Are you excited for 120 fps gaming?

Apparently next gen racers and FPS games will feature 120 fps. For example, Dirt 5 and Call of Duty Cold War. Are you excited for this, SW? I'm curious to check it out. Just recently bought a new TV that supports up to 120 fps, so I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully it will be cool. Do you think we'll see a lot of it, or only for certain games?

Yeah man, after you get used to FPS games at 120+, it's difficult going back. Even 60 feels stuttery and 30 feels like a slide show.

Honestly not sure how much that difference translates to playing with a controller though. I'm sure you'll still notice it, just not as much.

Racing games though, yeah should be great. Not just for the smooth play, games also look much better in motion at higher refresh rates.

Sure. My current TV doesn’t support it but when I get one that does I’ll be sure to check it out.

@Archangel3371:

Clean bait 😁

no my ultra wide 34' dell monitor is not 120 FPS and neither is my TV which is still 1080p I WILL Not be buying. a 120 fps product anytime soon, nor have I really heard of that many around me having one.

I genuinely don't care about 120fps in anything outside of VR.

I'm happy with 60... that's all my tv will do anyways. I dont think I'd want to sacrifice graphics for 120 either.

@ConanTheStoner: I have no idea what you’re talking about good sir. 🤔😅

Yes, that is completely awesome.

Pretty sure my tv wouldn’t support it. lol

I don’t care.

Do you think it will be better for fighting games too?

lol wut been gaming at 144 for a while.

**** yeah. Been there for about 5 years now (G-sync WQHD IPS 144Hz). It's totally worth it. Everything is buttery smooth and super responsive.

60 is okay. It should be the bare minimum. If I can get up to 100+ that's when it really starts to feel good.

I think consoles will struggle to do 120 and still maintain a good level of graphical fidelity. I only hope they use some sort of dynamic resolution and upscale instead of sacrificing things like detail and view distance. I'm worried people will complain about it not being 'true 4K' and then we'll see the marketing wanks over correct in such a way that nothing works well.

I'm interested to see how they **** it up implement it.

Most fighting games (good ones at least) are locked to 60 frame logic. Not just how the games run locked, but the language of how their mechanics interact. Which is nice, makes frame data this consistent thing that is easily explored and discussed.

It's always hilarious when I see some forever PC dork on Steam bitching about why he can't unlock the framerate in some FG lol.

But yeah, if FGs moved to 120, things would look a bit smoother. Probably not too noticeable though, since you're not dealing with rapid camera movement.

Interestingly enough, Killer Instinct ran its logic @ 90hz, but that was independent of display refresh. More of an ingenious way to help ease lag. Though I think you can run that game unlocked now.

tldr; Stuff might look a bit smoother

lol console gamers always playing catch up. But yes I will enjoy 120+ fps on ultra settings on my ultrawide.

Your inputs would be registered in half the time.

Sounds like a reeeally good benefit for fighting games.

Also....

Just because your animations are meant for 60fps, that doesn't mean you can't double-up on frames or interpolate to gain the benefits of a higher frame rate. The idea of 'frame rate logic' is archaic and nothing but the remnants of bad programming habits from a time where games were programmed for only one platform.

Already been playing for 120+ FPS for more than 3 years. I dunno what's the big deal.

@pyro1245:

Yeah, in most cases not a fan either. Sucks when some older game gets ported/emulated and going for higher frames breaks shit. A problem with a lot of older Japanese games.

Buuut, can't say I care either way for fighting games in particular. 120 could be better, sure, but 60 has proven to be a great sweet spot for the genre.

Not opposed to change either way, but don't see it changing tbh.

Meh. Solid framerates is all that matters to me.

I was over my buddies playing CS:GO on his 240hz monitor. I came home and played Bloodborne and it just didn't feel the same to me. It looks so choppy to me now. After that I booted up Doom (2016) on PS4 and 60fps while better, still felt sluggish in comparison. 120hz should be the goal for all games these days. This is why I am going pc as my primary system next gen. Plus Doom (2016) with a keyboard and mouse on pc at 120 fps is a completely different experience than playing with a controller.

Fixed that for you as we know you're a self professed mobile phone gamer.

@iambatman7986: Yeah unfortunately BB is actually choppy, even when compared to a game that runs at a consistent 30fps. Something about the way they capped the frame rate makes certain frames stay on screen longer than others, even when it's not lagging down into the 20's.

...but yeah 30fps is no bueno for action games imo. I find the sweet spot is somewhere around 100 for me when things become very smooth.

I lost my 60fps virginity less than a year ago when i grabbed a 1440p/144hz monitor after black friday. I can't believe how i took me this long to upgrade. I say this is the fault of all the scrub lords that told me that from 60 to 140fps the difference isn't that big. WIll never listen to anyone anymore.

If your TV supports over 60hz then you will feel a difference, although as I recently discovered with H:ZD, lower frame rates as FAR less intrusive when using a controller to game than a mouse +KB so I don't think console players are going to notice the jump from 60 to 120 in any real meaningful way.

sure?

I've been gaming at 120fps+ for about a year now and I have zero complaints. I'll never go back to less, 60fps just makes everything so blurry when there's any kind of rapid movement. Any improvement in resolution you MIGHT notice with 4k over a 1440p will be lost in motion of that 4k is stuck at 60fps, and it will be. In fact, next gen consoles have very similar performance to a 2080TI and you can look up benchmarks of the 2080TI in modern games and it struggles to reach even 60fps on 4k. So after a year or two when the cross generational period is over and developers start to add more into their games, a series X will probably struggle to run much of anything at 4k60 without reductions to detail, shadows, lighting, etc

It's basically 1440P120 or 4K30 that you'll be looking at. Really, HDTVs do such a great disservice to gamers by emphasizing pixel count over all else. That's why I will always game on a monitor.

Yeah that Bloodborne frame pacing is yikes. Really wish I could play a better version of that game.

😂

Yeah man, I have a hard time telling the difference once it gets past 120 in most games. But the jump from 60 to 100+ is so clear.

Unless it's something competitive like a fighting sub-60fps never really bothered me that much.

Given the choice obviously want 60, but if a FPS or such dips to the 50-40's, not a deal breaker for me, i'll live.

Yeah the biggest part of high frame rates is the reduced latency from input to response on screen. You'll be limited by the polling rate and strength of your Bluetooth connection when using a typical wireless controller.

I'm not sure what the average real world latency of a wireless controller is. I'm sure you could increase the polling rate, but there are a lot of factors.

How common are 120hz TVs? I don't think I know anybody who uses one.

Also, color me sceptical about consoles actually doing it. 30 (or less) has been standard for decades, with a tiny handful of games going to 60, often only in specific circumstances. And every time anybody brings it up, the majority of console gamers can't tell you fast enough how little they care. I just can't see any console developers being willing to sacrifice detail and resolution in order to push framerates that aren't even standard in PC gaming.

@ConanTheStoner: seriously. Bloodborne is unplayable, as far as I'm concerned. I play all the Souls games at 60, and I tried several times to play Bloodborne, and it literally hurts my eyes. I get a splitting headache in 5 minutes just watching others play. If they put it on PC, that's a day one buy for me, but otherwise I guess I'll just never play it.

standard pr bs.

for game dev. they really love to lie.

until every base game can do 60fps with out any dipping. then i will believe it

I see you're rocking that I_Cry_Daily ubi related quote as well lol

Very few games will be running at 120fps on next-gen consoles. So, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

@the_bi99man: yup. Very skeptical. Not only is the payoff for devs dubious, as you noted, but I'm not sure people appreciate how hard it is to achieve those framerates at higher resolutions. Consoles "supporting" it in a general sense translating into next gen games actually running at that...

Sure, I know we already have examples. Good, and I'm proud of the devs. But it's going to be a loooooooot easier for them to hit their design targets at 60 (or lower)

And i also love how these devs and MS is playing with words. Notice how its always "up to 120fps" and not just "this game will run at 120fps". That could mean that the only time you're reaching 120fps is when looking at the sky or the floor.

Agreed. I have a monitor that goes up to 165hz and there's quite a few recent FPS titles my GPU can drive past those speeds. So I am able to do two things. I am able to run them at 120fps or more on my main monitor, while my other monitor, which is only 60hz displays a 60fps image to compare both side by side. Small, fast moving objects leave trails on the 60fps screen but not on 120. 60fps appears to have motion blur where 120fps is crystal clear. So I agree, there's a huge difference especially in something like an FPS.

I've also tested in increments. From 60 to 90, there was a big improvement. From 90 to 120 there was a smaller, but still noticeable improvement. From 120 up to 144 and 165, I couldn't tell much of a difference if any. 120FPS is the sweet spot, and since I live stream gameplay, locking my display to 120hz allows me to capture at frame rates divisible by whole numbers to eliminate a sort of micro stuttering effect you can see on some streams. So 120fps truly is the best frame rate.

Since movies are always filmed at something like 29.97fps, I kind of wonder what an actual film would look like at 120fps as well.

Yeah I have a 165Hz next to a 60Hz

All you have to do is drag a window between the two to see the difference. It's a major difference.

movies are filmed at 24fps, which nicely scales to 120fps no problem.

The more I see you post, the more clueless you appear.

This is a question of where to allocate limited computing power. I want developers to think carefully about the overall quality, not just brag about some numbers at the expense of others.

Same here. It's a big deal for console gamers however. PC gamers like us are already used to high framerates but at least console gamers will get to experience better performance.

I saw the Hobbits films in 48fps. Just saying😁

No, I meant movies that are actually recorded in 120fps. You can't really add data that was never there in the first place. There's no alternative to actually filming something with a camera that can capture 120 frames per second.

I did happen to find some short videos online played at full speed (Youtube videos are locked to 60hz so all comparison videos have to be slowed down) In the videos I found recorded at 120fps there's a huge improvement to clarity and sharpness. More than you get from doubling resolution.

@eoten:Again, 4k is four times the pixels of 4k. 8k is four times the pixels of 8k. a **** ton more than double.

@davillain-: yea and a lot of people didnt like those because of the "unnatural" smoothness.

Movies are deliberaly filmed in 24fps. I don't even need to explain "soap opera effect" to people.

Gaming is something completely different. Play a game with "truemotion" or whatever and enjoy the extra input lag.

LOL same thoughts. Anyone who says they didn't care have yet to see the difference between 60fps and 120++FPS. 5 years late to the party

Well I've had a 144hz monitor for a while now, so no