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

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

    • mordack550@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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
          ·
          10 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
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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.