3 ms·

This is also interesting in light of the backlash against The Hobbit, where people are objecting to the 48fps film rate (most movies are 24fps): http://www.thev

This is also interesting in light of the backlash against The Hobbit, where people are objecting to the 48fps film rate (most movies are 24fps): http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-accidentally-invented-impressionist-filmmaking http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780274/48-fps-how-we-acc... and the recent Doing Game Gravity Right post on HN, which shows that some games are still using physics equations that don't properly account for sub 60fps framerates: http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~hkankaan/Homepages/gravity.html

mwilcox 14y ago
There's a clear distinction between games and film here and that's the interactive element. Games react to player input and a lower framerate results in a pretty poor experience for players (especially in fast paced games like first person shooters). Add to this the fact that games have only recently been adding motion blur, a much higher framerate than film's rate of 24 is important for maintaining a fluid image. As someone who primarily plays first person shooters (TF2 and Quake Live), anything less than 60FPS looks awful to me, I play on a 120hz LCD.