematic” to me, if that makes sense.

      • mordack550@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        30fps may be fine for a game like Red Dead Redemption, but a racing game @30fps is universally bad

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          30 isn’t bad, but higher is generally better. There are diminishing returns after 120 though, and I don’t think anyone could actually use 240fps.

          • Bratwurstboy@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Have you ever played on a 240 / 280 / 360 Hz Display? Or played an esports title where low frametimes/ input delay are important? The difference in how fluid and responsive a game feels is massive between 120 and 240+ fps.

      • OptimusPrimeRib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Movies are able to get away with 24 fps because cameras have a natural motion blur. Games don’t have that natural motion blur so you are left with terrible input lag from 30fps and stutters performance of 30fps.

        I have never had a game look more cinematic from 30fps and not 60 or 120.

        • gnzl@nc.gnzl.cl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t disagree but I can prefer 30 fps right? I never said 30 fps is objectively better, it’s just a preference. I’m not trying to be a contrarian, I’m just surprised it’s so controversial to have this opinion.