41 replies to this topic

[3Dude]

yeah well... Apparantly pachter feels he has been misinterpereted, he takes back hyper realistic, and apparantly, 240 fps was just a 'dumbed down' example he used to explain to the person he was talking too, whom he firmly believed was too stupid to speak big boy words.

Apparantly, pachter said he claimed ps4 was going to be a very tiny jump, explaining that psx to ps2 was precisely a 48x increase, ps2 to ps3 was 40x, and ps3 to ps4 is only going to be a 4x increase over ps3, and that 240 fps was simply 60*4, so the simpleton moron he was talking to wouldnt get confused by the sophisticated world of videogames.

He then blamed stuff on neogaf.

[PedanticGamer]

Prove it?

There are numerous studies regarding it that are readily available, there not hard to find. Just look at how the HFR was decided upon (also if you want a response please quote so the person knows you have responded ).

I've never seen a frame rate that wasn't perceivable, so...

You can perceive that there are frames that make up a moving image... wow that means you can see a moving image and nothing else. If you think you can see the individual frames though you are deluding yourself.

If 60hz was the breaking point then we wouldn't have 120hz monitors for 120fps games.

Just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't an input difference. Hence for gaming the higher the better as it essentially gives you more inputs per second.

I'm talking about the difference in frame rate. Can you see a difference between 100 and 200fps?

When gaming you can feel the difference in twitchy games, you however cannot see it using your eyes.

240 FPS would make any human vomit from motion sickness. 60 FPS is good enough.

Not it wouldn't, and in fact I can say it doesn't having played games at such frame rates a great number of times. There is also no reason why it would cause motion sickness at all, in fact it would reduce any motion sickness cateris paribus.