This is untrue afaik: human eyes can perceive a much wider range of "fps". Last time I've read something about it it was at like 150 - 200 fps to clearly perceive an image. Might be higher for some people, lower for others.

The problem here is much more complicated than a simple "there's no need to go beyond x fps because I wouldn't perceive the difference anyway". It's actually really complicated, but the simple thing to test it is:

Watch this gif. Can you see any difference between 30 fps and 60 fps? if so, great! You just answered yourself!

that is all.

The human eye only perceive 24-30 FPS...

The number you see in a corner is just to foolish you to buy expensive graphic cards.

In 2014, it was shown during research that the human eye could see at various frame rates varying from person to person.[10] It is still unsettled on what the average "frame rate" of the human eye is, but so far based on recent studies within the last decade, show the human eye seeing anywhere between 75 to 150 fps with an average of about 140 fps.

You know, I hate it when I look up Google for articles or journals posted by experienced medical professionals to see what they found to be the fasted that the human eye can perceive in terms of frame rates. BUT NOOOOOOOO I keep running into nothing but video game websites with people posting seemingly conflicting information on what are the estimates. Isn't there a single professional article or medical journal describing in detail what's going on?

that is all.

Whilst most of the points noted by the PCMR crowd in this thread are true, in a 'competitive' game with a 'persistent' universe it is also immensely more vulnerable to hackers.

The human eye only perceive 24-30 FPS...

The number you see in a corner is just to foolish you to buy expensive graphic cards.

Oh my god, not this PC Master Race vs Console Peasant bullspit again. Let it die already.

You know, I hate it when I look up Google for articles or journals posted by experienced medical professionals to see what they found to be the fasted that the human eye can perceive in terms of frame rates. BUT NOOOOOOOO I keep running into nothing but video game websites with people posting seemingly conflicting information on what are the estimates. Isn't there a single professional article or medical journal describing in detail what's going on?

It's funny that gamers reached to the level of GRAPHICS to determine a good game.

A game is based on the MECHANICS, the STORY (if it has one), it's GAMEPLAY. Forget about who got 4k res or 480i res... That means nothing.

One day modular consoles will be a thing...... Almost able to be a PC.

This is the stupidest thing I've seen today. If graphics mean nothing to you, why do you have a PS3? Why aren't you still on NES? Or Atari? Mechanics, story, and gameplay are great, but you forgot about IMMERSION. Which is accomplished with... wait for it... GRAPHICS. And sound.

Because I'm not from that era, (my first console was a gameboy). I still hunt down gamecube games and ps2 games, while i emulate GBA n GB on my phone.

But you can still be immersed into a game, even if it's graphics are terrible. Look at Minecraft for example. It's just squares everywhere; but the thing is, it's targetting the creativity of the player.

I buy something when i would really want it. Wip'Eout HD is kinda the thing that got me on the PS3. One of my favorite racing series.

What i said later on would make more sense, enjoy what you have and don't judge a book by it's cover.

What would you choose? Something that looks like it's completely real life but has trashy/gimmicky mechanics, or something that looks like a PS1 game with revolutionary and original mechanics?

Anyway, back to what i mean: it doesn't matter if a PC can run how many frames with any number of resolution, a game is a game. If you can't have fun, but it looks pretty why does that matter?

So why isn't EVE plagued with hacks?

Because EVE is not an FPS.

To cheat in EVE, you would have to mess with the packets of data sent from the server and back. That's extremely easy to detect.
Meanwhile, an aimbot only has to emulate mouse movement, something far harder to detect.


The plethora of cheaters in PC FPS games >right now< should tell you something.
And before you go "hurr durr peasant", I have an i5 6600k with an R9 390, I'm mainly a PC gamer.

Well DUST is dead no matter what, so would you prefer it just be over forever, or that they try to make something out of their failure?

My opinion of consoles is that they are for kids. PC gaming is for adults and serious gaming. I bought the PS3 for my kids with the intent to dabble with DUST 514. Also, the controller is the special ed version of mouse and keyboard.

My opinion hasn't changed. CCP is going back to the PC for game design where they belong. Hopefully, (after this whole DUST debacle) they won't drag the kids along with them.

EVE online has the least hackers and cheats I have ever seen in any online game ever. I would hope that their PC New Eden FPS (Aka DUST 2.0) would be the same.

(Hope - Being the operative word)

This is the stupidest thing I've seen today. If graphics mean nothing to you, why do you have a PS3? Why aren't you still on NES? Or Atari? Mechanics, story, and gameplay are great, but you forgot about IMMERSION. Which is accomplished with... wait for it... GRAPHICS. And sound.



No, they won't be, because people who buy consoles don't want to upgrade their consoles and deal with varying system requirements, etc, which is one of two reasons to buy a console in 2016, the other being exclusives. If Sony/MS do decide to start making modular consoles, it will be RIP consoles. PS4 and Xbone have already driven plenty of people to invest in gaming PC's because they're garbage-tier PC components stuck in a tiny box that can never be upgraded. It's not coincidence PC gaming picked up at the same time this lackluster generation of consoles came out.

Not being held back by anything does sound nice. Unless CCP are just flat out mediocre developers that even their FPS PC version lags too. I know because ESO for PC it's PVP is pure trash garbage. The point i am trying to make is that It does not matter how advanced the hardware is if the developers are not up to par to make a proper playable game.

Your entire argument assumes that good gameplay and good graphics are mutually exclusive when that couldn't be further from the case. Better graphics have pushed gameplay mechanics forward. The opposite has never happened. Without better graphics, we would all still be playing pong instead of rocket league, or super mario bros instead of tomb raider, or doom instead of dust 514, or metal gear instead of metal gear solid v, or tecmo bowl instead of madden 16, or al unser jr's turbo racing instead of gran turismo 5, or... you get my point, don't you?

Better hardware leads to more possibilities. More possibilities leads to both better gameplay and better graphics. Shunning progress in either area is silly.