Do you think over 60 frames-per-second is less immersive?

This is not a claim, btw, just a hypothesis based on nothing more than a brief impression, ok?

I've been recently to my bro's and he has a monstrual rig, and while you can notice aliasing only standing 2 inches away from his display, and everything is so life-like etc.

However, I can't help but feel that in a cinematic FPS like Metro, over 60 frames-per-second dimnishes immersion a bit, I think? 60 feels fine, but anything over it - very alien... The games feel bit more arcade-y, especially when K+M are already hyper-sensitive compared to a controller.

But maybe I've now become a generic console peasant ever since I jumped in to console gaming full-time since 2008 and I'm too incompetent to tell?

No, that's dumb

60FPS is overrated

60 fps is clearer and noticeble difference from 45fps, but 45fps is very good and i rather play 45fps ultra than 60fps medium settings

thats why games like killzone aim to best looking at avg 45 fps

No.

You're just confused that the game isn't running like a power point project.

I know what you mean. Very high frame-rate make games look like they were sped up or something.

This.

Lay off the "Start a New Topic" button, this shit it getting almost as bad as Jakandsigz.

I actually agree. Even at 60 things kinda look a little too arcade like.

No, I think the opposite is true. Slow framerate breaks immersion because real life is in 60fps (IIRC 60fps is what the human eye views in).

The eye doesn't see stuff in frames per second.

Your eyes don't have refresh rates

I heard people complaining the new Hobbit movie which was shot in 60 fps looked like a soap opera. I've only seen clips but can't help but agree.

However that's film. It's supposed to transport you to an otherworldly place for a little while. 60 fps loses that and makes it look too "real." Games are a another matter entirely, and I feel that 60 fps for consoles is long overdue. Sadly it looks like we're screwed for another gen.

They have 8 gb of RAM!!!! Why can't they do it yet?!?!?!

*sigh*

I may become a hermit again.

Only plebs think so

Does he have above a 60hz monitor?

But they have an effective maximum at 60, no? I read it years ago... in relation to the whole dual 1080p @ 120 fps debacle.

My monitor can't display anything over 60 Hz, so I really can't tell you...

no, it can see above 60 fps.

incandescent lights actually flicker. The reason we see incandescent lights like they are always on is because they flicker so fast that the human eye can't tell. This is why when those lights start dying out, aka flickering less frequently, the human eye can finally notice the flicker. There is a difference however between 60 and 120. This is especially noticeable when scrolling through a website specifically with your mouse and the scroll bar. However from 120 to 240 is more debatable.

I saw a huge leap in smoothness from 60hz to 75hz, 120hz is yet another leap, but the largest is from 60-80hz.

no not always, made the Hobbit worse when they doubled the framerate, felt like I was watching a play at a children's theater

people in gaming make it act like it effects reaction times but it really doesn't, the fastest reaction times are like .1 seconds but more like .15 to .3 on average, if a game runs at say 30 frames per second then the frame is only going to be .033333 seconds, 33.333 milliseconds; not going to make a difference; plus if everybody is playing on hardware there's no advantage for any two players that come face to face except for the difference of circumstance and raw skill

Oh, come on guys! Everyone knows only fighting, racing, and competitive FPS games benefit from being at 60fps! Right!? RIGHT!!!???

30 fps 720p Battlefield 4 runs and plays smoothly on my ps3 (don't know about you people who constantly have problems with bf4 on consoles that I so-happened to never experience). Playing CoD at 60fps, I realize how overrated six-o really is. Is it less invigorating? no. just not necessary. but a fun extra, nonetheless.

I'm not sure, TC, but I wouldn't doubt it. I found 'The Hobbit' to look very artificial not only because of the CGI, but the increased frame-rate. I believe it makes sense that after a certain point it does look artificial (partly because we're accustomed to 24 FPS display on movies and, for the most part, 30 or 60 FPS on games).

Say hi to 60+FPS......... Yes the video is 30FPS, but the content remains as smooth as 60FPS+, the motion is far smoother and much more reactive.

You can still see a difference between 60fps and 144fps.

Using a 144hz feels butter smooth at 1ms refresh rate.

to me 60 frames or higher is more immersive

What????

If a game starts hitting below 100fps, I start turning down settings. I'm just so use to 120fps, that anything below 100 is choppy and too slow.

Does your friend has a 120hz monitor?

The only thing that ruins immersion on a PC game is the keyboard and mouse.

id take 120 fps over 60 any day since i have a 144 and 60 hz monitor. i dont think i can go back to 60 for fast paced games anymore, until i see if gsync is worth it.

He had CRT monitor capable of displaying resolutions over 1080p and refresh rate 120hz, but it died now and he's been playing on a Samsung 37 LCD TV (don't remember the exact model but it was very high end at the time of purchase), and the thing is there might have been some motion plus stuff activated which doubles frame rate or something and I totally forgot about it.

60fps is horrible unless you are playing online.

30fps for single is fine. 60fps makes it look like a soap opera when it is meant to look like an awesome campaign!