You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Bobfish_Almighty ago 

Of course, I understand the preference. I prefer a higher framerate myself. What I'm still trying to understand is why people say that 30 frames is objectively a bad thing. You know, those people that will say it's an unplayable slideshow. That kind of thing. I just can't wrap my head around the reasoning. The only argument I've seen seems to reside solely around frustration that a killer machine is being hamstrung. Which is fine, if that's your reason for being pissed at the cap, there's no shame in that.

But I keep hearing people insist that it's an irrefutable fact that a 30 frame limit is out and out bad. Not just inferior, but bad. And I keep trying to ask people why, but all I get is circular arguments and "well DUH" responses.

See. now, there was another guy in here who said that he gets screen tearing at 30 frames. And that's a good reason. We all know how infuriating screen tearing can be. But some people don't have that problem. I mean, dude, I played Crysis at an average framerate of 12 and didn't get any tearing at all at the time. Whilst I played F.3.A.R at a solid 60 and had screen tearing everywhere because it's a shitty game.

So, my question is, what makes 30fps bad? Not just worse, less good, inferior, but actively a bad, unacceptable thing beyond personal preference and frustration at games not fully utilising your hardware? Can you explain that to me?