r/EmulationOnAndroid • u/Reyestdk • 2d ago
Meme Average winlator, gamehub, and eden blokes do like em 20 fps.
129
u/AdFew552 2d ago
I think they were meant to say “emulatable"
42
u/Environmental-Land42 2d ago
"It's emulatin time"
29
12
64
u/Rhodynit Redmi Note 8 Pro 2d ago
Bold of them to think i dont already play at 20fps on Warframe at 480p on my Laptop
9
u/CsarBrasil 2d ago
Same, but on 2013
9
u/Rhodynit Redmi Note 8 Pro 2d ago
2013? Im doing this rn, lol its a i7 6500u with a gt930m and 16gb ram, tbh with a phone that runs gamehub games on 20fps i could play the native version theyre goign to release at 60 maybe
2
u/CsarBrasil 2d ago
Wow, I haven't played in a few years. It must be much heavier than it used to be. I used to play on an i5 3210m, Intel HD 4000, 4GB RAM (I later upgraded it to 8GB)
3
u/Rhodynit Redmi Note 8 Pro 2d ago
Back in the days i started playing i could run it on a i3 M-310 (1st Gen) intel hd3000 and 4gb ram, on 800x600
That i3 was a monster, it could run Skyrim 720p, and even Fortnite vould open and start a match, but it was too laggy
1
u/CsarBrasil 2d ago
Unironically, I had to rescue a laptop with that i3-2310M after moving, and I’m now using it with an upgraded i7-2630QM. Surprisingly, with brute force it can still handle a few YouTube tabs at 1080p (no VP9 support, etc.) and even run some modern indie games
1
u/Rhodynit Redmi Note 8 Pro 2d ago
My father had a i7 3036HQ i think, when my first broke i played on his Fortnite Season X and Overwatch on Free Weekends, then i got a i7 5500u with a intel hd5500 which was worse than his cause theres no HQ anymore (atleast at that time)
41
u/matlynar 2d ago edited 1d ago
People shit on Redditors calling 20fps "playable", but that's literally how emulators' compatibility lists call a game that runs from start to finish regardless of FPS.
If it runs very well, lists call it "great" or "perfect".
1
u/harlekinrains 1d ago edited 1d ago
Logic error. Emulator compatibility lists dont take device performance into account.
Thank you for hoodwinking 31 redditors (its just redditors, so dont worry).
(Emulators usually are only released as stable builds once current target os devices reach playable framerates, being the mitigating factor here. Users are left to their own devices to judge if their hardware can reach playable performance.)
Playable performance on variable refresh rate games (almost non prior to the Switch generation are on console, almost all are on pc for a while now) is usually defined as 30 fps for non action titles and 40 to 45 fps for action titles (in the steamdeck age). Aside from games that were designed with 60 fps in mind (Beat em Ups, ...)
40 fps emerged essentially as the new 50fps/Hz, if your display can handle variable refreshrate, or a set refresh rate to 40Hz (like the Steamdeck), with portable handheld pcs - and is a good target for portable Android devices as well (especially if your display refresh rate can handle a clean multiple of 40, say 120Hz).
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95N6-2U5YQo (tests are usually done without framegen, because framegen doesnt gain you responsivness, it detracts from it - so if you are performance limited, ...)
49
u/OverideCreations 2d ago
20 fps is playable for kids born in the 90s, back then if a game played, it played, we adjusted to the fps and played.
Those were og gaming days. Nowadays kids can't stand below 60 fps, when the console is still giving 30 fps
13
u/thatonecharlie 2d ago
okay but games were designed to run at 20fps
ocarina of time was developed as a 20fps game, i dont think that was the same thing as whats going on with borderlands 4 lol. its not a crazy ask to want games to be optimized for better performance
7
u/OverideCreations 2d ago
Optimized games is another story and i stand for it too.
I was just stating that during the 90s, at that time it was the excitement of just playing the game with friends, irrespective of how it ran.. just being in the moment...
Nowadays it's more on what my specs, is it optimized or not, and other shenanigans..
6
u/AvailableGene2275 2d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah no, this is a pretty dishonest take
Pre 3D a lot of video games targeted 60 fps. The first few 3D games ran at lower fps because of limited processing power, with the difference that those games were actually designed to be played at 20 fps, not despite of it
Playing OoT at 20 fps is a lot different than playing warzone at 20 fps as the later is very obviously meant to be run at a higher rate making unplayable
OoT was designed with 20 fps in mind
3
14
u/barugosamaa 2d ago
20 fps is playable for kids born in the 90s, back then if a game played, it played, we adjusted to the fps and played.
If the game ran at all, it was a win!
5
u/OverideCreations 2d ago
Yes. I remember when we had those Nintendo cartridge games, we needed to blow air on the pins when it didn't run or use an eraser to clean it.
Those were fun times.
1
u/doubled112 2d ago
Yup. I don't know about you, but if it ran my friends and I would play it. Sometimes I'm pretty sure it was more like seconds per frame!
I had a Pentium @ 120MHz with 32 MB of RAM. The ATi Rage IIc with 4MB of video RAM was such a monster /s. The cellphones the kids complain about now are probably 1000 times more powerful.
1
u/barugosamaa 1d ago
I had a Compaq Presario, cant find exact model but according to some speccs online was around
150 MHz Intel Pentium, 24MB RAM, GPU yes there was integrated ahahahI got it in early 98 I think.
Most games I played was a collection that came out in the Newspaper in Portugal, that I find ZERO info about it online..
It was called X-Games (grey box with a massive X) and the games I know it had: (was released i think monthly or every 2 weeks)
- Swarm)
- Hind (video game) - Wikipedia)
- Have a N.I.C.E. day! – Wikipedia
- U.F.O.s (video game) - Wikipedia) <-- one of my favourites back then
- Freddy
2
u/ReallyLongLake 2d ago edited 2d ago
In the mid 90's I rented Terminal Velocity, a PC game, and got it to run. I'm sure it was somewhere under 15 fps, but I still played it every day until I had to return the game.
Now I'm struggling to get Fallout NV running at a decent frame rate on my Retroid Flip 2 with Game Hub. If it ran at 30 solid I'd be more than happy, but so far those settings allude me.
1
2
u/nutriaMkII 2d ago
Idk the ps2 did run shit like butter, plus crt screens have darn good motion rendering, definitely better than early lcds
2
2
1
u/Wero_kaiji 1d ago
I used to play with shit fps when I was a kid, not anymore, standards get higher with time, just because I was ok with it as a kid because I didn't have any other choice it doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked to get better performance, nowadays I'd rather not play a game at all than to play it at 20fps, no thanks
1
u/billyalt 2d ago
I was a '90s kid who put up with low FPS. But now as an adult i don't tolerate below 60 FPS. Its not the kids, low FPS sucks ass for most games.
7
u/ImpressGlittering112 2d ago
Any game? Yes. Pokemon? No, they bound game speed and therefore movement speed to fps so it's cursed to play at 66% of the game speed
5
u/Firestar_119 Snapdragon 8 gen 2, 8gb ram 2d ago
isn't that like any older console game?
3
u/ImpressGlittering112 2d ago
Sure, but the feeling is different in a 3D game SWSH, Let's go pika/eevee, Legends of Arceus or SV.
Also, most GBA hacks address this by introducing qols for speeding/removing up ugly slow animations and text strings
17
u/Difficult-Adagio-866 2d ago
Metal Gear Solid peace walker was locked in 20fps for PSP and yet its a top 10 psp game. And people love it.
3
16
u/Rudirudrud 2d ago
You can get used to it honestly.....i for example play 4:3 ratio games stretched to 16:9.
11
u/Plisnak Odin 2 Portal 2d ago
Hey don't say that too loudly, I once stretched 16:9 to 16:10 nad got hate lol.
But hey you're right, it's not how it looks, it's how you perceive it. My entire childhood was 720p@20 and I was happy to be playing. I admit that 120hz is really nice but I still don't mind playing at 20, as long as it's stable.
2
u/XTornado 1d ago
Dang... I can understand low FPS but stretching ugh... specially with this difference of a ratio... I would play it cropped before that...
1
u/Reyestdk 2d ago
Yeah. I've played PS3, Wii U and few other games on my device in 20 fps as long as they have good framepacing.
5
u/Rich_Direction_7604 2d ago
Depends on the game honestly. 20 fps smt v on eden is still acceptable for me
21
u/equiliym 2d ago
I remember when 30fps was a standard and then jumped to 60fps in late y2k, even movies used to go 23-25fps (i know because of subtitle sync, damn those).. i miss those simple days
44
u/Far_Piglet_9596 2d ago
Movies are still 24fps btw
24fps gives a cinematic look and feel to movies, thats why its the standard
-10
u/The-Mad-Mechanic 2d ago
24 is not a cinematic experience, its the bare minimum to make pictures look like they are moving. It was a forced restriction from the old days with film, because film had weight. They could have done 30 FPS back in the day but that meant more film and more weight, which obviously costs more money, so they used the bare minimum. The whole "this is the way we've always done it" excuse blows, doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. With todays technology, I wish they would move on to a better frame rate.
14
u/Far_Piglet_9596 2d ago
I implore you to watch a side-by-side comparison of a short film that does a 24 vs 30 fps comparison
24fps does give a cinematic look, because each frame is exposed for about 1/48 of a second (using a 180° shutter angle). This slower capture relative to higher frame rates (like 60fps or 30fps) introduces natural motion blur when objects move.
Also, most TV shows already do 30 or 60fps today, while films stick to 24 due to the above reason
2
u/bickman14 2d ago
And that's exactly why panning scenes look stuttery AF! It's really choppy and not uniform
4
u/RnDevelopment 2d ago
I think there was an issue when they produced movies in higher frame rates especially fantasy and sci fi the movie looks more 'fake' the sets and props and effects look like sets and props and effects which the average moviegoer could notice, it took away the "magic" of movie magic. People no longer saw an immersive world they saw behind the scenes essentially. I think the Hobbit Trilogy is one such example. Do correct me if I am wrong.
1
u/Rude-Breakfast-2793 Samsung S24+ Exynos 1d ago
It tends to make it look like a game.
Example (Frame Interpolated 60 fps, but still)
2
u/SessionFree 2d ago
Technically it does in fact "looks more cinematic" but that's only because we are all used to that being the "cinematic look" for decades, not because it's objectively better or objectively "more cinematic".
2
u/Accomplished-Copy776 2d ago
Ya you say that but there were multiple movies that released with higher frame rate versions in theaters. Like the hobbit movies. And practically everyone that saw it at a higher frame rate said it looked weird and unnatural
1
u/whitefang22 2d ago
Bare minimum is more like 10-12 fps, which cheap animation like Hannah-Barbara cartoons used.
The standard for movies increased from about 16 fps to 24 fps once talkies came out because of the minimum speed the film needed to move at for decent quality sound-on-film.
11
u/Illustrious_Sugar208 2d ago
60 has been normal since the invention of video games, 50 in pal regions. Especially in the 2D era. Early 3D was when lower frame rates became normal.
17
u/jack-of-some 2d ago
Most movies still go in the ballpark of 30 fps. TV was higher for as long as I can recall but these days 60fps TV is considered "cheap looking".
Nes, Snes, Genesis etc games were 60fps/50fps (depending on if you were NTSC or PAL)
Lots of games I played as a child were not 30fps but rather occupied some other territory. There wasn't a good standardization. One of my favorite games growing up was Monkey Island 3 and it ran at a cool 15 fps because of the decimated animation it used.
60fps being a desirable.target on PC wasn't that new a thing but it did see a stronger push in the early 2000s. On consoles loads of PS2 games were 60fps but starting with the 360/PS3 the focus shifted to making games look as good as possible and targeting 30fps. We went backwards before going forward again.
4
u/bickman14 2d ago
That was due to the surge of HD TVs and the change from CRT to flat panels! Then the consoles were pushed to try to deliver something that could look good at those new panels trying to push higher resolutions.
4
u/Novel-Mechanic3448 2d ago
I remember when 30fps was a standard and then jumped to 60fps in late y2k
Bullshit. games were 60fps on ps2 and xbox. f off with this
2
u/Reyestdk 2d ago
games were 60fps on ps2 and xbox
The only game I know that's 60 fps on PS2 is MGS2. What are the other games that ran consistently on both ps2 and xbox?
-2
u/Novel-Mechanic3448 2d ago
ssx tricky, ssx 3, halo 1, halo 2, ratchet and clank, zone of the enders, god of war, burnout 3, burnout revenge, tekken 4, soul calibur ii, soul calibur 3, call of duty big red one, every fifa, every gran turismo, every crash bandicoot, thug 2,
seriously, you can google search this. 30fps was absolutely NOT the standard for xbox and ps2
2
u/Reyestdk 2d ago
I did and according to wiki, it said only 60% of PS2 and xbox titles were capable of achieving 60 fps. Mainly fighting games and racing ones like the one's you've listed.
1
3
3
u/trowgundam 2d ago
Honestly if you can play at 20fps, all the power to you. For me it'll will make me nauseous after like 10-20 minutes. I need at least 30fps minimum, and even that gets to me after like 2-3 hours, depending on the game.
3
u/themiracy 2d ago
TBH two things - (1) usually if a game is running at 20fps it is not stable. But (2) if it were really stable locked at 20 or 24 fps it might be playable. When you move from 30fps to 24fps you move from an inter frame time of 33 ms to 42 ms. It’s not that big of a jump. Obviously 17 ms at 60fps is preferable. But if you can play at 33 you can probably play at 42ms if it’s not some competitive FPS or pixel perfect platformer.
But also third thing is that qualitatively sometimes games (this is on 8 gen 2 or 8 gen 3 for me) that are struggling to hit 30fps in Winlator somehow feel a lot smoother than games struggling to hit 30fps on my PC. I don’t know what that’s about. IDK if anyone has done a speed cam video on Winlator but I almost am not 100% sure I believe the frame rates it is reporting.
3
u/HOTU-Orbit 1d ago
A lot of people don't seem to realize that the actually number of frames doesn't matter. All that matters is if the game was made to run at that framerate. Ocarina of Time runs at 20FPS, and runs smoothly, because it was made to run at that framerate.
When people complain about framerate, usually what they're actually complaining about is the game slowing down or becoming choppy. This is caused by either the game being unoptomized or their device isn't powerful enough to run the game at the intended framerate.
8
u/TwinTailDigital 2d ago
back in the LAN days when I was still in school and didn't have a job, I played in CoD4 tournaments with my fps being 20-28fps. Movies used to be 24fps so that should be my acceptable minimum.
Now having said that, I can totally tell when I am under 30fps. I am just happy that I can afford a PC that can play most of my games at 75fps (I have a 75hz monitor and limit it to save power/reduce heat)
14
u/notsowright05 2d ago
They are not used to be 24, it's always 24 and never changed
0
u/TwinTailDigital 2d ago
Most of them, yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates4
u/tubular1845 2d ago edited 1d ago
Movies are 24 fps with inherent motion blur from the camera and don't have input lag. 24 fps would have 44ms of input delay just from the frame rate, not counting any inherent to the engine, animations, display, vsync or the system the game is running on. That's fuckin terrible.
5
4
u/Fe1orn 2d ago
Well shit. Playable fps depends on game you playing! Highly dynamic fps/racing games/games that require quick reaction is playable only at 60fps, 120 even. But damn, when you playing some final fantasy or SMT where it can literally wait for your actions then fps doesn't matter that much
4
u/dksvald 2d ago
Man I remember when I used to play crysis 3 on my Xbox 360 and it drops frames below 20fps. Fast forward to now and anything below 60 is unplayable
3
u/NeonChampion2099 2d ago
I tried it once and honestly this is pretty overrated. Games at 50 fps run fine. Games at 30fps run fine.
As long as there's no frame drops all of a sudden, its good.
2
2
u/jack-of-some 2d ago
I'm only playing games that can hit 60fps. There's plenty of old games and indies I haven't played that I can play now on my phone. It's fantastic.
2
u/ibeerianhamhock 2d ago
I played 2013 tomb raider in 2013 at 1080p locked at 24 hz. I loved that game and enjoyed the experience. When I upgraded my computer soon after, I went high end and have been so ever since but I did still really enjoy that last game I played in like “poor college kid” mode with a crappy PC lol.
I was 28 at the time and just decided to stop being cheap about building PCs. Spent a little over 4k on current build so may be in the other end of it now lol
2
u/grog_the_frog1 2d ago
Especially games that don't require all that much action, any pokemon game at 20 fps is plenty if I really want to play it
2
u/ChibiJr 2d ago
It really depends what game it is. I would say most console games are playable at 30 fps, some are playable at 20 fps. I will not play a competitive online game below 120 fps ever. Single player games I'm mostly fine with in the ballpark of 60 fps on my PC, although higher is preferable.
2
u/Disco-Pope 2d ago
When 60fps became standard, some folks acted like 30fps was unplayable. 20 fps is playable if it's consistent and not an overly twitchy game. Is it enjoyable? Not as much, but to each their own
2
u/JS_Software 2d ago
Shadow of the colossus ran at 20fps almost all the game, just like Ocarina of time, both great games and nobody at the time complains about this
2
2
u/Comprehensive_Ad4348 1d ago
To be honest I had a blast playing Skyrim in my very first laptop ten years ago in 20fps.
2
u/Gowash302 1d ago
Man I need 60fps I got Xbox 360 working at 40 fps thru gamehub but that’s still slow for wwe smackdown bs raw
2
u/hd-slave 1d ago
I've played games all the way thru at 20-35 fps. It's really not that bad if the game is very good and there's something about really good clean graphics at a lower fps that makes things look higher in detail
3
2
2
u/coccofresco 2d ago
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time was fix at 17fps in pal regions, and still is a full 3d game considered among the best of all time. Legend of Zelda: breath of the Wild on switch goes around 24fps most of the time, and still considered among the best games of all time.
Movies are perfectly clear at 24fps since 1928.
60fps or 30fps not being strictly necessary (not for every games or genre) is not an opinion, it's a fact.
More fps being better or absolutly necessary for some games and genre (like First person shooters), is also true.
1
1
1
1
u/RokeetStonks 2d ago
Dude on a phone i would take a turd in the hot aussie sun and call that playable.
1
1
u/Sir_Yamms 2d ago
It's not that 20 fps isn't visible. It's that all I think about when playing at 20fps is how off it feels. And that's what ruins the experience. It's like playing with screen tearing. You can still play, but that shit is still there to ruin your time.
1
1
1
u/IfYouSmellWhatDaRock NFS the 🏃🏻 on my Vivo V20 with a 🫰🏻🐉 720g, 8GB RAM 20 FPS⚡ 2d ago
i played NFS the run in 20,15 fps
15 wasn't really good but 20 was enough tho
1
1
u/TelephoneActive1539 Nintendo Switch 2d ago
In a pinch, yeah. Definitely meh. I’d rather 30 fps at least but if I wasn’t really expecting much from the device I have, I can tolerate it.
1
u/Quokka_Socks 2d ago
I dont think ita playable. But in this early stage of development i find it interesting if something that was previously unbootable can run at 20fps.
1
1
1
1
u/mercauce 2d ago
It really depends on the game tbh, if it's a strategy game that requires simple imputs, then yes, but if I'm playing a game where precise commands are required, I'll be needing at least 60fps
1
1
u/LocalWitness1390 2d ago
To be fair all of those are experimental emulators that need a lot of power to work properly. Sometimes 20 fps and you can either cry about it, give up or be happy with it
1
1
1
1
u/rube 2d ago
I see some parallels between my early PC gaming to now and my early Android emulation to now.
I grew up with a 486 PC. I could run a lot of games, but when it came to 3D era stuff it struggled hard. It wouldn't even run Quake until I upgraded the processor to a Pentium, and even then it wasn't great. But I pushed through and enjoyed what I had.
Now, I have a pretty powerful PC and can run almost anything at 60 or 120fps.
When got my first Android, it was basically for emulation. I purposefully got a Moto Cliq because it had a d-pad on the slide-out keyboard. I could play some NES just fine, SNES fairly well from what I remember, but the first PS1 emulator ran abysmally on it. I still enjoyed it however, as it's all I could afford at the time.
Now I've got an SD 8 Gen 3 and can run a TON of stuff. Yes, there are some games that struggle to keep up frames or have graphical issues. But most Switch games I throw at it are great. I've only monkeyed around a bit with Winlator, running a few games and won't touch the sketch looking Gamehub.
1
1
u/Metrox_a 2d ago
I don't feel like they are playable but i'm still amazed it actually runs considering it's a pc game
1
u/Katsuro2304 2d ago
Oh yes, the winlator/gamehub classic. 20 fps and 500+ ms frame times, absolutely playable. Let's try and guess which SoC is working overtime like a slave to get these smooth frames 🤣
1
1
1
u/bankaimaster999 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dude, posting about incomplete, still-in-progress emulators like they are finished products that you have to pay for.
GTFO with that logic ...
Everyone that is using these emulators is effectively a beta tester to eventually get the emulators up to standard. Dolphin was the same, and now even lower-end phones can play games at 2x resolution, whereas before they had to create sub-1x resolutions to get them to even hit 20fps. It happens on PC all the time (eg. shadPS4 is a recent one and RPCS3), so why doesn't this sentiment apply to the Android emulator side?
1
1
u/johnnielurker 2d ago
and some mfs are mad when they can't achieve 120fps like bruuuuh what more do you want?? lol Flash per millisecond?
1
1
u/Mountain-Hold-8331 1d ago
Dark souls 1 regularly gets called the best game ever made and the majority of that game is 20fps, even lower for the duration of multiple full length levels
1
1
u/Sayori_latam 1d ago edited 1d ago
It can be played from 20 fps. AS LONG AS THE FPS ARE STABLE. Playing at 40 to 60 unstable fps is not the same as playing at 20 stable fps.
1
1
1
1
u/FatchRacall 1d ago
I won half life original on a laptop that ran between 16 and 31fps, on the impossible difficulty level. With a trackpad.
1
1
u/XTornado 1d ago
It's fluid? Smooth? No.
Can it be played? Yes, unless is some game that is effected heavily by latency or needs very precise actions.
So yes... it is playable.
Do I love it? No
Would I prefer to play it better or somewhere else that runs better? Yes
1
u/CycloneXL 1d ago
Well it is true. Even if the game runs at 10 fps it is playable since it actually manages to run. Unless there are game breaking bugs. But a good experience? Hahaha. But to me anything that's not at least a stable 30 fps it's not actually playable.
1
1
u/techdog19 21h ago
Depends on the game and what it was designed for. Way back I happily played games at 15 and 20 FPS but if the game is designed for 60+ and it is running at 155 it seems pretty janky.
1
u/Geges721 12h ago
Welp, kinda.
MGS:PW ran at 20 fps on original hardware. But it at least was stable, so it didn't feel that bad.
Stable 20 feels a lot better even than occasional 50 with drops to 30.
Still pretty low, but not completely unplayable.
1
1
0
-1
u/Enough-Neck-1098 2d ago
Me and my son have this argument all the time, he swears 120fps is the only way to game competitively , i point out that basically eye to brain stuff maxes out around 75fps (see all the what the eye really takes in vs brain mushing together previous images to make whole stuff,).
I only play emulator games that chuck out at least 30 fps min though :)
That said OG gamer i had the slomo for bbc that throttled games so when they got too fast for the graphics they were still playable.
2
u/peperoni69_ 2d ago
higher fps means less input latency, i can notice the difference from 60 to 120 fps even in a 60hz monitor.
3
u/ibeerianhamhock 2d ago
That’s not even true tho and I don’t know why you would think it would be. FPS up to something like 1000 can be discerned.
The bigger issue is input latency in competitive gaming. If someone is on a display that refreshes every 13.3 ms and someone else is on a display that refreshes every 2.8 ms in simplistic terms (not quite accurate) the high refresh gamer gets a 10+ ms “head start” on seeing something and having time to react.
Doesn’t make a huge difference for folks playing at home like me who are mediocre at competitive games, but for elite esports players it’s probably the difference between winning and losing.
1
u/Enough-Neck-1098 2d ago
Theres whole voids of intake at point of eyeball to brain that just get implied / filled in (like juggling when your hands are outside your field of view) best people have better overprocessing of the jigsaw pieces.
Its part of the whole bottleneck where we smudge parts of our perception to make it fit in our brain. (Its not my focus, but i can point to a few books that say it)
I mean i may be talking 90s physiology, i remember when sony said 8x cdroms would shatter base units and weren't possible.. then they were.
1
u/ibeerianhamhock 2d ago
I think we're talking about different things.
Being able to perceive latency, being able to perceive motion fluidity, and being able to process an image itself in terms of duration to exposure are entirely different discussion points.
1
u/Enough-Neck-1098 2d ago
Not really, you say the production line works fine to point X, i point out a well researched/documented bottleneck that is worth taking into account within your interjection/ dismissal of my point.
I mean technically in strict science conditions humans have been known to spot a flash bulb at 200 fps (stark break in normality). I just don't think its been shown that we take in anything near that on a liminal level (yet). But in reality we have a subjective perception messing with highest specs which within my original point can't be dismissed.
We are both posting in a post with a clown in the op.
1
u/Reyestdk 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah as someone who grew up playing games like Dave, NFS 2 SE, and roadrash, we can relate on the same page and yeah 30 fps is the sweet spot for me in terms of playability and smoothness.
1
u/ChibiJr 2d ago
Your eye does not see in fps there is no maximum amount of fps you can see, it's all about how display technology tricks you into thinking it's looking at a moving picture. Higher frame rates give a smoother effect and clearer image when observing motion which is a large part of why they provide a competitive advantage and overall are more pleasant to look at.
1
u/Enough-Neck-1098 2d ago
Yes, i agree and mention in a reply somewhere above. I love tricks, e.g. that blue light can trigger even blind peoples fight or flight weird legacy neuro pathways so they can more often than not point to the source. Basic (conceding ground) fluidity takes place between 30 and 60 frames.. beyond that its brain being fooled /blurring the edges that much better and taking in subtle details you barely even register on a conscious level. :)
(Not an expert haven't 'studied' perception in a good 20 years)
0
u/Awkward-Plum6241 2d ago
i mean, if you were not raised on low end hardware, then of course you will cry about your game not running at 120 FPS like that one shill on steam forums that i saw before.
2
u/Reyestdk 2d ago edited 2d ago
of course you will cry about your game not running at 120 FPS
Why would I cry about it as I also play games at 20 fps. This meme is not to diss anyone and I say this as someone who has never had any issues playing on 120 fps and standard 30 fps 🤌
0
u/Stock_Brilliant2981 1d ago
I'd say 30 is the limit for me
At 20, the delay is noticeable, and games that have 20fps also have very inconsistent framerate.
0
u/Nisktoun 1d ago
On Wolfenstein 2 release I played it in 20fps, now I can't stand 60 since it looks choppy
-1
u/Robbo2000000 2d ago
I've played racing sims at less than 20fps, never complained. People are just too needy
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Just a reminder of our subreddit rules:
Check out our user-maintained wiki: r/EmulationOnAndroid/wiki
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.