Of course I can.There's little sense in ruling a game out because it's not 120fps, you can probably barely even tell the difference when they're side-by-side.
Most of the quake games aren't like this, or feature independent physics.This is (obviously) completely different to the fact that you want want more fps in games like Quake because the physics are drastically affected by the framerate.
Well I'm sorry but I've spent my entire life with max FPS looking at things in real life.Sad if some gamers are really that one-dimensional and prejudicial.
NES games I played as a kid were smooth even if their graphics were two-dimensional and low resolution. SNES games were the same. They should be running 30 fps, but maybe there is some kind of motion interpolation going on because they look really smooth.
When it comes to 3-d and no smoothing, 30 fps is just lousy. I ran 77 fps in quakeworld in 1999, then moved up to 154 when ezq offered independent physics (late 2004/2005?). So I even dropped a bit going down to 125 when I started QL in 2009, and yes I do notice a difference. So naturally, 60 fps in Q4 is a _huge_ drawback for me.
I noticed that on the xbox 360, 60 fps with motion blur in cod4 looked quite good, perhaps as good as 120 fps in Q3. So there is some hope, but I wouldn't go lower than 60!
Rage was great fun imo. A typical id software game, simple running and gunning. What more did people want? Why are so many gamer's glasses half empty instead of half full? Because they've been spoilt with too much choice and play way too many games (which many don't pay for anyway). Just because pc technology marches on doesn't always mean gameplay has to be more complex. You want an RPG? Don't buy id games. As far as framerate, big deal, most people managed fine. I can't wait for Doom 4, it's going to be great.
In fact some top N64 games often ran at 10-15fps and your eyes just adjusted and it was fine. Dreamcast games ran in either 25/30fps or 50/60fps. However the PAL specification for tvs is only 50Hz, though modern CRT tvs usually went a lot higher. So they put this menu in where you can choose between 50hz and 60hz, and while you could see the difference, it wasn't that much improvement. A big point of contention over the years is whether games should be in 30fps and done really well with an amazing amount of time left over, or 60fps and struggle to actually hold it together.
Edit: I'm reading that Halo 3 is actually capped at 30fps. Seems to me like this whole thing is just another way for some people to boost their self-esteem, a terrible problem I have noticed. Laughing at all those "chumps" playing the videogame consoles, spending all day at these same couple of games (which is all they purchased in the past 10 years). No wonder Quake is dying.
Last edited by quakestreme; 08-03-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Aways ensure you are maintaining a high FPS rate in QL. Otherwise you can be at a big disadvantage. To find out your current fps rate, use the command: "set cg_drawfps "1"".
but u r rong
cod4 on 360 looks like garbag fps wise compared to quake live's 125fps on 120hz
also those sidescrollers don't really need high fps, they are not FPS games.
If you made them run at 120fps on a 120hz display, assuming the game didnt break, it would look a lot smoother, not that you would need it to be that smooth because it's a platformer, not a fps game.
(e.g super meat boy at 60fps looks a lot smoother than most other platformers which are usually at 30fps)
Last edited by jigglywiggly; 08-03-2012 at 11:12 PM.
I am aware that a lot of titles on modern consoles run at 30 fps, and they don't look so good. Titles that adhere to at least 60 fps look infinitely better. I was glad that Carmack stuck to his guns with rage and made it 60 despite being under pressure for 30.
As far as I remember, netquake and early quakeworld were either oblivious to fps physics wise, or not very sensitive about it. Past 77 fps has undesired consequences to physics, but ezquake adds indy physics support, and servers force clients to 77 physfps or kick them.Most first person shooter quake games on PC? There hasn't been that many of them, so FPS didn't matter in terms of physics in Quake 1 and 2?
Quake2 is FPS dependent, however higher fps doesn't necessarily have preferred effects! There are q2 clients that feature indy physics (r1q2).
Quake 3 is the main game in which fps affects the physics.
Quake 4 is not affected physics-wise by FPS.
Quake Live features independent physics.
It's not infinite! I read somewhere that it's somewhere like ~200,000 for the horizontal. Like Carmack mentioned in his keynote though, you have a smaller field of focus, and the rest can be lower resolution.You spend it with infinite resolution also.
So it's vsync'd with the tv? :-)This is totally nonsense because the SNES just outputs everything in the video memory at 30/60hz to match the tv, it has nothing to do with the fps on the SNES game anymore than the refresh rate your monitor is on has to do with the fps of the PC game. The fps of the game has to do with what the game is updating per second. You can do whatever you want with the graphics between vblanks or the tv's refreshing.
The point is that it's smooth, whereas N64 games often are not. Same with 30/60 fps games on the PC.
No they didn't! It always looked horrible to me.In fact some top N64 games often ran at 10-15fps and your eyes just adjusted and it was fine.
I get that there are developmental considerations. However I strongly prefer the look of 60 fps to 30 fps, 120 to 60, and so on. Motion blurring when done right can mitigate a lot of the unpleasant visual quality of a low framerate. The extreme example is television shows that almost universally use 30 fps. Looks fine to me, but I like 48/50/60 even better! There are some examples at 100 fps.com, and if you search the web about the whole 48 fps hobbit debacle you'll find some example videos.Dreamcast games ran in either 25/30fps or 50/60fps. However the PAL specification for tvs is only 50Hz, though modern CRT tvs usually went a lot higher. So they put this menu in where you can choose between 50hz and 60hz, and while you could see the difference, it wasn't that much improvement. A big point of contention over the years is whether games should be in 30fps and done really well with an amazing amount of time left over, or 60fps and struggle to actually hold it together.
Movie theaters are terrible for me. Even though they run at 24 fps, the projector adds more flicker or something. I find them thoroughly unpleasant :-/ I am stoked about the hobbit playing in 48 fps.
In real life lol. I know about yt's fps cap. If I ever watch a game trailer I try to find it for download, because some of those will show the game's actual framerate as opposed to a streaming framerate which is rarely above 30.Where did you watch this, youtube?
Some of those console titles look nice at 60 fps + motion blurred. Rage is an excellent example. There are plenty of XBLA games that do as well.Edit: I'm reading that Halo 3 is actually capped at 30fps. Seems to me like this whole thing is just another way for some people to boost their self-esteem, a terrible problem I have noticed. Laughing at all those "chumps" playing the videogame consoles, spending all day at these same couple of games (which is all they purchased in the past 10 years). No wonder Quake is dying.
I like high framerates and I always have. It's got nothing to do with PC vs. console really.
"What? a 128 kbps sound track, ughhh it sounds bad, I will not listen to it unless they make a 320 kpbs version"
Some of you guys really have lame arguments, I have played through many many great games, and even a 15 fps game didn't stopped me from enjoying the experience. Sure, you might be like, ugh, seems annoying during the first minute, but if your brain work properly, you should normally be able to overwhelm that issue.
Unless the rendered graphics cause you to feel headaches or constant irritation, you shouldn't have any excuse.