It still looks pretty rough to me. Crazy, when I was a kid I was happy to be able to run a game at all on our family pc. I played through quite a few games at 20 or lower fps for sure but it was still fun.
I started gaming in late 90's and back then 25fps at 800x600 on a CRT monitor was the target. 1080p 25fps was the target even with crysis and the Radeon HD 4870x2 was the first to reach it. Nowadays I mostly play old games (Mafia, GTA 3, MOHAA, Call of Duty) on old hardware and I'm happy with 25 to 60 FPS. High refresh rate gaming never got me
There's a difference in watching something with 24fps and having to interact with something with 24fps. That's what most people not understand. Everything at 12fps is considered "fluid" motion, but it isn't fluid perse when you have to interact with something in 12fps.
Lot would depend on type of game. First person shooters are ugly at these FPS. On the other hand, action games like Witcher 3 for example are not so bad - you press a command and then Gerald takes half of second or more to execute action in cinematic motion. So it is somewhat playable, maybe not at 24 FPS but at 30 it is acceptable.
Movies used to spend quite a lot of time working out how to film scenes with 24fps. The camera cannot move too quickly, things cannot fly across it and so on.
way about to comment that! There are very few scenes in a movie (if at all) that would even need for frames, since it's all made with that cap in mind.
I work in film and hetv and you hit the nail on the head. 24fps is shot at a shutter speed of 1/48 (sometimes 1/50). This adds a lot of natural notion blur to the scene and helps make it feel smooth and pleasing to the eye. You can also pan with a subject as it moves and it will keep them looking sharp and the bg will be blurred due to the pan (the amount of blur depends on the speed of the subject and pan like you said). This is why if you pause a film in an action scene there might be zomeone punching with their moving fist all blurred, but in the moment it is easy to follow. Brilliant comment!
@@Janken_Pro Rehan, no one needs your shallow pessimism yet you still give it. Look at the amount of likes your comment got compared to the one I gave 😅
the reason it feels so much worse for games is because in a film, one frame is supposed to contain all the motion in that 1/24th of a second, while in a game, once frame is one exact instant in time
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j Most animations are tied to 30fps, I also don't think 30 feels remotely smooth but I've been spoiled with 60fps+ for some time, I do remember playing BF3 at 30fps locked when it came out and that felt fine, I wasn't on a 165hz monitor though.
That is exactly what I wanted to say. Shutter Speed -> Motion Blur. When noobs film at 24 fps with 1/4000 shutter speed at daylight, it looks choppy too.
If motion blur is implemented realistically in games, then 24 FPS would actually be playable. But there are little to no games that have realistic motion blur similar to camera's.
If you have an anemic, old graphics card then the FPS cap works well. Stability via consistent frame times is more important than visual quality when you have no other choice. Nicely done and thanks for explaining the 24fps cinematic thingy. 👍
I remember back in that day, I played BF3 on max settings and got at some 24-30 (Most usually at 24). I was so happy back then, just play BF3 on max settings in 2011 is a special thing for me
Given all the talk over the years about making games more cinematic, I've long waited for a developer to have the balls to lock their game to 24 fps in that pursuit.
I think The Evil Within was a very close one with the "forced cinematic features" 😄 At launch, the game was only playable at locked 30fps and most noticably the 1:2.50 cinematic widescreen (which resulted in black bars on a standard 16:9 monitor). Later with an update it was possible to run it at 60fps and disable the black bars. Though I personally like the aspect ratio! but yeah, 60fps has a much better feeling when playing the game.
That would be pretty funny if the game at least started that way before going "just kidding" a few minutes later, But it would only look good with motion blur. For all the hate it gets, the reason why movies don't look janky at 24 FPS is because of motion blur. If you're gaming at 24 fps, motion blur will save it from looking weird.
@andyhoov careful what you wish for! Looks like Bloober Team has heard you, and has listed minimum requirements for Silent Hill 2 remake as GTX 1080 / RX 5700 for… 30fps at 1080p low to medium settings. Might as well lock it to 24 fps in my case (RX 7600S) 😅
I think it highly depends on how well the animations in the game are made as well. The good ol Prince of Persia from 1989 plays at 12 fps but feels EXTREMELY smooth.
I actually think 24fps CAN work pretty well in games, but they really need a couple of things to make it work... First of all, you need a high quality per-object motion blur to better portray simulate motion over time. Because without it, you lack a sense of directionality of the motion in game. And this is why 24fps in films seems smoother, they don't capture single sharp images 24x per second but rather having open exposure during a period of time, resulting in a blurry image. pause any film and you will see... This is what masks the low framerate and why it still looks good. Another thing you will need is a very short and fast sync with the display, perhaps skipping the frame buffer entirely while using adaptive sync. Still, the gameplay would benefit from being slow and cinematic too. I think this is actually the direction we will see with Unreal 5 games... a lot of emphasis on cinematic rendering and not necessarily high performance.
Yup, and blur like that is quite a task to do properly. The reason why we have such a simple blur in basically all games nowadays is because it is way less demanding and aging consoles at the time could use it as a simple trick to mask low framerates. And since basically everything now is done cross-platform and it takes little work to implement, we keep with it.
@@Tryton4551 absolutely true. Now there are a lot of alternatives out there, a lot of TVs support 24Hz. Free-sync and g-sync displays can often display 24Hz as 48Hz using frame duplication. (even though the freesync and g-sync range is 48 up to let say 144Hz)
the problem with 24fps is that it does not divide into standard monitor 60hz......this causes jutter at 24fps. back in the early 2000s some ps2 games in eurape/australia PAL land ran at 25fps and felt fine as the CRT tvs where 50hz........so it divided better. 24fps does however evenly divide into 120hz and 144hz monitors. so ironically for the best CINEMATIIC 24fps experience, you need a 120hz/144h/240hz monitor (or g-sync ultimate branded display that can scale down to 1hz)
One thing to note when playing back this video, is that us viewers may actually experience uneven frame-times ourselves since most monitors not equipped with G-Sync or FreeSync are refreshing at 60, 75 or 85 Hz which is not a natural multiply of 24 Hz (that would be for example, 48 or 72 Hz). For example, the cars driving at a constant pace in the beginning shots of GTA 5 seemed to "jump" periodically on my 60Hz monitor since the GPU/monitor had to display each video frame for 2-3 refresh frames, so that those 24 video frames would spread out somehow to the 60 monitor refreshes. As for playability, it really depends. I used to game a lot on the infamous Intel GMA 950/915/910 and later Intel GMA X3100/965 integrated graphics and for example some older games, like Far Cry 1 and NFS Most Wanted(2005) were pretty playable (and as a matter of fact I almost completed each of them on the aforementioned hardware), the newer ones, especially console ports like Dead Space, felt very crappy. But sometimes low framerates provide for hilarious glitches (i.e. 4WD humvees in Far Cry 1 would always start wobbling violently at low framerates, usually slamming and killing the mercenaries which were supposed to drive them xD)
I'm pretty sure the video has been rendered in 30FPS, so the "jumping cars" are actually in the video. EDIT: nvm the video is 24 FPS, I didn't know TH-cam supported that framerate. For whatever reason I also saw the "jumping cars", even though my monitor is 120 Hz which is a multiple of 24...
Good old 2:3 pull-up. And youtube not only supports cinema 24 fps but also PAL 25 and 50 FPS And the 24 fps movies also explain why there are 144 Hz monitors and not 140 or 145 or 150, it is a multiple of 24 so that it can play movies at a smooth and even rate. On the other hand, I'm waiting for 600 Hz screens, which would be able to smoothly play 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 fps content and thus would offer the best experience for all content. (24x25, 25x24, 30x20, 50x12, 60x10)
I found 14-15 fps genuinely playable for several years, then I upgraded to a GT 630 and it was like a button was pressed and the brakes were released! 4k 60+ or 1080P 240 is what I aim for nowadays. Edit: RX 6600 now, very capable. Elden Ring maxed out 4k.
I aim for 480p 30fps today, with older or less intensive games I can play at 720p 50fps and even sometimes at 900p 50fps (1600x900), which is my monitor, my integrated intel HD 4000 graphics can't handle much more smoothly
@@mrducky179 good bump from my vega 56! some games run like trash on even the 6600 however. you should experiment with some more cards. My r9 280 runs light games in 4k.
I used to play at 24 fps on my old sandybridge Intel i3 with its shit igpu and honestly It felt playable at that time. I spent hours and hours on that thing. Now I have pretty capable gaming laptop but I neither have time or passion to play games. It's crazy how life works.
You just gotta find one game you enjoy. If you like questing and adventures, or story driven RPG's I'd recommend Metro Exodus or Days Gone. Don't worry about the premium versions, vanilla is fine. As for time, you gotta make time. If its an hour in the evening then use it. Come back to the flock!
Ikr I just watch gameplay and videos like this to fill that itch. Now I gotta go home from work, spend time with my family, do some chores. By the time I'm done I just want to go to bed. Young me thought I could stay awake and play video games the whole day.
Crazy to me: I remember playing Formula One GP from Geoff Crammond / Microprose on the Amiga and fiddling around with a game editor in the early to mid 90s. There was an option to change the framerate and as far as I remember, the standard was 8 fps, which was of course not fine but playable. 12 fps seemed quite smooth, but in case you didn't want to play in slow motion you had to decrease the level of detail. This could be modified in 2 steps.
Never forget that just a few short years ago there were groups of console players saying that lower frame rates were more "cinematic". That's some hard copium.
I really appreciate you doing these types of specialized videos. Doing benchmarks intended for those who want a vsync at a lower fps because their hardware would support it better just helps ultimately with showing people what to expect using outdated hardware whether it be ram/cpu/gpu and getting the most out of their system overall. Thanks for always being the all arounder in respect to those slowly upgrading their system or building one from available parts that are at a value they can work with!
consistent 24fps with motionblur is pretty acceptable :) just make sure to put your screen/windows refreshrate also to 24 so games can Vsync correctly which makes it feel even better and less laggy.
I absolutely hate motion blur. I much prefer consistent visual clarity over a fake smooth experience. 24fps is dog shit whether you use motion blur or not.
@@stansmith7445 motion blur is awesome for some people. For me, it's good since it's mimic normal video camera. Most of FPS/shooter player will hates it.
@@cocobos Honestly it is personal preference in the end. I myself find motion blur very excruciating especially at lower fps. Only exceptions for me are racing games (which I barely play anyways) and warframe. IDK what is it about warframe but that game feels unplayable without motion blur - Even back when I had a shitty pc that barely ran it I couldn't disable motion blur, I feel it is that well fitting for the game
I literally cannot play games that aren't a solid 60 FPS it makes me nauseous. I guess when I was younger I didn't even notice framerate but now in 30 FPS games it just makes it so hard to change the camera angle without hurting my brain.
@@HappyBeezerStudios not usually. Usually it's just camera motion blur, which cameras do also do, but it's way over-done. However to simulate movies (and real life) everything needs per-object motion blur. Making it so something moving fast in your view, becomes blurred even if your camera isn't moving. Barely any games do this for some reason.
@@id-null yeah per object motion blur is fantastic, Asssassin''s creed valhalla has it and it's beautiful. Too bad reshade doesn't have the capability to simulate per object motion blur.
I was messing about with running games on a UHD 770, and found that 45fps is where "enjoyable" starts for me. That meant running games at ~480p, but I kinda liked the pixel-y retro feel.
I completed Red dead 2 at 24 fps (1080p settings med) on my old R7 270x 2GB GPU & a 2nd gen i3. I guess the frame time was smooth which made it possible to play, i enjoyed it & i think that's what mattered the most to me
@Sunkeny From what Digital Foundry said the One X runs Red Dead 2 at native 4K and a stable 30fps. Base consoles though that is better (except I think the One S is 27fps not 24).
When I was 8 years old, I started playing games. My parents bought me a PC, which wasn't a gaming one of course. It didnt have GPU, so I was playing on integrated. The Year was 2007. Back then, this could run some games at a good framerate, but graphically demanding AAAs were running at around 24 fps, and I still somehow managed to enjoy it. Nowadays, 60 fps is the very minimum for me, as I have a 144hz display.
If you guys remember playing on the PS2 and original Xbox, 24 FPS or lower was pretty normal for some games pushing the hardware. I remember Chaos Theory would get into the teens but it was still enjoyable. 60 FPS and higher have just made us used to the smoother experience. The same could be said about the transition from 480i/p to HD resolutions.
Having stable frametimes also helps a lot. Sadly that's not easily obtainable because double buffer vsync introduces latency, triple buffer vsync looks bad, and freesync at very low refresh rates only exist on a few "not cheap" monitors.
@@DaboooogA triple buffer vsync makes the frame pacing problem worse, it holds each frame in a buffer for a different amount of time. It feels smoother than double buffer vsync in some cases because it doesn't limit the rendering (as in, it doesn't make the framerate suddenly jump from 60 to 30 and back to 60 when going under the budget), but at that point it's just better to use adaptive sync to have the best of both worlds (double buffer when over refresh rate, disabled then below). Or just use freesync and avoid all of this headache.
Not to mention, most console games use some form of adaptive sync, showing tear lines when dropping frames. Personally, I prefer to have mostly good frame pacing with rare tear lines than bad pacing all the time with no tear lines.
That's why I simply limit the framerate. It works with basically every game, doesn't need a complex setup and doesn't introduce the vsync latency. I'm also not sensitive to tearing, so that doesn't bother me. Flickering from bad upscalers and improperly filtered textures are much worse.
G'day Random, yeah very well explained that it really is a personal thing, We are all different & what one person feels is adequate FPS to happily play a game may be different to others, plus even if performance feels Laggy some people are quite happy to compromise on what is considered 'Playable FPS' while others are not.
I have a 75hz monitor and I have to admit that 1/2 v-sync (37hz) looks much better than 60hz + 1/2 v-sync = 30hz. I also recommend installing RTSS (or other fps limiter) and locking it to 37fps, it can be very light stuttering, but we have lower latency in return.
Wouldn't it be 37.5 fps for half of 75 Hz? At that point I'd probably try if I could set the screen to an even number and half from there. 72 Hz is a quite common older standard (3x24) and would mean you could go down to flat 36 fps. Or if the monitor runs it, 80 Hz and 40 fps. And then there is obviously 70 Hz and 35 fps like the original Doom did. In fact, I'm running my "60 Hz display" at 75 Hz and even set up a 84 Hz custom resolution, which is the maximum it is able to do.
wow excellent comparison, now i understand why games are locked at 30 even though it can do little higher frames than 30fps. In a nutshell consistency is the key not the higher fps with inconsistent frame jumps. Thank you for the wonderful video.
I played Portal and targeted 12 fps, and it just worked. There was no apparent input lag, so I could play it. But there were other games with that same GPU that felt like there was a ton of input lag, making them less fun So my point is that it also very much depends on how the controls are programmed.
True and if have old Nvidia card ( I dont remember how to do with Amd or intel but for shure you can do , somewhere in 3d settings ) you go to control pannel and into 3d settings . Look for pre rendered frames . You can increase or decrease the value and it can actually get rid of the lag by reduce the pre rendered frames to example 3 or 2 . Sometimes it help to increase this value but mostly a decrease because it put less stress on your CPU when it doesnt have to pre render so many frames to the GPU . This works well for weaker GPU and CPU's . This and lock your frame rate works very well .
Depends a bit on the engine. I noticed that source engine games tend to have a massive difference in input lag with vsync. Even a simple framelimiter at 50 fps feels more responsive than 60 or 75 fps vsync.
I noticed that unreal engine games tend to be very responsive at the 23-26 FPS range, with the mouse acting almost as if it's 30FPS anyway. Call of Duty games on the other hand play like shit at 30FPS, they were designed with 60FPS in mind. If you cap the framerate during the loading screen movies, they don't even play properly.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Thats is so true so true , some engines really do good in therms of responce while others in fact can be really ... Hm .... lets just say they could have being designed a bit better . Fixed framerate can really do a difference in some games . personally I have not really experienced any troubles with Vsync maybe because I use adaptive Vsysc so to limit its use a little .
@@unocualqu1era You got a point there , hm but that may be due to the graphics card . I don't see or feel any difference if I cap at 30 or 60 or just doesnt cap at all . But my old graphics card shure suffered from this So I think its the graphics card or the graphics driver there is the real problem . Notice the socalled newest drivers is NOT equal the best ... nope ... They tend to make the newest drivers more unstable with older cards ( they of course want you to buy new card even if you think its still good enough ) Most of times you can easy solve by install a driver in middle of the graphics cards support time . ( Drivers support the card is not equal to support time or when its still up for sale ) I have an older card there is no longer being sold but still supported in newest drivers . But those drivers work so bad so bad . I choosed a driver just a year before they stop selling the card and it is working so great with all games . Yes graphics cards know how to make your otherwise well working card true obsolete by slowly relase more and more unstable drivers and blame the bad performance on the age of the card . Of course most people end up just buy a new card . Not all people have money to do that and those people will suffer bad performance if not know this . Roll back drivers to the most stable version typically in middle of the cards sales time . I have a GTX660 and can easy play GTA5 in 1080p ( the highest my screen can take ) and get between 75 to 100 fps all maxed out so the manufacturers they doesnt want this and the newest drivers I can barely get 20 fps in 720p at low settings . What a big difference drivers can do .
25 FPS is actually pretty serviceable if your monitor is configurable to 50 Hz (because it's 1/2 of 50), however it's quite rare and mostly exists in cheap monitors. I played with this FPS with demanding titles on low-end PC and it's pretty great. 25 FPS won't look smooth on 60 Hz without enabling screen tearing.
I’m actually curious about trying this out, a lot of TVs have a 24hz mode, which gives out a consistent 24 frames per second instead of going between 33.3 and 50ms with v-sync or tearing without. I probably won’t stick to that for very long though.
Radeon Chill allows for games to drop framerates when not doing much to save on energy, heat and noise. It's possible to set a limit of 30 fps so when you are literally idling it just hovers at 30 fps.
A game of which i did play at 24fps was Detroit Become Human, my GTX 770 4G Could not do any more than 26fps, so I locked it to 24, and thanks to the design of the game being interactive cutscenes, it was an enjoyable experience, and with extended motion blur with reshade, I loved it, to the point where I played it twice! Frame Times over Framerate!
The largest is I’m seeing here is that the game engines don’t account for frametimes that low, all the animations look jittery and off-paced rather than smooth delivery; whereas most games will account for players playing at 30fps due to the console and such. Just look at the grenade throw during the BF2042 gameplay: the grenade jumps across the screen rather than gliding across it at even intervals. TLDR: engine designs seem to not account for 24fps animations.
This! Look at 0:39. The car is coming towards the camera at a constant speed, in straight line. But, it looks like its missing/jumping few frames (especially when its near the camera or us). I m guessing if the frametimes were lower, it would have looked better.
@@rustyesh yes. I believe it’s the same issue (but in reverse) as to when a game’s physics break above a certain FPS. There was a prior video on RGinHD about GTA or another game in which below/above a certain frametime the game engine itself starts to slow down/speed up. This game engine issue is why 343 has a hell of a time fixing the animations in MCC for the HFR modes.
24fps on a 60hz monitor means the frame time is always flutuating. Because for every 5 refreshes, the monitor needs to display 2 images, so the frame interval is always changing from 16x2ms to 16x3ms back and forth. That will lead to fatigue fast. In addtion, movies always have motion interpolation builtin during post production, that's why they look smoother.
If you feel that the video is "janky", keep in mind that 60 (or 50) Hz displays are not multiple of 24 (fps), so some frames will be displayed for different amount of times than 30 (or 25) fps. This video is best show on true 24 Hz displays or multiples of it (common ones are 120, 144, 240). Additionally, latency will be hammered when playing at that frame rate, but it will be worse the lower the refresh rate is. Also, when playing at lower refresh rates like 24 Hz, any drop of frame rate will have a massive jump in frame time, which worsens the "janky" feeling.
You can lock your game at 24 fps, but the ups (updates per second) increase by at least 48. With this you reduce input lag by half, and being better than 30 fps input lag. This mean that you can press a button in each and in between frames.
@@razorblade413 that’s very game-specific and, unless explicitly stated by the developers, very difficult to recognize. If you ever heard about “decoupling engine calculus from rendering”, that’s it: running logic as high as possible while graphics takes their own time.
I wish I still had such slow standards. Anything under 100fps is unplayable for me when it comes to multiplayers. I can deal with 75+fps if it's a singleplayer title but even then it looks a bit choppy and you start to feel the input lag on your mouse movement.
When i was a kid, i played prince of persia warrior within on my toaster. I had like 3-4 fps and i enjoyed every bit of it. Now even thinking of playing something with less than 30 fps gives me creeps. I think when we have the luxury of experiencing something better, we can never go back.
Capping framerates to something pretty stable is a good tip. Been trying out some newer AC games with 1070Ti + R5 3600 and even tho my monitor supports 144Hz, I do like the eyecandy a bit more so I cap it at like 90 (which is the fps cap on most AC games). Playing with controller also helps and feels more natural on games like AC/Tomb Raider/Witcher or such. Also on more competetive games I feel capping your framerate to something more stable helps with aim consistency. I play some CSGO and with 144Hz I like to cap it to 432 (3x 144). It doesnt reach it that often but has been feeling better than say 288 or 144 cap. Might be up to taste and the setup you're using, but using framerate cap is still a nice thing to tinker with :P PS. I use nVidia control panel framerate cap which works on atleast 90% of the games that I play! Rivatuner (as shown on video) is also a good one :)
Playing with a controller definitely will be a nicer experience in adventure style games if you can't reach high frames. I definitely don't recommend capping your fps in CS:GO though. The Source engine in particular is very weird when it comes to input lag so the more frames the better so your monitor can choose the most recent frame coming from your GPU. Also I've noticed if you cap your fps to let's say 288 it often times won't stay there but will be lower even if you have a PC capable of 300+ fps but if you set your cap higher like 400 or 500 you'll constantly hover over 300fps.
@@Remu- yeah I've noticed that about CSGO. Weird old engine, that's why I've settled with 432 so my GPU doesn't whine but I get the best "smooth" performance :)
I think the reason that motion blur feels better in 3rd person games is because we can see our character and since the camera is what's actually moving, not the character (as much) the character isnt blurred and allows our eyes to focus, whereas in 1st person, everything is blurred
Cutscenes (in older games) are often just 30fps, even if the rest of the game runs at 60fps. I usually notice the difference, but if it's well done it's hard to notice. Similar "tricks" (like motion blur) are possible and used in games, especially console games.
Great video! I never understand when people say playing a game under 60fps makes them feel sick or makes a game unplayable when a consistent frame rate is the only important thing to me. It takes about 5 seconds for me to get my brain accustomed to what I’m playing when I switch from 60 to 30 or vice versa
Thats just you not adapting to the times, thats like people saying that we dont need cars, horses are just as good, have a friend thats been gaming since the 80's or whenever games were even a thing, he just bought himself a 144Hz 4K monitor, since he's smart.
@@g76agi We need cars. But we do not need new cars. The modern cars are not better. They are less reliable than those 90s immortal machines. Considering the biology behind human eyes, a bit less than 30 fps at consistent rate is enough for human brain to see it as reasonably smooth. If one really need 60 fps to be able to play and consider the game smooth, one may want to have their eyes checked.
I really don’t understand some of these comments hating and shaming on people (PS players of all people) who are okay with lower framerates. Is it worse functionally and input-wise? Yes. Does it look less fluid? Yes. Is it choppy? That depends, imo. If there is motion blur and the framerate is consistent, I think it looks smooth enough. But as someone who lived through the framerate nightmare that is the 7th generation, I think 30FPS is passable as long as it is consistent. Now with the power of modern consoles, I play the game that supports ray-tracing in 4K30 or games without ray-tracing at 60FPS. The reason why some people say lower framerates are more cinematic isn’t because they are stupid or anything, but because movies have a low framerate of 24FPS. 30FPS is the closest they’ll get if they wanna play story and “movie” games as close to a cinematic experience as possible. I’m sure most people are aware of the input issues and such, and as long as they are used to the framerate, I think they can deal with it, especially since the game will be higher resolution. And since modern consoles are powerful enough, we can choose between 30FPS and 60FPS. In a nutshell, I choose 30FPS in some games for the better story experience and graphics since unfortunately that’s the direction most games are taking nowadays, but I choose 60FPS for the better gaming experience. Plus, 120hz TVs support 9th Gen consoles and some games even support 40FPS, which imo, is a good balance between framerate and resolution. sidenote: I also play 30FPS games with motion blur. I know people hate it so much and all that, but it makes the image at least look good and less choppy (unlike the 7th Generation where the majority of games forgot motion blur and have stuttery framerates).
@@fcpecan7492 Yeah, I'm an casual one mostly and fiddle around on VR games. Used to play some competitive games before, but I start to realise that It turns me kinda angry.. So I had to stop playing them.
Nice vid. Did you find it quite hard to get 24fps to look smooth when uploaded to TH-cam? I wonder if it may try to re-sample the vids at 23.97/25/30 fps, causing frames to drop etc. ☺
For a true cinematic experience, be sure to play in 2.35:1. True cinema nerds insist on wasting a third of their screen. Edit: I see I have 10 replies. For my own sanity I shan't be reading them.
I hate that format! In movies and in games. For me as large as possible vertical height is the best! If i would make monitors i would make 16:10 lowest xD
I had the idea of making a cinematic gameplay concept video, with the editing focused on story rather than humor or action only. I'm glad you made this video and it's cool to find another open-minded person with the fps debate in gaming.
The myth that "we cannot distinguish anything higher than 24 frames per second (which is why movies use it)" is still being widespread and widely believed, regardless of the clear evidence of the contrary. (Perhaps less now than 10 years ago, though, thanks to the few movies that were filmed and presented at 48 frames per second at theaters, showcasing extremely clearly that yes, we can distinguish between them.) The reason why 24 frames per second was chosen was not because we can't distinguish anything higher (and thus going higher would be useless). It was chosen because it was approximately the _minimum_ framerate that's not outright bothering to the vast majority of people, and thus doesn't distract from watching the movie. Back then they wanted the minimum framerate possible because film was expensive and they wanted to be as economical as possible with it. They didn't want to go anything higher because that would have meant more film would be needed for the same amount of time.
24 fps only works in cinema because of how cameras work. Even though it's 24 frames a second each frame is technically many frames blended in to one. This is not the case with games. The standard for games today should be a 60 fps minimum as practically all monitors/TVs made in the last decade are capable of at least 60hz. Although if you've ever try a 144, 200, or even 240hz monitor with a game that can get framerates equally high, you'll immediately notice how much smoother and fluid the game looks/feels.
I think this is especially true in the likes of first person shooters, but may apply to other game types as well. With a controller, you can only turn your character so fast. With a mouse, you can flick around very quickly. So with a lower FPS using a controller seems more okay, but if you use a mouse to look around a lower FPS can seem much worse.
I've always been one to sacrifice resolution for frames. Tons of games when I was just getting into PC gaming I'd run at 720p or lower on a monitor that could do 1080p. Similarly I grew up with console gaming, so the resolution being CHUNKY didn't bother me.
The Matrix UE5 tech demo that's available on the next-gen consoles targets 24p during cutscenes, and I think it's not only so it can look like the film (which it does), but I think also this allows their dynamic resolution scaler to claw back a bit more resolution during those scenes. I base this on the fact that the frame limiter jumps back up to 30 for the gameplay segments of the demo, which also have a bit less dynamic resolution. So that might actually be a good idea for cutscenes in games with dynamic res scaling. I think the main problem with games though is that the frametimes will vary which will cause it to look jittery and stuttery, since 24 just doesn't evenly divide into many normal refresh rates.
I still regularly play PS3 games including GTA 5 (yes the PS3 version) and the frame rate is perfectly adequate and doesn’t feel choppy or anything. There is actually a difference between "consoles 30fps" and "PC 30fps" and a heap of articles about why lower frames seem better on a console than on a PC
Depends on your goal and patience really. I played Minecraft on peaceful way back in the day at 8FPS due to Fraps recording. It was arguably playable for me.
I kinda find 3rd person games to feel odd when playing at 24fps, but fps games with motion blur enabled feels pretty "30ish fps" some of these games are RE7, The Forest, Dying Light and Outlast 2 to name a few.
The first time I played Elder Scrolls Oblivion it was at 800x600 with all the settings set to the lowest they could be and the frame rate generally hovering around the mid 20s. That was on an old hand-me-down OptiPlex computer with a single core Pentium 4 and I'm 99% positive that I was using integrated graphics, but I honestly can not remember. That experience, along with not being able to play tons of games (that OptiPlex machine was actually too weak to play Fallout 3 for example) made me learn about hardware which let me to building my first low-end PC while in high school. Now lag and frame rates are super noticeable to me, it's hard to believe how much I played an enjoyed those games with such terrible specs.
It also looks nothing like a 24fps movie because the shutter speed is clearly not matching the framerate at all. 24fps IS supposed to mimic how our eyes perceive movement with essentially motion blur.
@@Xiefux I wouldn't doubt it, but it's stayed that way not only because of tradition, but because experimentation has shown the results of higher framerates just doesn't quite match the same sense of motion that real life has. Although it is accentuated.
@@Xiefux Take your hand and wave it back and forth in front of your face. It's blurry right? Now take that and shoot it at 1000fps and you'll see no motion blur at all.
@@AdiusOmega thats caused by your eyes/brain. real life has no inherent motion blur, even with very fast movements. you don't need it when having high fps.
There's another issue: 24 fps @ 60hz cannot give you consistent frametimes, because it can never match the refresh rate. That's why games are normally capped @ 30 fps (half of 60). That being said, 24 fps @ 24 Hz is probably not great/responsive. However, during the n64 / ps1 era, quite a few games were capped to 20fps, and one of those games is Ocarina of Time. I think that the design decisions must be taken considering the lower refresh rates for games to be enjoyable. Clearly, a game like Cyberpunk 2077 or Mafia were designed with 30+ fps in mind.
Games are normally capped at 30 FPS because it's the default rate on consoles, many older games were also capped because the physics were tied to frame rate.
When I first got my graphics card ( 1050ti) my processor was a huge bottleneck for it (Pentium g620) and the frame rate would fluctuate between 24 and 60.. so I had to cap it at 24 to play the game... Finished GTA 5 like that. And I was pretty happy with it.
24 fps is the standard for movies but not for TV. TV started out at 30 fps but when color came along there was some issue with the information for the red spectrum interfering with the sound information so now TVs display at a rate of 29.97 fps.
One thing to keep in mind is the refresh rate of the screen itself. If set to 60Hz or something which cannot be equally divided by 24fps, you end up having tearing which can look jaggier and add up to the precieved lagginess. It simply cannot be smooth and it cannot be synced like at all. However, if your screen goes down to the 48hz or even 24hz you end up having much better experience, which can even be indistinguishable from 30fps in some cases provided you have a consistent frame time.
I forget what game it was, but the game performed abysmally on console hardware and when asked why it was only running at 30fps at best the developer questioned replied with "it's cinematic", and it's been a meme ever since then.
Great video! I used to play Red Dead Redemption 2 at 30 fps in my pc using a controller, with a controller feels smoother playing at 30 fps than with a mouse. Now I upgraded my pc and it feels awesome playing it at 60fps.
23-27 fps is what i am quite used to even lower because many games i played back in 2000s run like this, on PS2 and PC. smooth 30fps is perfect for me, 60 is decent too i dont really see point of any higher than that because i have bad experience of massive fps spikes from 30 to 120fps on my old laptop playing TF2. I hate how 60fps live action footage looks tho. It shows everything we dont even see in real life without any blur in this overwhelming clarity that looks so darn alien when you see real people in it. In games tho it's fine. Also i think that people forget that many PS2 games never run in 60 fps, and bad tools used to report it are actually seeing interlaced signal as twice the framerate when its actually not that at all. It's just 30 rendered frames split via interlacing. As for racing games i am very much fine with 30fps and even a bit below as emulated GameCube Most Wanted runs like this and controls are still very responsive, tho on PC 60fps is a bit more swift feeling.
I played through the entirety of Far Cry 5 at 30FPS on PC and it was suprisingly enjoyable. Now that I have a high refreshrate display, I don’t think I could do that. 144hz has made 30FPS get completely lost on me
There’s another key thing to remember: shutter-speed. For 30fps, ideal shutter speed would be 1/60. Forcing something to 24 with a 1/60 shutterspeed will look less than ideal than the intended framerate (1/48 would be the appropriate shutter-speed for 24fps). This is why Last of Us Remaster’s 30fps cap made it worse on Ps4 than PS3’s 30fps because the shutter-speed was adjusted for 60fps (along with motion blur intensity etc) unlike the 30fps for ps3. Gameplay and pre-rendered cutscenes looked way choppier than I remembered for ps3.
I remember playing the first Crysis at 20-30 fps. I played multiplayer a lot with that performance too and dominated just about every game I played- weird to think about nowadays... I wouldn't even try to play multiplayer with fps like that.
We all played it at that framerate back then :D I remember reviews of 8800 Ultra triple SLI setups that couldn't hit 60 on max settings 1280x1024 Imagine that nowadays, a game that looks amazing but runs at 40 fps on a trio of RTX 3090s
Seriously!? Even with chaises!? That's impossible. I tried 30fps on PC and nope frame times were really bad. I waited for them to fix god damn broken game then played it.
@@milosstojanovic4623 I had to do with what I had back then. I even recorded a Firefly side mission. I can upload it on TH-cam for you to see how awful it was.
Games render assets at a fixed position. Cameras capture a full 1/48 shutter of reality for every frame usually. So they are capture a scene over time. Hence motion blur. 24FPS in a game looks like a slideshow because each frame is a snapshot in time, not a blurring of a whole scene over 1/48th of a second.
It still looks pretty rough to me. Crazy, when I was a kid I was happy to be able to run a game at all on our family pc. I played through quite a few games at 20 or lower fps for sure but it was still fun.
I started gaming in late 90's and back then 25fps at 800x600 on a CRT monitor was the target. 1080p 25fps was the target even with crysis and the Radeon HD 4870x2 was the first to reach it. Nowadays I mostly play old games (Mafia, GTA 3, MOHAA, Call of Duty) on old hardware and I'm happy with 25 to 60 FPS. High refresh rate gaming never got me
I played AC4 black flag and it was like hardly 20FPS.
@@3.ismail260 I'm happy that I'm not alone in this 🤦
I remember spending all summer playing Just Cause 2 at 20fps best case when there werent explosions... which wasn't often.
Yes, now that I think, I remember playing Quake II in slow motion for ours on a 5x86 LOL.
There's a difference in watching something with 24fps and having to interact with something with 24fps.
That's what most people not understand. Everything at 12fps is considered "fluid" motion, but it isn't fluid perse when you have to interact with something in 12fps.
Lot would depend on type of game. First person shooters are ugly at these FPS. On the other hand, action games like Witcher 3 for example are not so bad - you press a command and then Gerald takes half of second or more to execute action in cinematic motion. So it is somewhat playable, maybe not at 24 FPS but at 30 it is acceptable.
Me who plays New Vegas at 640x480 12fps: I have no such
excuse me for a moment, gotta take my headache medicine
*pill noise
Weakness.
So much this. Films and videogames are two different visual medias.
Nah man the human eye can only see 24 fps /s
12fps is never fluid even if you just watch it
Movies used to spend quite a lot of time working out how to film scenes with 24fps. The camera cannot move too quickly, things cannot fly across it and so on.
way about to comment that! There are very few scenes in a movie (if at all) that would even need for frames, since it's all made with that cap in mind.
I work in film and hetv and you hit the nail on the head.
24fps is shot at a shutter speed of 1/48 (sometimes 1/50). This adds a lot of natural notion blur to the scene and helps make it feel smooth and pleasing to the eye. You can also pan with a subject as it moves and it will keep them looking sharp and the bg will be blurred due to the pan (the amount of blur depends on the speed of the subject and pan like you said). This is why if you pause a film in an action scene there might be zomeone punching with their moving fist all blurred, but in the moment it is easy to follow.
Brilliant comment!
@@Janken_Pro I find that it encourages others rather than putting them down so I'd rather it that way than the reverse.
@@Janken_Pro mate shut your mouth, who needs that kind of feedback 😂
@@Janken_Pro Rehan, no one needs your shallow pessimism yet you still give it. Look at the amount of likes your comment got compared to the one I gave 😅
the reason it feels so much worse for games is because in a film, one frame is supposed to contain all the motion in that 1/24th of a second, while in a game, once frame is one exact instant in time
Change yo name
@@ahmedproyash why
ong michiru
@@ahmedproyash but that describes me
eeeh that doesn't make any sense
30 is absolutely the bare minimum for "smooth" gameplay, by this I mean the actual animations and movements in game.
30 don't feel smooth for me, I need 45-60 minimum depending on game.
But I've played under 24 fps too probably at 17-20 fps or something
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j Most animations are tied to 30fps, I also don't think 30 feels remotely smooth but I've been spoiled with 60fps+ for some time, I do remember playing BF3 at 30fps locked when it came out and that felt fine, I wasn't on a 165hz monitor though.
This depends on the game tho but yea 30 is usually the case animation wise
60 is the absolute acceptable minimum. I can accept some frame dips, but otherwise 60fps is a minimum. It is 2020 for gods sake.
Bro I finished Dark Souls PTDE with 15 fps, so yh it's playable to me LOL.
The thing is, @24fps with motion blur, the shutter speed matters A LOT. In games, such thing really doesn't exist. It changes a lot at that framerate.
That is exactly what I wanted to say. Shutter Speed -> Motion Blur. When noobs film at 24 fps with 1/4000 shutter speed at daylight, it looks choppy too.
If motion blur is implemented realistically in games, then 24 FPS would actually be playable. But there are little to no games that have realistic motion blur similar to camera's.
And input latency, modern games try to update everything independently of the frame being drawn for this reason.
As a person who have completed “Sniper Ghost Warrior” and “NFS MW 2012” at 8~11 fps, i can say, this is a very smooth gameplay.
MW 2012, I remember playing it at 800x600 at maybe 35fps? With a GT705 haha
you a real warrior
@@RS-nq8xk haha . I used to play cod on wii at 20-30 FPS but luckily everyone else was on the same playing field.
I completed assassin’s creed 1/2 at these framerates haha.
guys how come you were so poor? when i was 15 i could buy a high end pc and almost all the games were running at 60+fps, with 6 weeks of salary.
If you have an anemic, old graphics card then the FPS cap works well. Stability via consistent frame times is more important than visual quality when you have no other choice. Nicely done and thanks for explaining the 24fps cinematic thingy. 👍
I remember back in that day, I played BF3 on max settings and got at some 24-30 (Most usually at 24). I was so happy back then, just play BF3 on max settings in 2011 is a special thing for me
Given all the talk over the years about making games more cinematic, I've long waited for a developer to have the balls to lock their game to 24 fps in that pursuit.
I think The Evil Within was a very close one with the "forced cinematic features" 😄 At launch, the game was only playable at locked 30fps and most noticably the 1:2.50 cinematic widescreen (which resulted in black bars on a standard 16:9 monitor).
Later with an update it was possible to run it at 60fps and disable the black bars. Though I personally like the aspect ratio! but yeah, 60fps has a much better feeling when playing the game.
The lower the fps, the higher the input lag.
That would be pretty funny if the game at least started that way before going "just kidding" a few minutes later, But it would only look good with motion blur. For all the hate it gets, the reason why movies don't look janky at 24 FPS is because of motion blur. If you're gaming at 24 fps, motion blur will save it from looking weird.
@andyhoov careful what you wish for! Looks like Bloober Team has heard you, and has listed minimum requirements for Silent Hill 2 remake as GTX 1080 / RX 5700 for… 30fps at 1080p low to medium settings. Might as well lock it to 24 fps in my case (RX 7600S) 😅
@@gabrielzinho07_irrelevant for cinematic, story driven games.
Motion blur is very good way to improve a 30 fps experience
I agree! 30 fps without motion blur gives me a headache and makes me nauseus.
Motion blur doesn't deserve the hate that people give it
@@spicynachos2762 It does. It's an unnecessary resource hog that has almost no use in video games.
It's only good in racing games where it makes you feel like your going faster than without blur
@@astrea555 Racing games for the sense of speed is the only use I can get behind. But it has no benefits in fps games, only disadvantages.
I think it highly depends on how well the animations in the game are made as well. The good ol Prince of Persia from 1989 plays at 12 fps but feels EXTREMELY smooth.
2:58 I'm starting to think that Mr. RandomGaminginHD here really despises Cyberpunk NPC's.
They’re fun to mess with. They react differently since the update too. Some fight back 😂
@@RandomGaminginHD I don't know if blasting them with a 12 gauge would give them a chance to fight back, unfortunately.
I actually think 24fps CAN work pretty well in games, but they really need a couple of things to make it work... First of all, you need a high quality per-object motion blur to better portray simulate motion over time. Because without it, you lack a sense of directionality of the motion in game. And this is why 24fps in films seems smoother, they don't capture single sharp images 24x per second but rather having open exposure during a period of time, resulting in a blurry image. pause any film and you will see... This is what masks the low framerate and why it still looks good. Another thing you will need is a very short and fast sync with the display, perhaps skipping the frame buffer entirely while using adaptive sync. Still, the gameplay would benefit from being slow and cinematic too. I think this is actually the direction we will see with Unreal 5 games... a lot of emphasis on cinematic rendering and not necessarily high performance.
Yup, and blur like that is quite a task to do properly. The reason why we have such a simple blur in basically all games nowadays is because it is way less demanding and aging consoles at the time could use it as a simple trick to mask low framerates. And since basically everything now is done cross-platform and it takes little work to implement, we keep with it.
You also need monitor which refresh rate is divisible evenly by 24, like 120Hz, 144Hz, or 240Hz
@@Tryton4551 absolutely true. Now there are a lot of alternatives out there, a lot of TVs support 24Hz. Free-sync and g-sync displays can often display 24Hz as 48Hz using frame duplication. (even though the freesync and g-sync range is 48 up to let say 144Hz)
the problem with 24fps is that it does not divide into standard monitor 60hz......this causes jutter at 24fps. back in the early 2000s some ps2 games in eurape/australia PAL land ran at 25fps and felt fine as the CRT tvs where 50hz........so it divided better. 24fps does however evenly divide into 120hz and 144hz monitors. so ironically for the best CINEMATIIC 24fps experience, you need a 120hz/144h/240hz monitor (or g-sync ultimate branded display that can scale down to 1hz)
No
Woah this is so smooth brother ! This is truly the "next gen" experience who needs console ?
😂
"CONSOLE MASTER RACE"
Pc master race
CRT master race
@Cringe Department what a chad, take this 👑
The Order 1886 game drama was when the cinematic 24fps phrase got traction
24FPS doesn't feel half bad, as long as it's properly capped i.e vsync enabled and monitor set to 48Hz.
Aaa no
It feels and looks terrible
Or 72Hz as well, sometimes it is the only option as setting a custom resolution lower than 50Hz doesn't work on some monitors.
No bro they are really bad they feel very laggy anything under 30-35 fps is unplayable
No lol
One thing to note when playing back this video, is that us viewers may actually experience uneven frame-times ourselves since most monitors not equipped with G-Sync or FreeSync are refreshing at 60, 75 or 85 Hz which is not a natural multiply of 24 Hz (that would be for example, 48 or 72 Hz).
For example, the cars driving at a constant pace in the beginning shots of GTA 5 seemed to "jump" periodically on my 60Hz monitor since the GPU/monitor had to display each video frame for 2-3 refresh frames, so that those 24 video frames would spread out somehow to the 60 monitor refreshes.
As for playability, it really depends. I used to game a lot on the infamous Intel GMA 950/915/910 and later Intel GMA X3100/965 integrated graphics and for example some older games, like Far Cry 1 and NFS Most Wanted(2005) were pretty playable (and as a matter of fact I almost completed each of them on the aforementioned hardware), the newer ones, especially console ports like Dead Space, felt very crappy. But sometimes low framerates provide for hilarious glitches (i.e. 4WD humvees in Far Cry 1 would always start wobbling violently at low framerates, usually slamming and killing the mercenaries which were supposed to drive them xD)
I'm pretty sure the video has been rendered in 30FPS, so the "jumping cars" are actually in the video.
EDIT: nvm the video is 24 FPS, I didn't know TH-cam supported that framerate.
For whatever reason I also saw the "jumping cars", even though my monitor is 120 Hz which is a multiple of 24...
Good old 2:3 pull-up.
And youtube not only supports cinema 24 fps but also PAL 25 and 50 FPS
And the 24 fps movies also explain why there are 144 Hz monitors and not 140 or 145 or 150, it is a multiple of 24 so that it can play movies at a smooth and even rate.
On the other hand, I'm waiting for 600 Hz screens, which would be able to smoothly play 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 fps content and thus would offer the best experience for all content. (24x25, 25x24, 30x20, 50x12, 60x10)
@@HappyBeezerStudios A variable refresh rate makes more sense in my opinion.
I found 14-15 fps genuinely playable for several years, then I upgraded to a GT 630 and it was like a button was pressed and the brakes were released!
4k 60+ or 1080P 240 is what I aim for nowadays.
Edit: RX 6600 now, very capable. Elden Ring maxed out 4k.
Sold out to Sauron for the graphics card , did we?
4k on a 6600? no way
I aim for 480p 30fps today, with older or less intensive games I can play at 720p 50fps and even sometimes at 900p 50fps (1600x900), which is my monitor, my integrated intel HD 4000 graphics can't handle much more smoothly
@@mrducky179 Elden Ring is a light game by todays standards.
@@mrducky179 good bump from my vega 56! some games run like trash on even the 6600 however.
you should experiment with some more cards. My r9 280 runs light games in 4k.
I used to play at 24 fps on my old sandybridge Intel i3 with its shit igpu and honestly It felt playable at that time. I spent hours and hours on that thing. Now I have pretty capable gaming laptop but I neither have time or passion to play games. It's crazy how life works.
You just gotta find one game you enjoy. If you like questing and adventures, or story driven RPG's I'd recommend Metro Exodus or Days Gone. Don't worry about the premium versions, vanilla is fine.
As for time, you gotta make time. If its an hour in the evening then use it.
Come back to the flock!
Ikr I just watch gameplay and videos like this to fill that itch. Now I gotta go home from work, spend time with my family, do some chores. By the time I'm done I just want to go to bed.
Young me thought I could stay awake and play video games the whole day.
im currently using a computer similar to that
what are your laptop specs?
0:33 24 fps presentation. Yeah a Power Point
When you say "natural" motion blur in movies and TV, I agree with everything you say.
Crazy to me: I remember playing Formula One GP from Geoff Crammond / Microprose on the Amiga and fiddling around with a game editor in the early to mid 90s. There was an option to change the framerate and as far as I remember, the standard was 8 fps, which was of course not fine but playable. 12 fps seemed quite smooth, but in case you didn't want to play in slow motion you had to decrease the level of detail. This could be modified in 2 steps.
I still fondly remember when I aimed for 20fps with BeamNG on my laptop with a Quadro K2100M.
Never forget that just a few short years ago there were groups of console players saying that lower frame rates were more "cinematic". That's some hard copium.
nice strawmen
Sometimes same today. They try hard to convince people We cANt See thE dIffErEncE beTwEEn 30 aNd 60 or 120.
@@diablorojo3887 how is that a straw man? You've clearly got no idea what that means.
@@milosstojanovic4623 omg those people are the worst.
*YoU CaNt SeE tHe DIfFeReCnE BeTwEeN 60 aND 120 🤧*
And you guys need to cover everything in LGBT lights to feel more gamer
I really appreciate you doing these types of specialized videos. Doing benchmarks intended for those who want a vsync at a lower fps because their hardware would support it better just helps ultimately with showing people what to expect using outdated hardware whether it be ram/cpu/gpu and getting the most out of their system overall. Thanks for always being the all arounder in respect to those slowly upgrading their system or building one from available parts that are at a value they can work with!
consistent 24fps with motionblur is pretty acceptable :) just make sure to put your screen/windows refreshrate also to 24 so games can Vsync correctly which makes it feel even better and less laggy.
i don't know, I tried capping fps with monitor refresh, and controls sensitivity became slow
I absolutely hate motion blur. I much prefer consistent visual clarity over a fake smooth experience. 24fps is dog shit whether you use motion blur or not.
@@stansmith7445 motion blur is awesome for some people. For me, it's good since it's mimic normal video camera. Most of FPS/shooter player will hates it.
@@cocobos I hate it and my favorite games are immersive RPGs
@@cocobos Honestly it is personal preference in the end. I myself find motion blur very excruciating especially at lower fps. Only exceptions for me are racing games (which I barely play anyways) and warframe. IDK what is it about warframe but that game feels unplayable without motion blur - Even back when I had a shitty pc that barely ran it I couldn't disable motion blur, I feel it is that well fitting for the game
I literally cannot play games that aren't a solid 60 FPS it makes me nauseous. I guess when I was younger I didn't even notice framerate but now in 30 FPS games it just makes it so hard to change the camera angle without hurting my brain.
Games like Detroit become human, would be good for this, literally watching a movie
Nah it sucks LMFAO
I still prefer my 6fps cinematic experience! 6 frames for the win boyz!
Nope. There is also the expected minimum of 30fps.
hell nah LMFAO
found the PS5 owner
I've changed my mind on motion blur. The way it works now is great. Part of why movies look smooth is the exposure, which is essentially motion blur
Only that motion blur in games isn't done the same way.
@@HappyBeezerStudios not usually. Usually it's just camera motion blur, which cameras do also do, but it's way over-done. However to simulate movies (and real life) everything needs per-object motion blur. Making it so something moving fast in your view, becomes blurred even if your camera isn't moving. Barely any games do this for some reason.
@@id-null yeah per object motion blur is fantastic, Asssassin''s creed valhalla has it and it's beautiful. Too bad reshade doesn't have the capability to simulate per object motion blur.
I was messing about with running games on a UHD 770, and found that 45fps is where "enjoyable" starts for me. That meant running games at ~480p, but I kinda liked the pixel-y retro feel.
I have games where 30 is perfectly fine, some where it's at 40-50, some that need 60 and yet others that require much more than this.
45 is my limit anything else on a mouse is impossible.
@@mryellow6918 what
As long as it remains steady and doesn't fluctuate, 24-25FPS is fine. Interstate 76 wigs out if its framerate goes any higher than that.
ah this is someting i'm quite used to, as long as the game is playable then i'm super happy!
me capping a decade old racing game at 25 fps to avoid frame drops at 800x600 resolution and minimum settings:
I completed Red dead 2 at 24 fps (1080p settings med) on my old R7 270x 2GB GPU & a 2nd gen i3. I guess the frame time was smooth which made it possible to play, i enjoyed it & i think that's what mattered the most to me
It's still a garbage experience compared to the alternative
@Sunkeny you have to be joking
@Sunkeny From what Digital Foundry said the One X runs Red Dead 2 at native 4K and a stable 30fps. Base consoles though that is better (except I think the One S is 27fps not 24).
When I was 8 years old, I started playing games. My parents bought me a PC, which wasn't a gaming one of course. It didnt have GPU, so I was playing on integrated. The Year was 2007. Back then, this could run some games at a good framerate, but graphically demanding AAAs were running at around 24 fps, and I still somehow managed to enjoy it. Nowadays, 60 fps is the very minimum for me, as I have a 144hz display.
24 fps is a nightmare 🥲
Play The Evil Within at 20fps then come back and tell me what a nightmare is.
if you set your monitor to 48hz then it's ok
now you've offended every console player on earth
If you guys remember playing on the PS2 and original Xbox, 24 FPS or lower was pretty normal for some games pushing the hardware. I remember Chaos Theory would get into the teens but it was still enjoyable. 60 FPS and higher have just made us used to the smoother experience. The same could be said about the transition from 480i/p to HD resolutions.
Seeing the sub in Dire Dire Docks in Mario 64 suddenly hits different.
No, I don't remember playing on PS2 or original Xbox, not everyone is a console player, especially in Europe.
Having stable frametimes also helps a lot. Sadly that's not easily obtainable because double buffer vsync introduces latency, triple buffer vsync looks bad, and freesync at very low refresh rates only exist on a few "not cheap" monitors.
What visual artifacts do you experience with triple buffer vsync? I find it is the smoothest option despite the slight latency, but looks fine.
@@DaboooogA triple buffer vsync makes the frame pacing problem worse, it holds each frame in a buffer for a different amount of time. It feels smoother than double buffer vsync in some cases because it doesn't limit the rendering (as in, it doesn't make the framerate suddenly jump from 60 to 30 and back to 60 when going under the budget), but at that point it's just better to use adaptive sync to have the best of both worlds (double buffer when over refresh rate, disabled then below).
Or just use freesync and avoid all of this headache.
Not to mention, most console games use some form of adaptive sync, showing tear lines when dropping frames. Personally, I prefer to have mostly good frame pacing with rare tear lines than bad pacing all the time with no tear lines.
not to mention that low refresh rate is more for static images
That's why I simply limit the framerate. It works with basically every game, doesn't need a complex setup and doesn't introduce the vsync latency. I'm also not sensitive to tearing, so that doesn't bother me. Flickering from bad upscalers and improperly filtered textures are much worse.
G'day Random,
yeah very well explained that it really is a personal thing, We are all different & what one person feels is adequate FPS to happily play a game may be different to others, plus even if performance feels Laggy some people are quite happy to compromise on what is considered 'Playable FPS' while others are not.
I have a 75hz monitor and I have to admit that 1/2 v-sync (37hz) looks much better than 60hz + 1/2 v-sync = 30hz. I also recommend installing RTSS (or other fps limiter) and locking it to 37fps, it can be very light stuttering, but we have lower latency in return.
Wouldn't it be 37.5 fps for half of 75 Hz?
At that point I'd probably try if I could set the screen to an even number and half from there. 72 Hz is a quite common older standard (3x24) and would mean you could go down to flat 36 fps. Or if the monitor runs it, 80 Hz and 40 fps. And then there is obviously 70 Hz and 35 fps like the original Doom did.
In fact, I'm running my "60 Hz display" at 75 Hz and even set up a 84 Hz custom resolution, which is the maximum it is able to do.
wow excellent comparison, now i understand why games are locked at 30 even though it can do little higher frames than 30fps. In a nutshell consistency is the key not the higher fps with inconsistent frame jumps. Thank you for the wonderful video.
I played Portal and targeted 12 fps, and it just worked. There was no apparent input lag, so I could play it.
But there were other games with that same GPU that felt like there was a ton of input lag, making them less fun
So my point is that it also very much depends on how the controls are programmed.
True and if have old Nvidia card
( I dont remember how to do with Amd or intel but for shure you can do , somewhere in 3d settings )
you go to control pannel and into 3d settings .
Look for pre rendered frames . You can increase or decrease the value and it can actually get rid of the lag
by reduce the pre rendered frames to example 3 or 2 .
Sometimes it help to increase this value but mostly a decrease because it put less stress on your CPU
when it doesnt have to pre render so many frames to the GPU .
This works well for weaker GPU and CPU's .
This and lock your frame rate works very well .
Depends a bit on the engine. I noticed that source engine games tend to have a massive difference in input lag with vsync. Even a simple framelimiter at 50 fps feels more responsive than 60 or 75 fps vsync.
I noticed that unreal engine games tend to be very responsive at the 23-26 FPS range, with the mouse acting almost as if it's 30FPS anyway.
Call of Duty games on the other hand play like shit at 30FPS, they were designed with 60FPS in mind. If you cap the framerate during the loading screen movies, they don't even play properly.
@@HappyBeezerStudios
Thats is so true so true , some engines
really do good in therms of responce
while others in fact can be really ...
Hm .... lets just say they could have
being designed a bit better .
Fixed framerate can really do a difference
in some games .
personally I have not really experienced any troubles with Vsync maybe because I use
adaptive Vsysc so to limit its use a little .
@@unocualqu1era You got a point there , hm but that may be due to the graphics card . I don't see or feel any difference if I cap at 30 or 60 or just doesnt cap at all .
But my old graphics card shure suffered
from this So I think its the graphics card
or the graphics driver there is the real
problem .
Notice the socalled newest drivers is
NOT equal the best ... nope ...
They tend to make the newest drivers
more unstable with older cards ( they of
course want you to buy new card even if
you think its still good enough )
Most of times you can easy solve by install
a driver in middle of the graphics cards
support time .
( Drivers support the card is not equal to
support time or when its still up for sale )
I have an older card there is no longer being
sold but still supported in newest drivers .
But those drivers work so bad so bad .
I choosed a driver just a year before they
stop selling the card and it is working so
great with all games .
Yes graphics cards know how to make
your otherwise well working card true
obsolete by slowly relase more and more
unstable drivers and blame the bad performance on the age of the card .
Of course most people end up just buy a new card .
Not all people have money to do that and
those people will suffer bad performance
if not know this .
Roll back drivers to the most stable version
typically in middle of the cards sales time .
I have a GTX660 and can easy play GTA5
in 1080p ( the highest my screen can take )
and get between 75 to 100 fps all maxed out so the manufacturers they doesnt
want this and the newest drivers I can
barely get 20 fps in 720p at low settings .
What a big difference drivers can do .
10 years ago, a young me would have been happy to play this. Nowadays, i hurts my eyes.
Thank you, this is really a great video, have been waiting for a youtuber to solve the 1% low issue (stuttering) and this video solves it👍🏼
25 FPS is actually pretty serviceable if your monitor is configurable to 50 Hz (because it's 1/2 of 50), however it's quite rare and mostly exists in cheap monitors. I played with this FPS with demanding titles on low-end PC and it's pretty great. 25 FPS won't look smooth on 60 Hz without enabling screen tearing.
A nice, solid, 24 FPS goes really well with 24P gaming!
I completed GTA San Andreas at 24-25 FPS in intel dual core around 2010. Best fun I ever had.
I’m actually curious about trying this out, a lot of TVs have a 24hz mode, which gives out a consistent 24 frames per second instead of going between 33.3 and 50ms with v-sync or tearing without. I probably won’t stick to that for very long though.
Radeon Chill allows for games to drop framerates when not doing much to save on energy, heat and noise. It's possible to set a limit of 30 fps so when you are literally idling it just hovers at 30 fps.
as a intel hd4000 user, 24fps is top notch
Microsoft Powerpoint cinematic
(also first)
A game of which i did play at 24fps was Detroit Become Human, my GTX 770 4G Could not do any more than 26fps, so I locked it to 24, and thanks to the design of the game being interactive cutscenes, it was an enjoyable experience, and with extended motion blur with reshade, I loved it, to the point where I played it twice! Frame Times over Framerate!
The largest is I’m seeing here is that the game engines don’t account for frametimes that low, all the animations look jittery and off-paced rather than smooth delivery; whereas most games will account for players playing at 30fps due to the console and such. Just look at the grenade throw during the BF2042 gameplay: the grenade jumps across the screen rather than gliding across it at even intervals.
TLDR: engine designs seem to not account for 24fps animations.
This! Look at 0:39. The car is coming towards the camera at a constant speed, in straight line. But, it looks like its missing/jumping few frames (especially when its near the camera or us).
I m guessing if the frametimes were lower, it would have looked better.
@@rustyesh yes. I believe it’s the same issue (but in reverse) as to when a game’s physics break above a certain FPS. There was a prior video on RGinHD about GTA or another game in which below/above a certain frametime the game engine itself starts to slow down/speed up. This game engine issue is why 343 has a hell of a time fixing the animations in MCC for the HFR modes.
24fps on a 60hz monitor means the frame time is always flutuating. Because for every 5 refreshes, the monitor needs to display 2 images, so the frame interval is always changing from 16x2ms to 16x3ms back and forth. That will lead to fatigue fast. In addtion, movies always have motion interpolation builtin during post production, that's why they look smoother.
If you feel that the video is "janky", keep in mind that 60 (or 50) Hz displays are not multiple of 24 (fps), so some frames will be displayed for different amount of times than 30 (or 25) fps.
This video is best show on true 24 Hz displays or multiples of it (common ones are 120, 144, 240).
Additionally, latency will be hammered when playing at that frame rate, but it will be worse the lower the refresh rate is. Also, when playing at lower refresh rates like 24 Hz, any drop of frame rate will have a massive jump in frame time, which worsens the "janky" feeling.
that's plain bs
25 FPS on 50 Hz monitor is actually okay. Because the division is perfect, but surely still not smooth compared to 30 FPS on 60 Hz monitor.
@@nathanlamaire it’s not a big difference between the two of them, but it’s better than mismatching framerates
You can lock your game at 24 fps, but the ups (updates per second) increase by at least 48. With this you reduce input lag by half, and being better than 30 fps input lag. This mean that you can press a button in each and in between frames.
@@razorblade413 that’s very game-specific and, unless explicitly stated by the developers, very difficult to recognize. If you ever heard about “decoupling engine calculus from rendering”, that’s it: running logic as high as possible while graphics takes their own time.
Nice slide show you prepared for us, I will now give you a round of applause.
30 is minimum for most of us and I'll stick with that. 60 is ideal and preferred though
I wish I still had such slow standards. Anything under 100fps is unplayable for me when it comes to multiplayers. I can deal with 75+fps if it's a singleplayer title but even then it looks a bit choppy and you start to feel the input lag on your mouse movement.
@@Remu- multiplayer is different...you really NEED high fps for multiplayer games.
Consoles struggle to hold 30 FPS lmao, RDR2 is almost unplayable on console.
If I can get a consistent 25 fps I am golden.
@@marxmanw3877 same but trust me 25 is very different to 30 and 30 is extremely different to 60
When i was a kid, i played prince of persia warrior within on my toaster. I had like 3-4 fps and i enjoyed every bit of it. Now even thinking of playing something with less than 30 fps gives me creeps. I think when we have the luxury of experiencing something better, we can never go back.
Yo when my fps drops below 100 I'm like "wtf is going on" I couldn't imagine even going back to 60fps
@@907fbb Yeah once our eyes adjust to higher hz monitors there is no going back.
Capping framerates to something pretty stable is a good tip. Been trying out some newer AC games with 1070Ti + R5 3600 and even tho my monitor supports 144Hz, I do like the eyecandy a bit more so I cap it at like 90 (which is the fps cap on most AC games). Playing with controller also helps and feels more natural on games like AC/Tomb Raider/Witcher or such. Also on more competetive games I feel capping your framerate to something more stable helps with aim consistency. I play some CSGO and with 144Hz I like to cap it to 432 (3x 144). It doesnt reach it that often but has been feeling better than say 288 or 144 cap. Might be up to taste and the setup you're using, but using framerate cap is still a nice thing to tinker with :P
PS. I use nVidia control panel framerate cap which works on atleast 90% of the games that I play! Rivatuner (as shown on video) is also a good one :)
Playing with a controller definitely will be a nicer experience in adventure style games if you can't reach high frames. I definitely don't recommend capping your fps in CS:GO though. The Source engine in particular is very weird when it comes to input lag so the more frames the better so your monitor can choose the most recent frame coming from your GPU. Also I've noticed if you cap your fps to let's say 288 it often times won't stay there but will be lower even if you have a PC capable of 300+ fps but if you set your cap higher like 400 or 500 you'll constantly hover over 300fps.
@@Remu- yeah I've noticed that about CSGO. Weird old engine, that's why I've settled with 432 so my GPU doesn't whine but I get the best "smooth" performance :)
I think the reason that motion blur feels better in 3rd person games is because we can see our character and since the camera is what's actually moving, not the character (as much) the character isnt blurred and allows our eyes to focus, whereas in 1st person, everything is blurred
Cutscenes (in older games) are often just 30fps, even if the rest of the game runs at 60fps. I usually notice the difference, but if it's well done it's hard to notice. Similar "tricks" (like motion blur) are possible and used in games, especially console games.
Not in destiny 2. The game caps everything at 30fps during a cutscene. Even menu and character stuff. The sudden "lag" is unbearable lol
Ya i saw that in the forza horizon 4 and 5
Great video! I never understand when people say playing a game under 60fps makes them feel sick or makes a game unplayable when a consistent frame rate is the only important thing to me. It takes about 5 seconds for me to get my brain accustomed to what I’m playing when I switch from 60 to 30 or vice versa
25-30 is optimal fps rate in PC gaming for me from late 90's beginnings to nowadays.
A hard truth, my friend. they are not ready for it.
i’m good with 30 fps in some games, but fps and competitive games i’m used to play over 60
Thats just you not adapting to the times, thats like people saying that we dont need cars, horses are just as good, have a friend thats been gaming since the 80's or whenever games were even a thing, he just bought himself a 144Hz 4K monitor, since he's smart.
@@g76agi We need cars. But we do not need new cars. The modern cars are not better. They are less reliable than those 90s immortal machines. Considering the biology behind human eyes, a bit less than 30 fps at consistent rate is enough for human brain to see it as reasonably smooth. If one really need 60 fps to be able to play and consider the game smooth, one may want to have their eyes checked.
@@kinsu2726 That's like telling someone a CRT TV from the 90s is more than enough. I'm sorry you have sight issues, but don't project them onto us.
I really don’t understand some of these comments hating and shaming on people (PS players of all people) who are okay with lower framerates.
Is it worse functionally and input-wise? Yes.
Does it look less fluid? Yes.
Is it choppy? That depends, imo. If there is motion blur and the framerate is consistent, I think it looks smooth enough.
But as someone who lived through the framerate nightmare that is the 7th generation, I think 30FPS is passable as long as it is consistent.
Now with the power of modern consoles, I play the game that supports ray-tracing in 4K30 or games without ray-tracing at 60FPS.
The reason why some people say lower framerates are more cinematic isn’t because they are stupid or anything, but because movies have a low framerate of 24FPS. 30FPS is the closest they’ll get if they wanna play story and “movie” games as close to a cinematic experience as possible. I’m sure most people are aware of the input issues and such, and as long as they are used to the framerate, I think they can deal with it, especially since the game will be higher resolution. And since modern consoles are powerful enough, we can choose between 30FPS and 60FPS.
In a nutshell, I choose 30FPS in some games for the better story experience and graphics since unfortunately that’s the direction most games are taking nowadays, but I choose 60FPS for the better gaming experience.
Plus, 120hz TVs support 9th Gen consoles and some games even support 40FPS, which imo, is a good balance between framerate and resolution.
sidenote: I also play 30FPS games with motion blur. I know people hate it so much and all that, but it makes the image at least look good and less choppy (unlike the 7th Generation where the majority of games forgot motion blur and have stuttery framerates).
24-30 fps can be playable, in my opinion, from far distance on small screen or from "Couch Gaming" using some motion blur.
Anything below like 80 for me I cant enjoy cause I got so used to 165+ frame rate from playing competitive games
@@fcpecan7492 and that's the reason why I don't wanna upgrade my monitor to higher refresh, than 75hz.
@@Noa15Lv you should if you enjoy competitive gaming, if you're not into it then 75 is fine
@@fcpecan7492 Yeah, I'm an casual one mostly and fiddle around on VR games. Used to play some competitive games before, but I start to realise that It turns me kinda angry.. So I had to stop playing them.
It is nice to see that in every video you have now, gains more traction each and every day. That's nice.
Nice vid. Did you find it quite hard to get 24fps to look smooth when uploaded to TH-cam? I wonder if it may try to re-sample the vids at 23.97/25/30 fps, causing frames to drop etc. ☺
Now i finally understand why you say you should cap your fps to either 30 instead of leaving it unlocked if its just hovering in the 30´s. Thanks lad
For a true cinematic experience, be sure to play in 2.35:1. True cinema nerds insist on wasting a third of their screen.
Edit: I see I have 10 replies. For my own sanity I shan't be reading them.
2560x144
I just appreciate the extra fov
Gotta play in Cinemascope for the hell of it
I hate that format! In movies and in games. For me as large as possible vertical height is the best! If i would make monitors i would make 16:10 lowest xD
As Christopher Nolan intended
I had the idea of making a cinematic gameplay concept video, with the editing focused on story rather than humor or action only. I'm glad you made this video and it's cool to find another open-minded person with the fps debate in gaming.
The myth that "we cannot distinguish anything higher than 24 frames per second (which is why movies use it)" is still being widespread and widely believed, regardless of the clear evidence of the contrary. (Perhaps less now than 10 years ago, though, thanks to the few movies that were filmed and presented at 48 frames per second at theaters, showcasing extremely clearly that yes, we can distinguish between them.)
The reason why 24 frames per second was chosen was not because we can't distinguish anything higher (and thus going higher would be useless). It was chosen because it was approximately the _minimum_ framerate that's not outright bothering to the vast majority of people, and thus doesn't distract from watching the movie. Back then they wanted the minimum framerate possible because film was expensive and they wanted to be as economical as possible with it. They didn't want to go anything higher because that would have meant more film would be needed for the same amount of time.
the say is not for "60"?
24 fps only works in cinema because of how cameras work. Even though it's 24 frames a second each frame is technically many frames blended in to one. This is not the case with games. The standard for games today should be a 60 fps minimum as practically all monitors/TVs made in the last decade are capable of at least 60hz. Although if you've ever try a 144, 200, or even 240hz monitor with a game that can get framerates equally high, you'll immediately notice how much smoother and fluid the game looks/feels.
I've always said this but i want to share, I strongly believe lower fps is more bearable with a controller rather than a mouse and keyboard
I think this is especially true in the likes of first person shooters, but may apply to other game types as well. With a controller, you can only turn your character so fast. With a mouse, you can flick around very quickly. So with a lower FPS using a controller seems more okay, but if you use a mouse to look around a lower FPS can seem much worse.
24 FPS and a controller, two of the worst things imaginable combined? Oh hell no.
Probably because you feel the input delay with a M&KB a lot more
@@commie_remover wow youre so cool!
@@g76agi just European, we are not used to the console “experience” like Americans.
I've always been one to sacrifice resolution for frames. Tons of games when I was just getting into PC gaming I'd run at 720p or lower on a monitor that could do 1080p. Similarly I grew up with console gaming, so the resolution being CHUNKY didn't bother me.
What I say to myself everyday when I wake up: 1:09
i really like your videos and your explanations :) Keep up the good work^^
I always wondered about the 24 FPS figure and how it would tie in to gaming, great video mate!
The Matrix UE5 tech demo that's available on the next-gen consoles targets 24p during cutscenes, and I think it's not only so it can look like the film (which it does), but I think also this allows their dynamic resolution scaler to claw back a bit more resolution during those scenes. I base this on the fact that the frame limiter jumps back up to 30 for the gameplay segments of the demo, which also have a bit less dynamic resolution. So that might actually be a good idea for cutscenes in games with dynamic res scaling. I think the main problem with games though is that the frametimes will vary which will cause it to look jittery and stuttery, since 24 just doesn't evenly divide into many normal refresh rates.
I still regularly play PS3 games including GTA 5 (yes the PS3 version) and the frame rate is perfectly adequate and doesn’t feel choppy or anything. There is actually a difference between "consoles 30fps" and "PC 30fps" and a heap of articles about why lower frames seem better on a console than on a PC
Depends on your goal and patience really. I played Minecraft on peaceful way back in the day at 8FPS due to Fraps recording. It was arguably playable for me.
I kinda find 3rd person games to feel odd when playing at 24fps, but fps games with motion blur enabled feels pretty "30ish fps" some of these games are RE7, The Forest, Dying Light and Outlast 2 to name a few.
The first time I played Elder Scrolls Oblivion it was at 800x600 with all the settings set to the lowest they could be and the frame rate generally hovering around the mid 20s. That was on an old hand-me-down OptiPlex computer with a single core Pentium 4 and I'm 99% positive that I was using integrated graphics, but I honestly can not remember. That experience, along with not being able to play tons of games (that OptiPlex machine was actually too weak to play Fallout 3 for example) made me learn about hardware which let me to building my first low-end PC while in high school. Now lag and frame rates are super noticeable to me, it's hard to believe how much I played an enjoyed those games with such terrible specs.
It also looks nothing like a 24fps movie because the shutter speed is clearly not matching the framerate at all. 24fps IS supposed to mimic how our eyes perceive movement with essentially motion blur.
24 fps was only used because it was the bare mimimum to show "smooth" motion on screen while using very little film.
@@Xiefux I wouldn't doubt it, but it's stayed that way not only because of tradition, but because experimentation has shown the results of higher framerates just doesn't quite match the same sense of motion that real life has. Although it is accentuated.
@@AdiusOmega if you want to match the sense of motion real life has you need way more than 24 fps. probably closer to 1000 fps.
@@Xiefux Take your hand and wave it back and forth in front of your face. It's blurry right? Now take that and shoot it at 1000fps and you'll see no motion blur at all.
@@AdiusOmega thats caused by your eyes/brain.
real life has no inherent motion blur, even with very fast movements. you don't need it when having high fps.
There's another issue: 24 fps @ 60hz cannot give you consistent frametimes, because it can never match the refresh rate. That's why games are normally capped @ 30 fps (half of 60). That being said, 24 fps @ 24 Hz is probably not great/responsive. However, during the n64 / ps1 era, quite a few games were capped to 20fps, and one of those games is Ocarina of Time. I think that the design decisions must be taken considering the lower refresh rates for games to be enjoyable. Clearly, a game like Cyberpunk 2077 or Mafia were designed with 30+ fps in mind.
Games are normally capped at 30 FPS because it's the default rate on consoles, many older games were also capped because the physics were tied to frame rate.
watching at 24 fps is good enough BUT PLAYING at 24 fps is quite bad.
Answered some questions I got.
Great video, keep it up HD!
When I first got my graphics card ( 1050ti) my processor was a huge bottleneck for it (Pentium g620) and the frame rate would fluctuate between 24 and 60.. so I had to cap it at 24 to play the game... Finished GTA 5 like that. And I was pretty happy with it.
24 fps is the standard for movies but not for TV. TV started out at 30 fps but when color came along there was some issue with the information for the red spectrum interfering with the sound information so now TVs display at a rate of 29.97 fps.
One thing to keep in mind is the refresh rate of the screen itself. If set to 60Hz or something which cannot be equally divided by 24fps, you end up having tearing which can look jaggier and add up to the precieved lagginess. It simply cannot be smooth and it cannot be synced like at all. However, if your screen goes down to the 48hz or even 24hz you end up having much better experience, which can even be indistinguishable from 30fps in some cases provided you have a consistent frame time.
I forget what game it was, but the game performed abysmally on console hardware and when asked why it was only running at 30fps at best the developer questioned replied with "it's cinematic", and it's been a meme ever since then.
I believe it was ac unity, but it was a ubisoft game.
Great video! I used to play Red Dead Redemption 2 at 30 fps in my pc using a controller, with a controller feels smoother playing at 30 fps than with a mouse. Now I upgraded my pc and it feels awesome playing it at 60fps.
23-27 fps is what i am quite used to even lower because many games i played back in 2000s run like this, on PS2 and PC. smooth 30fps is perfect for me, 60 is decent too i dont really see point of any higher than that because i have bad experience of massive fps spikes from 30 to 120fps on my old laptop playing TF2. I hate how 60fps live action footage looks tho. It shows everything we dont even see in real life without any blur in this overwhelming clarity that looks so darn alien when you see real people in it. In games tho it's fine.
Also i think that people forget that many PS2 games never run in 60 fps, and bad tools used to report it are actually seeing interlaced signal as twice the framerate when its actually not that at all. It's just 30 rendered frames split via interlacing. As for racing games i am very much fine with 30fps and even a bit below as emulated GameCube Most Wanted runs like this and controls are still very responsive, tho on PC 60fps is a bit more swift feeling.
I played through the entirety of Far Cry 5 at 30FPS on PC and it was suprisingly enjoyable. Now that I have a high refreshrate display, I don’t think I could do that. 144hz has made 30FPS get completely lost on me
There’s another key thing to remember: shutter-speed. For 30fps, ideal shutter speed would be 1/60. Forcing something to 24 with a 1/60 shutterspeed will look less than ideal than the intended framerate (1/48 would be the appropriate shutter-speed for 24fps). This is why Last of Us Remaster’s 30fps cap made it worse on Ps4 than PS3’s 30fps because the shutter-speed was adjusted for 60fps (along with motion blur intensity etc) unlike the 30fps for ps3. Gameplay and pre-rendered cutscenes looked way choppier than I remembered for ps3.
24fps in console is very playable like ps2 back in the day or even the ps3 or xbox 360
2024 would be a cinematic year for gaming. id love to see devs adding a 24fps cap option in their games that year.
The mafia gameplay actually looks like a movie when you're driving a car IMO like wow
I remember playing the first Crysis at 20-30 fps. I played multiplayer a lot with that performance too and dominated just about every game I played- weird to think about nowadays... I wouldn't even try to play multiplayer with fps like that.
We all played it at that framerate back then :D
I remember reviews of 8800 Ultra triple SLI setups that couldn't hit 60 on max settings 1280x1024
Imagine that nowadays, a game that looks amazing but runs at 40 fps on a trio of RTX 3090s
I played Batman Arkham Knight at around 19-25 fps on my old laptop. Suffice to say that the game felt real cinematic and I loved how it was being run.
Seriously!? Even with chaises!? That's impossible. I tried 30fps on PC and nope frame times were really bad. I waited for them to fix god damn broken game then played it.
@@milosstojanovic4623 I had to do with what I had back then. I even recorded a Firefly side mission. I can upload it on TH-cam for you to see how awful it was.
Games render assets at a fixed position. Cameras capture a full 1/48 shutter of reality for every frame usually. So they are capture a scene over time. Hence motion blur. 24FPS in a game looks like a slideshow because each frame is a snapshot in time, not a blurring of a whole scene over 1/48th of a second.