Who/What do YOU blame for this extreme lull for enthusiasts?

[Nec_V20]

Movies have "build-in" motionblur...comparing game FPS to video FPS is....laughable at best

It is about what the eye and the occipital cortex is able to process. At a certain point that ability is saturated and the saturation point has been reached with regard to demands put on graphics hardware.

It is as simple as that.

What you convince yourself of is your own delusion.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It is about what the eye and the occipital cortex is able to process. At a certain point that ability is saturated and the saturation point has been reached with regard to demands put on graphics hardware.

It is as simple as that.

What you convince yourself of is your own delusion.

Again as said above in my link the games are flickering. A movie screen is not. You cannot compare them at all.

 

[blackened23]

Again as said above in my link the games are flickering. A movie screen is not. You cannot compare them at all.

At this point, I believe he's just trolling. I inclined to think he doesn't even play PC games, anyone who has actually witnessed the difference in framerate would find it obvious that 60 fps is far smoother than 30. You really would have to be blind to not see the change in perceptible smoothness.

 

[Nec_V20]

Again as said above in my link the games are flickering. A movie screen is not. You cannot compare them at all.

Did you actually look at the video in the link? In the motion part of it the difference is not even remotely as discernible at higher fps than 24! To demonstrate the "vastly superiority" of higher frame rates still pictures had to be introduced.

It doesn't really matter how high you push it, our brains have to do the job of interpreting what our eyes "see" and our brains just don't do as good a job of "seeing" what is possible with technology to display.

I am not a grunting luddite, but I am not a salivating techno-masturbator either.

 

[Nec_V20]

At this point, I believe he's just trolling. I inclined to think he doesn't even play PC games, anyone who has actually witnessed the difference in framerate would find it obvious that 60 fps is far smoother than 30. You really would have to be blind to not see the change in perceptible smoothness.

The concept of "trolling" as with other perennial favourites such as "racism" and "sexism" etc. has been pretty much reduced to meaninglessness by people - such as yourself - using the term just because you think you can gain some advantage for yourself by uttering it.

My system is based on a Core i7-990x and my graphics card is a Sapphire HD 7950 (Vapor-X version), so exactly which part of "witnessed the difference in framerate would find it obvious that 60 fps is far smoother than 30" do you think I have missed out on?

FYI my system has now been up and running 24/7 (except for downtime with regard to upgrading hardware or reboots needed for updates) for 999 days 22 hours and runs pretty much silently - so in comparison to others posting here I must be doing some things right. In this discussion it is a non sequitur, but it does balance out the ad hominem of your post.

 

[Pariah]

The concept of "trolling" as with other perennial favourites such as "racism" and "sexism" etc. has been pretty much reduced to meaninglessness by people - such as yourself - using the term just because you think you can gain some advantage for yourself by uttering it.

You are the only one here with not one attempt to post any supporting information for your opinion. 8 posts that all say, I'm right and everyone knows it except you. Attacking others without substantiating your own opinion with supporting evidence is the textbook definition of trolling.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Did you actually look at the video in the link? In the motion part of it the difference is not even remotely as discernible at higher fps than 24! To demonstrate the "vastly superiority" of higher frame rates still pictures had to be introduced.

It doesn't really matter how high you push it, our brains have to do the job of interpreting what our eyes "see" and our brains just don't do as good a job of "seeing" what is possible with technology to display.

I am not a grunting luddite, but I am not a salivating techno-masturbator either.

Did you read the links by actual engineers and doctors that I posted? No? Then get off your high horse. This isn't some site with noobs and know-nothings. We are all knowledgeable of computer tech as it relates to games.

You, from your incessant posting about how you are right, without any corroborating evidence to show any correctness at all seem to have zero knowledge of gaming. It doesn't matter if you post your specs, that is highly unimpressive and could be used to bitcoin mine and nothing more. Much the same could be said about anyone here, but their post history and contributions to the forum lend a bit more to their credibility than someone full of themselves.

BTW: You said "you must hate going to the movies where it's 24fps." Actually I quite enjoyed going to the movies when the Hobbit was at 48fps in 3D. It was much more realistic looking. Further, as mentioned in my link (and I'm pointing it out AGAIN!) You cannot compare a monitor to a movie screen as the movie screen is not flickering. Your monitor does.

 

[pmv]

Mostly, I blame young people and their new-fangled cleverphone contraptions.

 

[pmv]

There hasn't been anything interesting for almost a year now. Titan was only of interest to the top end buyers, and the 7xx series just seem to slot into the existing cost/performance ratio scale (they aren't bad, they just mostly seem to fill in gaps in the range rather than radically change it).

I do partly blame the economy. But also the fact that most of the compulsive upgraders money now goes on phones.

 

[Ketchup]

Software is not pushing hardware, but who's to say it needs to. I would just like the software that's out there to not have bugs/crashes, etc. Every time I play a new game, I get bored with it and end up playing something from years past, or something I didn't have to pay for (Facebook games, for example).

Where is the creativity? If all game developers went into the task with the mindset of those who created the Portal games, for example, you might see games continuing to push the envelope for better hardware.

Honestly, how many different ways can you make a game where you just go through killing characters?

 

[Nec_V20]

Did you read the links by actual engineers and doctors that I posted? No? Then get off your high horse. This isn't some site with noobs and know-nothings. We are all knowledgeable of computer tech as it relates to games.

You, from your incessant posting about how you are right, without any corroborating evidence to show any correctness at all seem to have zero knowledge of gaming. It doesn't matter if you post your specs, that is highly unimpressive and could be used to bitcoin mine and nothing more. Much the same could be said about anyone here, but their post history and contributions to the forum lend a bit more to their credibility than someone full of themselves.

BTW: You said "you must hate going to the movies where it's 24fps." Actually I quite enjoyed going to the movies when the Hobbit was at 48fps in 3D. It was much more realistic looking. Further, as mentioned in my link (and I'm pointing it out AGAIN!) You cannot compare a monitor to a movie screen as the movie screen is not flickering. Your monitor does.

It is the incessant posting about why I am wrong when even your own link showed that what you were trying to suggest was just not as perceptible in motion as it was when the frame was stopped.

Now they are doctors in their own field. I am only a Diplom Psychologist. They are all excited about how they can portray something, my training was in how things are perceived.

With regard to 3D, solutions have to be sought because at present over 30% of people exposed to 3D content end up suffering from vertigo like symptoms and throwing up after being exposed to it for 10 minutes or less.

I don't know what your formal training is beyond being able to put the proper plug in the proper socket and spending money which you perhaps didn't need to on hardware which will not give you what you promise yourself from it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

As I replied before, you must really hate going to the movies. Those 24fps on the screen must be absolute torture for you.

The human eye is just not all that great. The light receptors around the edges of the eye can discern 60fps, but that is about it.

Whack any game up to the maximum resolution and all the other technologies and the reviews say it is "great" at 30fps. So if it is "great" at 30fps when all the bells and whistles are taken into account when reviewing graphics hardware at the very highest levels then 30fps is just as great when the hardware does not include those added enhancements.

So I would really advise you to take your own link to heart before trying to have a go at me.

I don't hate going to the movies, because 24fps is acceptable for video with motion blur and proper directing/production

in a game, not only is the difference between 30 and 60fps night and day, but so is the difference between 60fps and 120

you very well might be a psychologist, but its crystal clear you're not any where near being an enthusiast/professional gamer, and thus your opinions/authority on this subject have no grounds

 

[vanillatech]

I think in all honesty it's just that currently there is no need for faster cards and other hardware. Sure someone might argue about 1440p and surround resolutions need faster. You can always just add a second card or 3rd and be done. There is no software driving the consumers toward new hardware. We don't have things like Quake 3 forcing everyone to buy a GeForce 256 card for T&L performance, there is no Crysis making people want that 8800GTX Ultra. I think there needs to be something that drives the industry forward from a software standpoint.

Totally agree. As 90% of PC games (baring the Indie scene) are almost direct console ports, any card 3 generations old is capable of getting playable FPS, and to be honest for years now the quality of most of these games visually has been both stagnent and uninspiring.

I remember when Quake 3 came out I was running a Duron 700Mhz with a Savage 2000 onboard (with 8MB borrowed ram). I bought a TNT2 Ultra to get smooth gameplay, but just a year or so later Deus Ex brought that card to it's knees. A year or two after that, Temple of Elemental Evil made me have to shell out again for an fx5600 Ultra. But each time I bought that new card, MY GOD was I impressed. The games were improving faster than the cards manufacturers could keep up. We get none of that now.

 

[vanillatech]

I don't hate going to the movies, because 24fps is acceptable for video with motion blur and proper directing/production

in a game, not only is the difference between 30 and 60fps night and day, but so is the difference between 60fps and 120

you very well might be a psychologist, but its crystal clear you're not any where near being an enthusiast/professional gamer, and thus your opinions/authority on this subject have no grounds

You have to remember, since the mid 2000's CRTS have been a thing of the past. While I welcomed the widescreen revolution brought by LCD's, I really do miss the beauty of 120Hz. Like you said, anyone who tries to sell the idea that 60fps is as smooth as 120fps has clearly never played competitive Quake III on a CRT.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You have to remember, since the mid 2000's CRTS have been a thing of the past. While I welcomed the widescreen revolution brought by LCD's, I really do miss the beauty of 120Hz. Like you said, anyone who tries to sell the idea that 60fps is as smooth as 120fps has clearly never played competitive Quake III on a CRT.

I still game on CRT's...LCD's have crap I.Q compared to high end CRT's
Also why I laugh when people debate I.Q...and have LCD's...automatically disqualification rigth there.

WHen the last link in the chain fails...the rest dosn't matter.

 

[vanillatech]

I still game on CRT's...LCD's have crap I.Q compared to high end CRT's
Also why I laugh when people debate I.Q...and have LCD's...automatically disqualification rigth there.

WHen the last link in the chain fails...the rest dosn't matter.

I'd love to game on CRT's, but show me where I can get a 1920x1080 CRT display that will do 120Hz at that res. I have a few 19" Diamond Mitsubishi SB's kicking around still, and use them for my retro builds from time to time. But the 5:4 aspect ratio isn't viable for todays games.

It also pisses me off when I use one of those Diamond Mitsubishis to play a little quake, then go back to the ghost-a-thon of my 24" iPS. :twisted:

 

[Vesku]

Longer lasting fabrication nodes and the stretching of console lifespans.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I'd love to game on CRT's, but show me where I can get a 1920x1080 CRT display that will do 120Hz at that res. I have a few 19" Diamond Mitsubishi SB's kicking around still, and use them for my retro builds from time to time. But the 5:4 aspect ratio isn't viable for todays games.

It also pisses me off when I use one of those Diamond Mitsubishis to play a little quake, then go back to the ghost-a-thon of my 24" iPS. :twisted:

If you think 120Hz on a LCD is better than 100Hz on a CRT...you need to read up.
I run 1600x1200 (x2...I have 2 CRT's) for 3200x1200 screen estate.
None of the garp with LCD's...VSYNC...never use it..it's for people with LCD's....true Black...I enjoy it...no gohsting...I love it...a response time lower than human perception...but CRT's died (quality)...due to size/power FOTM ...same shite is happing with GPU/CPU's.

The tards that wanted perf/watt...have gotten their wish..but now they don't like the performance stall...go figure.

So all those people that put power before performance...is what happend.

 

[bystander36]

It is the incessant posting about why I am wrong when even your own link showed that what you were trying to suggest was just not as perceptible in motion as it was when the frame was stopped.

Now they are doctors in their own field. I am only a Diplom Psychologist. They are all excited about how they can portray something, my training was in how things are perceived.

With regard to 3D, solutions have to be sought because at present over 30% of people exposed to 3D content end up suffering from vertigo like symptoms and throwing up after being exposed to it for 10 minutes or less.

I don't know what your formal training is beyond being able to put the proper plug in the proper socket and spending money which you perhaps didn't need to on hardware which will not give you what you promise yourself from it.

Let's put this to rest. Click this link. It shows a side by side comparison of 25 FPS and 60 FPS: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

You can test out all sorts of different FPS, but assuming you have a 60hz monitor, you can only test up to 60 FPS.

While 25 FPS or 30 FPS may be good enough for you, that does not mean it doesn't improve as it goes up. With gaming, there is another factor you are also ignoring, and that is latency. Your mouse movements have a larger delay when your FPS are low. This delay causes me to get sick when my FPS are lower than 60. Even at 60, I get sick after about an hour or so. It isn't until i reach 80 FPS that I stop getting sick even after a few hours of gaming.

 

[stahlhart]

Get this thread back on topic, or I'm locking it.
-- stahlhart

 

[tnt118]

From what I've seen, there hasn't been much of a mass-market need for large improvements the past couple of years.

I've been PC gaming since '96. The cycle has always been nearly the same. At around the 3 year mark, the PC would start to feel sluggish and I'd start to get the bug to build or buy another one. Before four years, it would become intolerable and I'd pull the trigger.

I'm now sitting on a PC that is just shy of 4 years old, and there's very little I can throw at it that it doesn't handle easily. For general computing, absolutely nothing taxes it. On the gaming front, Bioshock Infinite was the first time it ever started to feel a touch behind the times. I don't try to push the latest Crysis at Ultra settings. All this while running a Plex server and other background stuff.

For a while I'd been thinking that Haswell would be a good upgrade for me. And it's not to say I wouldn't see some rather nice improvements, but when I started looking at it seriously, I realized it wasn't a good value. I wasn't comfortable spending the money I would have to see the gains that I expected, especially considering what I have is holding up quite well. Quite frankly, the gains per generation were not particularly impressive from my perspective.

With the increased focus on mobile computing and power consumption, I've felt for some time that the traditional PC is seen by the industry as "good enough" (and lets face it, for a vast swath of normal users it really is). There's not a lot of gain to be had by focusing research effort on the enthusiast folks. Way back in the day "pushing the envelope" was buying the $150 graphics card instead of $100. When I spent $270 for a card in my last build, I shook my head a little never expecting I'd pay that much for a card. Now the highest end is double to triple of that. Don't get me wrong, I"m not saying you don't get something for that money, but it is costing more and more to see such significant jumps in performance.

I think we're at an interesting turning point today. Traditional PCs are going to be less and less relevant, and I (sadly) can picture a world in 10-15 years where an enthusiast gaming market simply cannot sustain itself. On the other hand, it's my strong hope that with the new consoles launching soon, there will be new life pumped into the market and there will once again be a need and desire to make significant gains in performance.

(Before someone misquotes me, gaming won't go away, but it could easily take on a different form from PC/x86. What we do today simply might not be relevant or possible.)

This has me looking ahead though, wondering when cell phones will reach that same "good enough" point and start to stagnate. It's both scary and wonderful to be able to watch the life cycle of these things in such a relatively short period of time.

 

[bystander36]

The thing about all those games is that by changing settings to high instead of ultra you get identical image quality with massive frame rate increases. This leads me to believe that these ultra settings are just in the game to help nvidia and amd sell gpu's.

I believe the reason for this is two fold:
1) The closer to realistic looking graphics we get, the more power that is needed to push further.
2) When a new technique is first used, the programming isn't as efficient as becomes later.

In the early days, every new visual improvement was massively better than prior, but as the big things get improved, all we get are smaller and smaller visual improvements, and these improvements often are harder and harder to achieve. As time goes on, we'll start seeing smaller improvements, until things become close to photo realistic.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I blame AMD for being slow and overpriced.

I blame Nvidia for being late and greedy.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I blame AMD for being slow and overpriced.

I blame Nvidia for being late and greedy.

I blame consumers.
Like all those people that whined about the GTX480 and powerconsumption...they got what they wanted.
But now you don't like it...typical.

Remeber that NEXT time a poster advocates perf/watt...those are the people to blame.

 

[bystander36]

I'm happy about performance per/watt, as it has the side effect of keeping noise levels down. Noise matters to me.