Is it true there are still people out there that unironically play games at less than 60 fps? How and why do they do it...

Is it true there are still people out there that unironically play games at less than 60 fps? How and why do they do it? It must require a training regimen and Dramamine at minimum. Even 60 is pretty bad these days. Personally 120 fps is the lowest I can tolerate.

user, many games nowadays still "target" 30fps on consoles, meaning it runs 30 fps with dips to low 20 and sometimes even more
and the worst part is, people genuinely defend it

>have GTX 1080
>6600k OC'd to 4.5GHZ
>8GB dual-channel RAM

>GTA V FPS goes from a fluid 80-90 to 60 and below after playing for 15 minutes

Sometimes it's not the people, but the games themselves that are bad.

i cap my games at 24fps desu i got lowered visual input acording to the doctors i dont notice much after 15-16 fps

There's no difference at all in that screenshot, 60 fps is placebo.

I usually can't maintain a solid 144 fps in most games I play so I usually lock my framerate at half that. The biggest advantage I've had from my 144Hz monitor is that it made screen tearing a lot less noticeable so I don't have to bother with vsync fucking up my performance.

You sounds like kiddies who think 60fps movie is good idea.

casual retards can't figure out how to disable motion blur & that, coupled with high frame rates, can cause motion sickness in weak-bodied shitters.

>Talks about difference between 30fps and 60fps
>Posts a static image
Seems the same to me, OP.

>my PC runs at 100C and thermal thottles because I'm a retard so the game must be fucked

movies are 24fps because muh arts, so i don't see why you couldn't apply the same logic to vidya

I tend to go for quality over fps so i stick on 60 and push the graphics up as far as it goes, if the game is locked on 30 well fug it wont kill me, resolutions below 1080p hurt my eyes and effects like CA,DOF,BLUR, are a bigger pain. Trying to play BB on a ps4 i borrowed but it's difficult for longer periods of time because of that

But I can't understand people who will defend it or say 30fps is either Superior or that there is no difference

maybe you shouldn't have your face right up against the screen. I've played Dark Souls 2 60 fps and then switched to faster paced bloodborne with 30 or lower and the difference was noticeable for like a couple minutes until you get used to it.

i don't even bother trying "games" running sub 60 for free

it's a joke, because a picture can only be one frame.

>implying I don't have watercooling

Only retard here is you, fella

Pic related is my temp under GTA V

>my memory is leaking because I downloaded the virus as instructed by the russian tech support guy, now gta runs like shit since it starts using paging reeeeee

nice

Whoosh straight over your head

>pubg #1 game
>can't even can't even maintain 60 fps with a 5-grand machine

>tfw 60 Hz screen
>60 FPS is all I can see anyway, so no fucks are given
I understand complaints about 30 FPS, but about 60 FPS is going too far. First let's do something about 30.

I don't have such issues with my GTX 1070

however the FPS tanks if you go to any areas with grass (with it being on ultra)

Companies that went for high resolution instead of high framerate made a serious mistake.

>what is alpha

>what is the point

most of steam is unironically playing the alpha

Is it true there are still people out there that unironically play games at less than 100 fov? How and why do they do it? It must require a training regimen and Dramamine at minimum. Personally 100 fov is the lowest I can tolerate.

Don't expect an asset store game made by gooks to ever be optimized, Early Access is just used as an excuse for selling broken shit nowadays and the game will not get any better.

>buying an alpha
Who here wants to bet that it will be pretty much the same and won't fix performance issues in a year.

5 years ago the majority of people here believed 60 fps was a meme, now the majority of people are autistically obsessed with how important it is. It all started with that steam group years ago that checked out random games to see if they could run at 60 fps and then posted reviews about them. They were widely mocked and criticized, people brought up the fact that you honestly can't tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, and the whole concept was dismissed. Suddenly people here did a huge 180 and now they can't live without their 60 fps. You literally can't tell the difference between 30 and 60. All you dumbasses got placebo'd by marketers into spending extra money to get more frames. I do agree that anything below 30 fps is noticeable and bad though.

what the fuck are you talking about
Any anti-60 fps shitposting was purely shitposting, nowadays you have even more clueless consolebabs who unironically think 30 fps is fine.

Of course it's much better to play at 60 than at 30, but it is also better to play at 30 than at 0. As simple as that. I have no idea how can one fail to understand such a simple truth.

don't talk about yourself like that.

>tfw babbies today dont what it was like to try and play at 5fps on a toaster in the old days

Nah man, everybody thought that The Framerate Police was for egotistical douchebags and 60 fps was a meaningless gimmick. I remember, the vast majority of posts were against the 60 fps elitism movement.

I used to play black & white on a potato a lot, I had to always look straight down to reach a playable state and drawing symbols was practically impossible.
I don't know how I managed.

Most people did not have a machine to do it and most console games didn't at the time. Of course it's something we all know now. The only time I cared about fps was when I first did Onyxia in vanilla wow, my shit would drop to 8 fps. Upgraded my shit a little bit but I never knew what 60 fps was, it was probably running at 20-40 but as long as it didn't turn choppy during a raid I was good

You're eyes can only see at thirty fps anyway. 60 fps is just fake news to market games to morons.

>Most people did not have a machine to do it and most console games didn't at the time. Of course it's something we all know now.
60 was actually standard throughout the history of games. Only a few consoles like the N64, GC and Wii ran most games at 30, but PS2 ran most stuff at 60, and so did PS1. PS360 generation was the first to routinely degrade to sub-30 fps for most games. 3rd and 4th generation games (NES, MS, MegaDrive, SNES, PCE) mostly ran at 60. PC games capped at 30 were practically never a thing until the ports and multiplats from the PS360 generation.

>tfw 144hz monitor

They probably didn't even know what framerates were back in the days of NES and all those other old consoles you listed. The fact that those games ran at 60 fps is meaningless. The graphics were like 3 moving pixel dots on the screen with a static background drawn in Paint. They would have had to go out of their way to NOT have it running at 60 fps. Something so simple just automatically hits that milestone. These days the technology is 100 times more complex and elaborate, and it's a hell of a lot harder to make an apocalyptic wasteland crawling with enemies, filled with locations, moving objects, and able to see a mile around in every direction run at 60 fps that a small square with 2 moving objects. If you want dumbed down games with limited technology just for your placebo 60 fps, you're in the vast minority. I'll enjoy my amazing games which take full advantage of today's gamemaking capabilities as long as it can run a stable 30 fps.

>Medium where competent use of camera techniques and mechanics can avoid the shortcomings of low framerates, editing techniques were made with the framerate as a standard and low quality props/effects can be masked by the low framerate
>Vs a medium where none of this is the case, that uses computer animations that look better at higher framerates due to increasing precision and attempts to alter the visuals to match the other medium are abject failure at best.
People have been harping on shitty framerates since forever because even if it can be tolerable, it's straight up better in terms of how it feels and looks to have the game running at a higher framerate. The framerate police autism was because steam tags removed useful tags like that by the truckload and no one had to post about whether their game had a framerate lock on their Store page.
People will shitpost anything that gets attention. People disliked the FP because they thought it was all about shitting on games that weren't good enough when it was just a shittily named disclaimer for those who did care that also frequently included fixes for unlocked framerates.

>You literally can't tell the difference between 30 and 60
lol
Even a person with very poor eyesight can, it's an objective fact that we can see frames displayed for much less than a hundreth of a second.

30fps is fine for singeplayer games with a controller on PC or console, or fine for multiplayer games on console only, though 60fps is obviously better feeling. 60fps is fine for everything else, 120+fps is only for professional gamers who are top tier. If you play at 144hz in competitive online games like CSGO, BF4, PUBG, etc, and you aren't consistently getting 2.50+ K/D and are not in the top 25% of leaderboards you are a retard who wasted money.

I'm pretty sure the Ratchet games were 60 FPS and they were pushing it.
Games are degrading now because no effort is put into optimization and/or the console hardware is limited and/or marketing is more important.

>The graphics were like 3 moving pixel dots on the screen with a static background drawn in Paint. They would have had to go out of their way to NOT have it running at 60 fps.
I really hope you're trolling. A lot of people above are, so I really hope that you're just one of the silly people resurrecting their silly shitposting tropes from 2013.

Those 3 moving dots on the screen with a static background were intensive though. It's not like they were using today's tech for it. And there were plenty of NES and SNES games with slowdown. There is a difference between 2D back then and 3D now but it isn't as simple as "2D has always been easy to render and 3D isn't easy to render now" because rendering 2D in the 80s wasn't something that was incredibly easy. There's also the story of Space Invaders where the speed up as you kill aliens wasn't programmed in and was just because the amount of aliens on the screen initially resulted in slowdown which got less slow and you got rid of the aliens.

You're a literal kid, aren't you. You're 16 or so, perhaps less.

faggot detected

then there was some instances when playing like dos game on w95/98 the whole game just goes apeshit because too high fps. other "fun" thing was when game only used the internal speaker. just non stop BEEB BEEB BOOB sounds at full force.

It's almost as if hardware was much more limited back then and struggled with simplistic graphics as much as modern hardware struggles with advanced graphics.

Film is 24fps because film has always been 24fps and people are used to it, the only thing stopping them from filming everything in 48fps is the cost and hipsterism.

Long as it’s 40 or over and consistent I’m good. Though I can notice far higher. Consoles FPS is something I’ll never get too.

Post gpu temps under load, faggot.

My nickname is "The Kid" cause I'm a smooth, gun slinging, shoot from the hip kinda guy. Ya dig?

I cant tell the differce above 40 desu

Normal people don’t act like they’re going to suffocate when playing in 30fps.

Piss off

And yet the movie isn't choppy at 24 fps. It looks fine, sleek, smooth, even graceful. There's bigass panomic scenes, fast car chases, bullets whizzing at the speed of light, and yet it all looks and feels as if you're actually there, standing right next to the characters and watching. It's 100% lifelike. Even the animated movies look amazing. And yet people complain about 6 fps more (30 fps) as being inadequate. It's ridiculous and nonsensical.

You cannot get a more clear example than destiny 2 the pc version runs so much better its a simple fact.

You can say hur that doesnt mean the console version is unplayable well sure but the pc version is still better.

the game is still shit though

itt: hardware marketing sheeple

You're legitimately fucking retarded.

24 fps movies when the camera moves are a blurry mess.

a movie doesn't depend on your inputs

Wasn't the Hobbit movie filmed at 48FPS and people complained about how different it looked?

1. movies don't look "amazing" at 24fps, you're just used to it. I always wondered when I was a kid how come movement on TV looked much more realistic than in movies, and it's because most of the world uses 50hz or 60hz standards on TV screens.

2. You don't have to control things in real time and with pinpoint precision in a movie, you just sit there and stare. High framerate is much smoother and easier to aim, micromanage, react to etc at high framerates.

120? I can't tolerate anything under 144 fps these days. I can tell the difference between 140 and 144 pretty easily, and it puts me off in many games. It's the curse of being part of the master race.

Camera positioning and motion blur user, the raw footage is choppy before editing.

Because they weren't used to it. If 48 was the standard from day one it would look normal.

>mfw couldn't put up with Quake Champions becuase FPS refuses to go past 115-ish regardless of how much tweaking I do, even externally
Disabling potato mode graphics was a mistake.

It's irrelevant, a passive medium like film does not compare to an active medium like video games, you do not control a movie, you do control a video game.

>BUT ITS IN ALPHA
>BUT ITS IN BETA
>BUT ITS JUST RELEASED
>THEY WILL PATCH IT

>Is it true there are still people out there that unironically play games at less than 60 fps?
Yes. I play at 15-20fps. 17 average.
>How and why do they do it?
No choice.
>It must require a training regimen and Dramamine at minimum. Even 60 is pretty bad these days. Personally 120 fps is the lowest I can tolerate.
Ill be glad to have 60fps. 120-144 is a dream at this point.

PUBG's in beta, not alpha.

>Alpha
PUBG's launch an 1.0 patch will be out by the end of the year it's far from an alpha at this point.

60 FPS? 120 FPS? I can't tolerate anything over 30 FPS. everything should be 30 FPS locked.

Sound's like you got a CPU bottleneck user.

I think it had more to do with low quality shit being clearer with less blur and higher FPS.

Just play in 800x600 like all the other poorfags.

I have a 1440p 144hz monitor and a GTX 1080.
I'm happy as long as my minimum framerate is above 90.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand 120fps.

Meant for

>needing framerate or resolution

144Hz GSync/FreeSync is like a drug. Not saying it doesn't feel good. But not necessarily recommending it, either

30 fps is absolutely fine for most of the genres, aside from stuff like fighting games, twitch shooters or anything with competitive

hell, my favourite game of all time, HOMM3 from 1999, runs at sub-30 fps

>c-console shill
i use a 144Hz screen on my pc on daily basis

Normalfags don't know any better. You can't market 60FPS in a nice looking screenshot like you can with flashy visuals. Consoles can barely handle it without heavy optimization and dynamic res these days or without huge sacrifices being made because of the huge CPU bottlenecks from the shitty AMD jaguar CPU's the PS4/Xbone use.

Lower the settings, you need more RAM.

>HOMM3 from 1999, runs at sub-30 fps
HOMM3 might as well be a slideshow, there's barely any animation to it.

>hurr who cares about framerates, Minesweeper and Freecel are the same at 120fps!

that's why i said 'most genres' you collosal mouthbreather

Yes, ps4 plebs.

"most genres" have actual animations.

Just use v-sync/g-sync and there will be barely any difference between 30 and 60fps

>Camera positioning and motion blur user, the raw footage is choppy before editing.

No you moron. Motion blur happens durng exposure in the camera. Nobody adds motion blur in post. What the fuck do you think they did with films before digital post in the 1980?s Smeared vaseline on the reel?

>exposure
>post
>reel
You're just making up words.

and you should get fucked to death

i remember playing cs1.6 at 20-25 fps and with lag spikes, so i guess kids these days can take a lot of shit too, but now anything below 60 get me cancer faster than it should

CS 1.6 had horrid netcode, any small amount of latency could majorly fuck you over.

GTA V doesn't use more than 8GBs of RAM, including OS of course

You can't tell the difference between 60fps and 30fps? Are you crazy. Try playing resident evil 4 hd on pc with the fps set at 30 then at 60. If ou don't notice the big difference in smoothness you are braindead.

This. This shit really started to bug me

This made me chuckle, good job man

>two temperatures shown
>post said it was under load
>Vram
>Vcore
>Fan

Are you retarded?

>Personally 120 fps is the lowest I can tolerate.
This is what 'gamer' version of audiophile looks like.