>play game at 60 fps >play it again at 120 fps >literally

>>383697585
Do you have a 120hz monitor?

>>383697585
Your monitor refresh rate is only 60 hz, get a fancier one.

>>383697585
>he fell for the PC meme

Human eye can't see past 1 fps fampai

human eyes cant see past 60 fps

>>383697585
>what's going on here?
Nothing, just a game that doesn't clock itself to its frames. I remember waaaay back in the days of 486s and Pentiums, there were games that would try to run as fast as they could because of inherently limited hardware (which would then run too fast on better hardware). But as better hardware came out, that way of programming became obsolete and people started instead writing their programming logic based on time instead of how fast a thing would render on a given processor.

>>383697845
This tbqh. Why do you think "second" is the base unit of time?

>>383697585
Your monitor's refresh rate is the maximum frame rate it can display. If you try to render more frames then the maximum refresh rate you might get screen tearing, where part of the image is the old frame and part of the image is new.

Even if you're playing on 60hz, 120fps is still better as you will get a more up-to-date frame. You won't see over 60 frames due to your monitor's refresh rate though.

File: 1429237623414.jpg (225KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 800x533px

>>383697662
>>383697692
>have to buy additional gimmick garbage that costs one million dollaroos just to see """"different"""" framerate
Lmao PeeKeks

>making up shit for the sake of posting Pepes/Wojacks
There's a special place in 4chan hell for you

>>383697585
You don't have a 120hz screen you retard.

>>383697893
Maybe, but the pros can

There is a noticeable difference between 60 and 120 fps, but its not as big as some people like to make it out to be. Past 60 fps you start getting serious diminishing returns. I would say 120fps is pretty much the "ceiling" and there's no point in going above it.

>>383698048
People will respond to this post seriously

>>383698096
This

OP is literally keeping /v/ alive by doing this

>>383698108
>pro gamers

File: 1484747506675.jpg (924KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 2000x2000px

>>383698048
delete this or I will crush my Bloodborne copy which does not work on my personal computer.

File: happiness.jpg (115KB, 485x351px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 485x351px

>>383697585
I once played GTA4 at 2578 FPS in loading screen

My GT8800 fried

>>383698048
>pc users have the OPTION to upgrade even further beyond

Oh what a shame c9nsole cuckboi

>>383698048
That's a bit exaggerated.

A 24" LED monitor at 60hz is about £100 - £125.
A 24" LED TV at 60hz is about £110 - £150.
A 24" LED monitor at 144hz is about £200 - £250.

You get pay double the amount for a higher refresh rate. I don't see the big deal

>>383697585
I have a 144mhz monitor and I can 100% tell the difference between 60 and 144 fps now.

If your monitor is 6htz it locks at 60fps (even if it says higher on your fps counter).

nice thread
but guess what sonynîggers
you'll always be subhuman coons
and watch out for nintendoddlers, they coming for that #1 console ass

>>383698894
>144mhz monitor
>mhz
I want this.

>>383697585
your eyes can only see 30fps dont buy into the pc meme

>>383698894
It's not that it locks at 60fps, it's that it can't display more than 60fps.

Imagine your framerate is row of people walking down a path. These people can only move forwards, not sideways. All of a sudden they come to a bottomless pit but there are 60 bridges. The 60 people that cross are your frames. The other X are lost.

>buy 160hz 21:9 36" monitor for all my allowance
>MVA matrix, everything is smudging so hard i dont even have to turn on motion blur in games
>160hz but cant see it because of all the smudging.

File: bloodborne sucks.jpg (92KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x672px

>>383698048
An appropriately stupid post from someone posting an image from one of the easiest games in the history of gaming franchises. Seriously each area following the "chosen hunter" and his excessively buffed weapons from assorted game locations as he fights brainless enemies has been less engaging than the last. Aside from the handholding, the game's only consistency is providing you with absolutely retarded, unchallenging mobs and allowing you to run through all of them without any combative motivation thoughout the entire game. All to make the difficult feel easy, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when From Software voted to make the game a PS4 exclusive; they made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody. just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for the souls series. Bloodborne might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Final Fantasy 7 in its refusal of challenge, skill and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the Dark Souls games were good though
"No!"
The enemies were easy; the bosses were unfairly hard. As I played, I noticed that every time a enemy went for an attack, he spent an unrealistic amount of time telegraphing an attack.
I began marking on the back of an envelope every second the enemy stretched his arm back. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope a several dozen times. I was incredulous. Miyazaki's mind is so governed by outdated game design philosophies that he has no other style of challenge. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Dark Souls by the same Kevin-V from Gamespot. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing Bloodborne at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to play Overwatch." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play "Bloodborne" you are, in fact, trained to play Overwatch.

File: bf6.jpg (22KB, 456x628px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 456x628px

I always thought the point of FPS higher than 60 was to reduce the feel of frame lag and frame stutter. Like if you shot for 60 fps but frame lag makes it dip to 45 for a few seconds it's pretty bad but if you had it at say 90fps and it dipped to 75 you wouldn't really notice unless you had an FPS monitor open.

>>383699778
that's what I do

>>383699778
Are you underage/stupid? 60 fps is 60 fps if you have decent machine. It doesn't drop frames you fucking retard.

>>383699778
Been playing fps games on 144hz monitor for about a year now. If my frames drop from 144 to 120 I notice. It's not very intrusive though, anything below 100fps to me is eye cancer.

>>383700556
naw not op but mine always dips to 58/59fps fuck that

>>383698048
Yes, that is how technology works, good job on figuring it out. Have a star.

You must be physically blind, or have some sort of brain damage that you have a terrible perception of the world around you

https://www.testufo.com/ ends this fucking argument everytime. You must be blind if you don't see a difference (granted you fucking retard even own a 144Hz screen)

>>383697585
your eyes cant keep up.

>>383697835
>he fell for the drop out of highschool meme

Tbh i can't play 120 fps, It makes dizzy and i don't know why.
Any ideas?

>>383698003
then why isn't it called "first" dumb ass

>>383697585
Do you mean the game is being rendered 120 times a second, or a new image is being drawn on your screen 120 times a second? Because the game rendering faster isn't going to matter visually if your monitor can't keep up with it. I can notice a big difference between 60 and 120 fps on a monitor, it feels much smoother when watching it.

>>383703717
you sound like my mom. She can't watch chase scenes in movies because she gets motion sickness.

Suck it up and live with it. It's you jerks who ruin trackpad locomotion in VR as well

>>383699727
based bloodbornecloudsaveposter