Submitted by john2 1342d ago | news

Ouch - King Arthur II's PR manager believes that 24fps are fine for the human eye

DSOGaming writes: "I'm shocked. I'm seriously shocked since this thing came from a PR manager and not from a misinformed person. According to King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame's Kate, 24fps are pretty enough as the human eye sees them as fluid as the cinema movies. NO our dear Kate, you are wrong in so many levels and we're surprised by your answer. The human eye can even see above 100fps. And regarding those 24fps, there is a huge difference between a movie (and how it's been captured) and a game." (King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame, PC)

fluffydelusions  +   1342d ago
meh is just a PR guy anyway...
Giru017  +   1342d ago
Well, it's kinda her job. Giving incorrect answers like this can cause a lot of confusion/misinformation among the players. There's no excuse for a game to run under 30fps AT LEAST. If it does, the devs need to figure out how to improve the framerate.

I'd like to know what CPU and GPU these 24fps computers are using (as what as what resolution, quality, etc), to see if the ones at fault here are the programmers or the players.
#1.1 (Edited 1342d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
zerocrossing  +   1342d ago
Then he needs his eyes testing...
iamgoatman  +   1342d ago
My eyes! My Beautiful eyes!
Captain Qwark 9  +   1342d ago
ive seen games go at 24 and be fine, they dont really stagger badly until under 20. thats when its unacceptable imo. obivously though 30 or 60 is still much much preferred
vulcanproject  +   1342d ago
The difference is 24FPS is the absolute, rock bottom, bare minimum for any game.

I don't want just the minimum. 24FPS means that the response of the controls is going to be pretty slow. Acceptable for an RTS maybe.

30FPS is far more preferable, and anything over that speeds up the response time and gives the game that little bit more fluidity.

1/24th of a second before you can see any input changes, or 1/60th which is well over twice as fast and you can feel that, especially in speedy games like racers or shooters.
#4.1 (Edited 1342d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
lzim  +   1342d ago
Exactly. It does matter what kind of game you're playing and on what platform.

Playing Burnout locked at 24FPS would cause brain rot. A shooter at 24FPS would get you killed.

A highly cinematic adventure game where the point is blowing your mind with exploration of a visually splendiferous world in 4K.. 24 frames per second would be acceptable. Because there's nothing moving in the scene besides your character walking along.

The best answer for game resolution and frame rate is for it to be variable. If your character starts turning, or there's suddenly combat, the frame rate should skyrocket to 120.
brish  +   1342d ago
Movies in theaters used to run at 24 fps. Does anyone think they have bad motion? I think they look good.

The problem with games is if the frame rate changes from 30 then drops to 24 it's noticeable. As the frame rate drops below 24 the illusion of motion disappears which makes things like targeting difficult. A constant 24 fps, or a constant 30 fps looks better than a game that runs at 30 then drops to 24 fps.

There are a few games that run at 60 frames per second. At that rate I can't see each frame but the motion is really smooth. I've compared 60 fps and 120 fps and I couldn't tell the difference.
gr33nFIEND  +   1342d ago
24 fps isn't the worst thing in the world, Crysis regularly ran at that when it was first played and people were fine with it. As long as it's constant, and since this game is probably running so slow because of bad code, I highly doubt it's going to be constant.

So I wonder how it'll seem when played?
vulcanproject  +   1342d ago
Movies aren't the same as games- for one, movies shot in 24FPS get 'free' motion blur between frames which smoothes the image transition. Games do not. In order to get that in games, you absolutely must have a motion blur solution which isn't always very cheap(in terms of performance load). A high quality motion blur can make a massive difference in the perception of motion in a game. Try Crysis on PC with and without it, it feels incredibly different.

Some directors are experimenting with 48FPS to get smoother images and less 'judder' in motion. 24FPS is a very old format which is only standard because of ancient technology. http://the-hobbitmovie.com/... Check this out

Also games require input from the user and have feedback. Movies don't. When you input a control command on a pad or key whatever, you have to wait for that signal to reach the machine and be processed and then see what it alters on the screen before you can react again and choose your next input.

A slow framerate massively slows down the speed at which you can see your last input and its result and thus slows your reactions.

Pro gamers play with the settings turned down to get a massive framerate, fast as possible. This is because a higher framerate is undoubtably better for games, reacting and playing them.
#4.2.2 (Edited 1342d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
soundslike  +   1342d ago
24 fps still frame....fine

then as soon as you swing the camera:

gr33nFIEND  +   1342d ago
Imagine what playing this game would be like for a pigeon at 24 fps, it'd be unbearably slow; like slide show movie slow. Wait, why am I worried about pigeons playing this... well probably because it's not designed for humans.
MrGunny94  +   1342d ago
That's for you my good sir, you're a PR, your opinion in terms of game making is 0%

When i used to play CoD4 tournaments and SC i always lowered the settings of the game to get the highest FPS count!

Smooth FPS is better and you will never have the oppurtunity to blame the poor lag/FPS
Basjohn  +   1342d ago
I've played pc games for 20 years now and you know what? Hell yes 24fps is "fine". Your eyes CANNOT see beyond this. Yes yes I know you all think you're supernerd (akin to audiophiles hearing inhuman frequencies) but I hate to break it to you that you too can only see 24fps. 24fps without dips is perfectly smooth.

Beyond that your eye only catches that things are accelerated. You are NOT seeing more frames, your game is just running at 1XX% speed and you're noticing that actions occur faster.

Consoles are a slightly different story as they as designed to run at certain fps rates which is why if you emulate a ps2 game (NTSC) at anything less than 60 (50 for PAL) it appears to be in slow motion.
Letros  +   1342d ago
Care to explain this one? If you can't tell the difference, your eyes are broken.

Skate-AK  +   1342d ago
It's confirmed!!!!!
#9 (Edited 1342d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
dirthurts  +   1342d ago
I have trouble tolerating anything below 45 personally...but everyone's eyes are different.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Pro Evolution Soccer 2016 Visual Analysis: PS4 vs. Xbox One vs. PC, FIFA 16 Compared

35m ago - Konami's football flagship is a fairly pretty spectacle on consoles but bombs miserably on PC. | PC

October Treats Coming To ESO Crown Store

36m ago - Skyrim Fansite writes: "The ESO Crown Store will celebrate Witches’ Festival this October. Yes... | PC

Top 5 Movies To See This Month

Now - The month of September has Johnny Depp portraying an enraged criminal, a group of climbers trying to make it home safely, and the return of the sur... | Promoted post

Albert And Otto – The Adventure Begins Coming To Steam October 28th

1h ago - One Angry Gamer "Publisher KBros Games and Indie developer Nikola Kostic are working on a similar... | PC

LaserLife is a short but engaging journey of light, sound, and memory | GamesBeat

3h ago - GB: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe — something looking more likely, given... | PC

Everybody’s Gone To The Rapture Review | PlayStation Insider

3h ago - PSInsider author writes: "OK… where to start? Normally I would have something to say right away a... | PS4