This is why gamers go berserk when they don't get a monitor with 100Hz refresh rate and a computer that can deliver 100fps. You can really tell the difference, even though studies show that your brain can only react in 20ms and your eyes can't see more than 25fps and blabla. Though i think it's quite well known that the 25fps myth has been busted long ago.
In the near future I guess we will have to live with 60fps, which still is quite good, since that's becoming the defacto standard refresh rate of tvs and monitors. But it's quite sad to see newer games trying to lower the frame rate just for more visual effects, Battlefield 3 for example only runs in 30FPS on consoles T_T
Actually 24 fps was chosen for film (way back when film was first standardized) because it was the lowest frame rate at which your eyes interpret the separate frames as smooth motion. 60 fps makes a huge difference over 30 fps in a movie.
Comments
This is why gamers go berserk when they don't get a monitor with 100Hz refresh rate and a computer that can deliver 100fps. You can really tell the difference, even though studies show that your brain can only react in 20ms and your eyes can't see more than 25fps and blabla. Though i think it's quite well known that the 25fps myth has been busted long ago.
In the near future I guess we will have to live with 60fps, which still is quite good, since that's becoming the defacto standard refresh rate of tvs and monitors. But it's quite sad to see newer games trying to lower the frame rate just for more visual effects, Battlefield 3 for example only runs in 30FPS on consoles T_T
Actually 24 fps was chosen for film (way back when film was first standardized) because it was the lowest frame rate at which your eyes interpret the separate frames as smooth motion. 60 fps makes a huge difference over 30 fps in a movie.
Regarding consoles, it's pointless to have any more than 30fps because the controllers are stupid enough that reaction times are not the bottleneck.