Higher Frame Rates Make Better Gamers?
Video games with higher frame rates, the rate that each screen changes, results in better performance in first-person-shooter games, according a February 2006 Research Report, by Worcester Polytechnic Institute.The higher the frame rate, the easier it is to track and hit on screen objects, the report found. However, the report added that a higher resolution or image quality did not affect gamer performance and only a small impact on how enjoyable a game is.
WPI's Kajal Claypool, one of those involved with conducting the study, said the results should enable players to adjust the setting on their consoles to improve their performance and help manufacturers design game platforms that give players a better experience.
It seemed kind of obvious that a higher frame would help gamers while playing first person shooters, since the higher the frame rate the more fluid the animation is, thus the more like-like the experience is. But, I am a bit surprised at the report's findings that a higher resolution does not affect gamer performance or that it greatly enhances a gaming experience.
Related Links:
1. Kingdom Hearts II Voice Cast Unveiled
2. FINAL FANTASY XI: Treasures of Aht Urhgan and Xbox 360 Version Launch Announced
posted by Daniel M Silverman at 12:49 PM
21 Comments:
"However, the report added that a higher resolution or image quality did not affect gamer performance."
erm, rrrright and when that blurry blob of pixels you didnt see kills you, try tell me you don't want to up the rez.
" resolution or image quality did not affect gamer performance and only a has small impact on how enjoyable a game is."
LOL...how in hell can he know how enjoyable a game is, it's an opinion.
i find hige AA and AF much more enjoyable.
BS reserch.
Makes sense. How often do you shoot at someone far enough that a lower resolution would render them invisible? Not often... At least not often enough to make much of a difference compared to the effect of frames per second (FPS).
And if you think image quality and resolution have a bigger impact on how enjoyable a game is than FPS, then try playing with maximum quality settings on a system unable to handle it. I guarantee you'll be dropping them to raise FPS in no time.
Obviously you'd choose both if you could, but that's just stating the obvious. Of course you'd prefer higher image quality AND higher FPS...
dude, if u see a blog that kills you that means ur pc isnt fit for the game. in any shooter low res will not result in unclear images, just in more jagged edges, if ur a pro fpser, u wont even care about fuckin jagged edges, all u want is a constant high fps so the movements u make are the ones registered and shown on ur screen too
I dont care about resolution only about a good frame rate.
"erm, rrrright and when that blurry blob of pixels you didnt see kills you, try tell me you don't want to up the rez."
I dont think you can turn the resolution that low anymore. Maybe if they were really really far away they might look like that.
That's hilarious. What a completely obvious statement to make ! Oh no, I'm getting 3 frames per ice-age and I can't hit anything ....
Could've explained that without any 'research' whatsoever.
I've known this for years. Sub 60 fps games aren't as nearly enjoyable as greater than 60fps.
blurry blob of pixels? by this i'm presuming you're a tft user and limited to your native resolution, i play my games on a crt at anywhere between 8x6 and 16x12 and rarely notice the difference apart from my hud being smaller
as for image quality, upto a certain extent that's fair but i've played for instance games such as far cry, cs:s, 1.6, fear, etc etc on low and very high settings and apart from being shinier it really doesn't affect performance if it does for you well then you must suck at games
think your arguements through please..
Another fine example of your tax dollars at work.
That's an ill-informed attempt at a cheap-shot. The research was not conducted with your tax dollars. WPI is a private university, so unless you attend WPI and pay tuition, you didn't support the research.
And even if it was true, that your tax dollars had supported it, there are numerous reasons the results would be of interest and quite probably worth the tax dollars required for the research.
all the top people in games like the quakes, unreals, painkiller, rtcw, etc. always put the graphics quality at the lowest. every single pro-quake player i know uses picmip 5, which is pretty much textureless, and they use it because it is much easier on the eyes and it makes the pc run much smoother.
as for resolution, it doesnt really affect your game that much.
most pros i know (quake, unreal, cs, pk, cod, etc.) use resolution 640x480. anything above 800x600 is pretty much useless because it wont affect your game at all, itll just look better and ruin your fps.
(even fatal1ty uses 640x480)
more monitor Hz the better. if AA and AF are high, thats LOW fps, high resolution with AA + AF its even lower (looks pretty yeah but its slow) if its low resolution with AA+AF then all u see is blurry figures. its proper SHIT, anywho high performace good, high quality bad?
Was this tryed with a number of games, I find that long range shooting is alot harder with low rez, +in some games crosshairs become larger in low rez makeing it harder to see somthing behind it.
If the study was based on games that worked in close enviroments i can see how it wouldnt effect gameplay.
i like my 30 to 60 fps. its so much better. i think it is
the human eye can only see at around 60-100 fps (it varies based on genetics and "practice"), anything past this is pointless. but the article doesn't mention the frame rates tested (as it did with the resolutions)... so of course if they only tested 2fps through 85 fps there would be improvement.
above that range, there are three reasons someone might perceive a better experience: (1) their belief that higher numbers are better (psychosomatic), (2) the chance that the high frame-rates are in sync with a multiple of the natural frame-rate of their eyes, and (3) due to inaccuracies in the floating-point arithmatic in modern processors, many games actually give an advantage (in speed and precision) at higher frame-rates, regardless of how hard the programmers try to keep the physics "fair".
personally, i find a consistent frame rate more important than a high one (assuming it meets a minimum, which varies depending on the game)
halo pc is one of the biggest examples for this issue , i have been playing it for 3 years and have gotten pretty good and sometimes people say im only good because i have like 300 frames , and i just tell them that i only run like 65 frames....and they complain about 85...
Anonymous you come across as a know it all. Very windy with little or nothing to say.
Get yourself a podium.
i wonder if you meant me (i'm the one who said the human eye can only see at 60-100 frames per second)... if so, say what you will, i am 100% correct. sorry if you don't like reading facts (kids these days...) but i can't help that. i can't believe you would call actual information "nothing to say". i'm not a know-it-all, but i am a game developer, so i have some insight.
go to the guy's website and see for yourself. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/
click on "publications", then pick "conference". it is the third paper down. they only tested frame rates of 3, 7, 15, 30, and 60.
as i expected, this study tested low frame rates only and proved the obvious. of course 60 fps will give better aiming ability than 15 or 30.
anyway, i'm not here to have a pissing contest with some fool on the internet. excuse me for talking about a topic i understand. i'll leave you alone in your little world where anyone with some knowledge on a subject needs a podium.
I believe Mario was talking about how the Anonymous Halo 2 guy tooting his own horn had little to say. Your insights are interesting
The thoughts on improvements beyond 60fps suggest areas for future research (contrary to several comments thus far about it being "obvious" - many phenomena are only obvious in hindsight with scientific data). Especially the "psychosomatic" aspect. Players certainly have this with latency for almost all games, thinking ping times under 100 matter for performace when for many game genres (and game implementations) it does not. But that is a different topic.
The aspect that users prefer consistent quality over high average quality is true in many domains, and would also be an interesting one to quantify. An adaptive game engine, could use this information to intentionally lower frame rates sometimes in order to maintain a consistent frame rate. Does anyone know if any commercial game engines do this?
I agree 100%. They didn't need to do a study to know that.
Yes, many newer games have fps limiters, in fact that's one of the ways Id avoided people "cheating" the physics in quake 4. Some tricks and jumps in quake 3 could only be performed at certain exact framerates.
Post a Comment
<< Home