| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (18)

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 9:26AM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
60fps in certain genres, mainly shooters but sometimes also racers, makes me wanna throw up. I get motion sick from it.

I actually usually prefer slower frame rates in general. In a lot of games, I think a slower frame rate makes character movement seem more realistic...or perhaps it's just poor animation and it's highlighted and more noticable by the higher frame rate.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 9:54AM phenylketonurics said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. Mario Kart Wii as an example, it feels horrid to play 1 player offline because of the slippery look of everything. I love 2-player online because of the toned down "flow" and solid feel.

But the detailing in higher frame rate usually points out glaring little flaws in colour/design/animation/etc. that will never go away once you see them. Too much of a good thing, perhaps??
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:29AM Mike Sylvester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How about Super Mario Galaxy? That runs at 60fps, as well. I felt a little woozy at first with that one, but that was from playing on a gigantic screen and the topsy-turvy nature of the game.

I kind of agree that 60fps rendering gives an unrealistic look, but I often find that desirable. Unless a game is cinematically styled with motion blur, depth of field, and grain filters, I want to feel like I'm looking at a game. Remember the first time you saw Virtua Fighter 2 or Daytona USA in the arcade? Wasn't it the most amazing thing you ever saw, regardless of the silly animations and pop-in scenery?

Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 10:49AM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was actually fine with Super Mario Galaxy. I remember before it came out reading all the reports of motion sickness, though, and thinking, "well, I'm screwed!"
I never got sick once playing it, thankfully.

Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 9:26AM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A neat little eye-opener. I never really got the significance of the demand for 60fps

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 12:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good ol' Sega knows the importance of 60fps. Super Monkey Ball looks incredibly sharp despite its simple visual style. And F-Zero GX, that's proof of a game that wouldn't work at 30fps. GX's insane speeds made my eyes water the first time I played it.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 4:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The article begins with a definition of hertz but then all it talks about is frames per second?

Those are two different things.

How do you even get your monitor to refresh at 30hz for those Trackmania videos?

Also, am I the only one who couldn't tell a difference between the comparisons? I find that really odd because I can notice when my monitor's refresh rate is set to 60hz instead of 75hz (or higher). The flicker gives me headaches.

All in all, I guess what I'm saying is that somebody confused Hz for FPS.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:05PM thirdopticaltool said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
word
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:29PM Mike Sylvester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hertz, being a measurement of cycles per second, is used to describe the cycle of frames being drawn and re-drawn. It doesn't have to be used exclusively tied to the monitor's part in redrawing, because the console or other video device has its own cycles as well.

I tried not to delve into the subject of monitor refresh because it'd be several pages of off-topic jargon. It's made all the more complicated by the several different types of display technology on the market today (and I've been researching to buy a new TV, so I'm up on it all). The difference between 30Hz and 60Hz may be night and day on a CRT, DLP, or certain models of plasma, but LCDs generally exhibit ghosting, and negate some of the effects of increased refresh rates.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mike:

I understand that hertz isn't just about monitor refresh rate, and I see I didn't make it adequately clear.

My concern is that sadly a lot of people on these here intertubes are very uneducated about even technological terms (myself included, probably!) and your article seems to give the false impression that hz == fps.

The definition given at the beginning of the article is, of course, an accurate, if not a vague and generic definition of hertz. The trouble comes from the fact that the article only talks about FPS and then even labels the Trackmania video as different Hz rates instead of FPS rates, which makes it easy to come to the conclusion that hertz is indeed the same thing as frames per second.

Your second definition just isn't accurate:

"Hertz, being a measurement of cycles per second, is used to describe the cycle of frames being drawn and re-drawn."

In the context of your article, that is indeed what hertz is referring to. However, many things are measured in hertz. Video is an obvious one. Audio frequency is also measured in hertz (Khz). Even our computers' processing power is measured in hertz (Ghz).

So the whole article, while it is a good and interesting article, just leaves me wondering: why bring up Hz at all if you really only wanted to talk about frames per second?
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2008 4:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hertz are simply a unit of frequency and fps is measured in Hertz so in some respects the terms are interchangeable. Also, if Mike only referred to frames as in visual frames then it might give the impression that the article is just about graphics and not also about gameplay. As mentioned in the article, a 60Hz game clock is sometimes necessary for advanced controls. This is also another important distinction between game and film. As films aren't interactive they can get away with lower frame rates with each frame slightly blurred. If you tried this with a game and wanted to change the course of events mid-blur you'd find the game unresponsive. Most of my game playing life has been with online multiplayer first person shooters on PCs and trust me, it helps to have your game running at as high a rate as possible. On Quake 3 I would aim for 100fps. Mike is right in saying that console games can only get away with low frame rates because of the simplicity of their controllers. Luckily, Nintendo like to move forwards :)
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:04PM thirdopticaltool said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
films, though, are done at 24FPS. higher framerates convey more info, but not necessarily more *feeling* ...

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
stupid question, very stupid in fact...is 60 the greatest possible framerate, or is it possible to create a game with greater fps, or would that be pointless? i mean, couldnt u, hypothetically of course, create a game with 'real-life framerate" or is that absolutely the stupidest thing u've ever heard? im no developer, just a nintendo enthusiast...

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Real-Life framerate" is determined by how many "frames per second" your eyes can detect and other interesting factors. Read this for an in depth analysis of "How many frames per second can the human eye see?"

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:44PM Mike Sylvester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The frame rate of film is often brought up when discussing video games, but they're not directly comparable. One frame of film conveys more than one instance of time. In that frame of film, you see blurred objects representing their motion and action. If the film was recorded at a higher frame rate, high enough to eliminate the blur, then you'd capture an instance.

Video game frames are rendered in single instances. Unless motion blur is applied in post processing, each frame is clear. Playing those clear frames back at the same frame rate as film creates something akin to a slideshow.

An Imax film recorded at 48fps with every other frame removed and played back at 24fps would look like a slideshow, even though it's running at the standard speed for films.

There's nothing wrong with the cinematic feel, having motion blur (or monitor ghosting) can enhance immersiveness in the story, but a higher frame rate doesn't hurt. Panzer Dragoon Orta and God of War still felt epic and cinematic at 60fps with no motion blur, but would they have been as much fun to play?

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 5:53PM Mike Sylvester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PC gamers have been playing at higher frame rates for years. In the example I noted with Fatal1ty, it appeared as though his opponents were running at or around 60fps, while he was much higher.

The creator of the PS1, PS2, and PS3, Ken Kutaragi, expressed his belief that 120fps games could be made on the PS3. At the time, 60Hz was the television standard, but now there are TVs being made with 120Hz and 480Hz refresh rates that could handle the games he envisioned.

Posted: Oct 23rd 2008 6:15PM Mike Sylvester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I did mean that it's used in the context of this column to describe the cycle of redrawing frames, though I should have been more clear in the column itself.

The video editing process screwed up something I was going to discuss, but still managed to show the difference between 30fps games and 60fps games as would be perceived in realtime. I didn't have time to re-render and upload it once I saw what happened and realized the error, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.

Posted: Dec 14th 2008 5:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
maybe i am missing something here, but when a tv screen refreshes at 60hz, isn't that typically 60hz interlaced? and as far as i can understand, 60hz interlaced means that only half the frame is updated at a time, meaning that only 30 frames are shown every second - meaning a game running in a 60hz screen can't be showing more than 30fps? in fact i just checked in my manual for mario kart wii and it says "60Hz produces close to 30 fps" (the reason it is explaining this is because in Europe our TVs use 50Hz at the PAL resolution, but modern ones typically support 60Hz and the lower NTSC resolution, but I think still use PAL colour, and a number of GameCube/Wii games support or even require use of 60Hz on a European/PAL TV)

Of course the wii also supports a progressive signal, on the European wii this is 480p (ie. NTSC resolution) but it doesn't specify the frame rate... so maybe the wii supports 60 fps via component cable only?

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW