• Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Meh. 60 is enough for me. I didn’t notice 144 being that much better than 60.
    30 can fuck right off though.

    • SgtAStrawberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can go down to 30 probably a bit lower as long as it is consistant, that is the most important part.

      It can also have a bit to do with me powering through Watch Dogs at 1 fram per second in some parts. You never notice how good 25-30 is until your frames starts camping in the singel digits.

      • jaycifer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I remember playing Assassins Creed II on pc with a 9500GT and getting sub 20fps constantly to the point I had to wait for character animations to catch up with the dialogue so the next person could talk. Halfway through the game I upgraded to a GTX 560 and was astounded that everything was in sync and oh so smooth. I always remember that when I start getting annoyed I can’t get over 90fps in a game. As long as it’s playable!

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It pretty much only makes a difference in FPS games where you’re constantly switching back and forth between crosshairs focus and peripheral vision flick reactions. At 144Hz, motion blur between frames is largely eliminated, so you have more accurate flicks and your vision at the crosshairs is much sharper.

      • kilinrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        You can’t play racing games if you believe that. I’d far rather play an FPS at 30 than a racing game at 60. Low frame rates can give me motion sickness at high camera speeds.