60 FPS is not automatically better (Gaming)

by CruelLEGACEY , Toronto, Monday, July 03, 2017, 19:22 (2700 days ago) @ Vortech

But that is the only part I disagree with you on (and note that I'm still replying to stuff all over this thread, not just you even though you happen to be the last post each time I reply). 60fps is display tech. It does not mean controls are more responsive. The most you can say is that IF it has more responsive controls, you will be able to see it and or take advantage of it because of 60fps. But, if it samples the controller at 30hertz, or if the wireless controller packages data into bursts, or the input processing is not given enough priority, or if a bunch of other things happen the controls will not be better just because of 60fps.

You can call it semantics, but these are not two words for the same thing. These are different things, (a whole lot of different things) and if we are going to make demands of developers or set minimum floors it would probably make sense to have enough precision that you get the benefit you are after.

For me, for a platforming game, I would much rather have it spend bandwidth over sampling the input than displaying a higher frame rate, if I have to choose one. It's about timing, not waiting until my eye sees and processes the exact right frame.

My understanding was (and it wouldn't shock me at all to learn there are exceptions) that most game engines tie frame rate to input response (along with many other game-state calculations). So the typical scenario for any game to run at 60fps is where the game is pulling controller input data 60 times per second as well.

Especially given the fact that most gamers can't even *see* the difference between 30 and 60, the primary reason developers site when prioritizing 60fps is to allow for more responsive controls.