Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: halo what the?




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearanoX
    As for your comment, zeradul, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...but from a technical standpoint, Halo is much more advanced than Quake 2. I suppose you may not like the art style, but that dosen't mean that the graphics are bad.
    No I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I loved Q2, and there really aren't any console games that have supassed it by much yet... and it's been over 6 years now since Q2 debuted. I guess it stands to reason that they can't really improve much if a game is based on a console.

    As far as the art style? It DOES look the same, but I'm sure it doesn't compare in the other game aspects that Q2 had. But it's a different game for a different audience, so it doens't really matter.

    I would just expect that a game that is that much newer would have more to offer, but then again, look at UT, it had only a fraction more to offer than Q2. (bigger texture files)

    And yea, I got well over 70 FPS in Q2 with my P300 and 16 meg TNT PCI card.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  2. #22
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amd_man2003
    If the game is quite colorful and the eye isn't used to seeing them all in the fast frame rates in which they are it can happen
    The eye strains more from having to try concentrate on a strobe-like effect than it does looking at colours... If a game is 'too colourful' then you simply tone down the colour on your monitor... Real life is colourful too, but you don't get eyestrain from everyday life. And the FPS is much better.

  3. #23

    Default

    We see things at 24 frames per second, Beefy. The reason that it looks good is because of motion blur. With motion blur, even slow motion (sub-1 fps) can look good. This hasn't actually been recreated decently in video games, though, so much higher framerates are required.
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    i swear, some people just love to argue :rolleyes:
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  5. #25
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearanoX
    We see things at 24 frames per second, Beefy. The reason that it looks good is because of motion blur. With motion blur, even slow motion (sub-1 fps) can look good. This hasn't actually been recreated decently in video games, though, so much higher framerates are required.
    There's two schools of thought into what the human eyes can perceive. Some say we don't notice a difference over 30FPS, others say 60FPS, then there's interpolation and so on to take into account. This has all been discussed before, and I cbf doing it again... but I think you just shot down your own argument. You say that we see at 24FPS, but that doesn't show well in video games, so we need much higher framerates. In which case, anything below 24fps would be unacceptable, yes?

  6. #26
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minibubba
    i swear, some people just love to argue :rolleyes:
    We were all probably the same at his age...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    The human eye sees at far more than 24 or 30 or even 60fps. We can easily detect differences up to 200fps or more. This is an urban myth about our eyes only seeing 24 or 30fps because of the television Hz ratings - the reality is TV isn't great for your eyes precisely because it runs at relatively low Hz ratings.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SearanoX
    We see things at 24 frames per second


    My eyes prefer 100Hz on the crt, or is it 25 I can't tell..

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    For competetive First Person Shooters, it is suggested that you run well over 60 FPS, because any less can substantially decrease your ability to perform. Don't scoff if you don't know what I'm talking about. It comes from the logic that the crosshair can only be re-drawn 60 times per second, and therefore there are only so many targets you can possibly hit.

    A long distance rail can be impossible with 20, 30, 40 or even 50 FPS. It's not because the shooter is THAT PRECISE, but it's because we aim at things in motion, and then click based on when we expect the crosshair to intersect the target. The higher the FPS, the lower the gaps between crosshair re-drawings, and that allows for the most precise shooting possible.
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  10. #30

    Default

    There's two schools of thought into what the human eyes can perceive. Some say we don't notice a difference over 30FPS, others say 60FPS, then there's interpolation and so on to take into account. This has all been discussed before, and I cbf doing it again... but I think you just shot down your own argument. You say that we see at 24FPS, but that doesn't show well in video games, so we need much higher framerates. In which case, anything below 24fps would be unacceptable, yes?
    The human eye sees at far more than 24 or 30 or even 60fps. We can easily detect differences up to 200fps or more. This is an urban myth about our eyes only seeing 24 or 30fps because of the television Hz ratings - the reality is TV isn't great for your eyes precisely because it runs at relatively low Hz ratings.
    I'm not saying that the human eye can't detect any more than 24 fps, I know that a trained eye can notice up to 200 fps. I merely stated that with motion blur, high framerates are not needed. As for shooting down my own argument, not really. I was stating a fact about the human eye, not saying that high framerates are needed. Sure, things look choppy at low framerates on computers, but they are still playable until you get sub-10 fps. Trust me, I'd know.

    We were all probably the same at his age...
    Stop looking in my profile. :p From what I've heard, minibubba is a "young 'un", anyway.

    For competetive First Person Shooters, it is suggested that you run well over 60 FPS, because any less can substantially decrease your ability to perform. Don't scoff if you don't know what I'm talking about. It comes from the logic that the crosshair can only be re-drawn 60 times per second, and therefore there are only so many targets you can possibly hit.
    Who said anything about competative first-person shooters? I said playable, but that doesn't mean that you won't be hindered by your computer in some places. I know that I certainly was before I upgraded - lag spike here, a pause there...it can mess you up. However, games are definetly playable at lower framerates, just not as much as they are at higher ones. As I said above, things really only tend to get unplayable once you get below 10 fps.
    This is where my signature would go had my host not been such a Bandwidth Nazi.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •