Yeah, it’s so annoying and masturbatory. “Everyone who criticizes my treat is just shrieking at me for liking it”. I don’t like people fixating on tech aspects (at least for indies and small publisher games, AAA can get fucked), but they do not, in my experience, shriek at me for liking things that run poorly.
This meme needs to die already. You can simultaneously enjoy a new experience while others rightly have criticisms of it. Often the Venn diagram is a circle.
No, this meme is saying that there’s two groups of gamers that have opposing views, and the critics are fools for expecting a quality product.
In reality, the group that are playing and enjoying the game are really the only people posting criticisms, because they genuinely like the game.
To give recent examples, people memed on the Lord of the Rings Gollum game, but nobody was seriously demanding better from the development studio, because nobody actually gave a shit. Conversely, people post criticisms of Cities Skylines II and Starfield because they like the games and wish they could be better.
No, it means people are allowed to play and have fun despite the criticisms. You getting butt hurt about not only the games but this meme is you being the yelling guy in the comic.
In a modern title designed to be played at 60+, definitely. I’ve been having a blast in dark souls 1 and GTA:SA recently, both of which are capped at 30. Older games are made to work at that FPS, and it takes remarkably little time to adjust and have it feel normal. If I tried to play armored core at 30fps, on the other hand, I think I’d rip my teeth out in frustration.
Edit: misinterpreted the comment above as “unless it’s VR (i.e., in all cases except VR), you are not having fun” rather than “unless it’s VR, in which case you are not having fun.”
Fascinating! It never would have occurred to me that the sentence was worded ambiguously until you pointed it out, but your interpretation is 100% valid. English is a strange language.
I’ve bought it myself and I personally don’t care about the optimizations + developers warned about it a few times. Still a lot of people get mad and I’m not sure why.
If you were looking into playing I would recommend watching “City Planner Plays”. He has a couple videos up about CS2 performance and options as well as a “quick start” cough 1 hour long cough video for the main changes you’d want to know in CS2.
This is exactly how I feel. I’m enjoying it more now after I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Service Charge lol
I did get literally 5 fps in the main menu when I first started, that had me worried. I set it to medium settings and then back to high and for some reason that fixed it.
Performance issues aren’t my concern, as from what I’ve seen it’s just a couple options causing the problems.
But anytime I’ve seen this meme being used. I always get the impression the game isn’t fun, because why would you think people are out to ruin your fun unless you’re not actually having fun.
The mailbag showdown episode of zero punctuation talks about this better than what I could.
Yeah, I usually see it being used when a game lands in the “bad press” category.
Personally, ive felt slightly frustrated at the dogpilling because it’s the type of game where I want to go look at the community response, see some of what other people are building, and get ideas for things to try to add to mine. Right now it’s hard to do that because looking for hospital placement tips just gets an air horn blast about how it’s unplayable because search engines suck sometimes.
And sometimes you just see the same posts over and over, and it just doesn’t match with what you’re actually doing and seeing and you want to laugh at people complaining about 30fps and no motion blur being unplayable in a city building game.
It’s performance, especially on top of the line hardware (13900k + 4090) is dogshit yeah? Just so we’re under no illusions about the state this game was released in.
The icing on the cake is colossal orders gaslighting saying that there’s no practical benefit to having anything above 30 FPS, as if there’s not a tangible benefit to playing games at a smooth 60FPS compared to a sloppy 30 FPS
To me, 30fps is unbearable in fast paced games, but okay in slow paced games. This is a slow paced game, so I’m fine as long as the fps stays above 24 with a 1% low of at least 20.
Everyone has different standards in terms of motion blur they can bear, and you need a certain framerate to achieve that standard at any given speed of motion on screen.
It’s not just about how smooth the game looks, but also how smooth it feels to control. 30 fps is way too sluggish for me. Granted, most people would probably reach a point of diminishing return somewhere after 60 fps, unless you’re someone with the reflexes and hardware (high polling rate mouse, good frame timing on your monitor, low system lag, etc.) to back it up. I’m quite comfy between 120 to 144 fps, but there’s some absolute monsters out there who would probably find that too slow.
If it’s not a very fast moving game, like a turn based RPG, then it doesn’t matter that much, but at least 60 fps is still a must for me to not look like a slideshow.
Latency plays a big part too, that’s true. I mentioned that in another comment.
Though how bad a higher latency feels is also tied to how fast you move your mouse. Slowly panning across the map of your city builder makes latency less of an issue than wanting to hit flickshots in Counterstrike.
Latency and framerate go hand in hand, though depending on the game, one might be more important to you than the other.
Sure. And I used to be okay downloading my porn at 56kbps. Now I want my smut so hi-def that I can see the actors’ emotional scars. Peoples’ standards change as technology advances. If you want to be stuck in 2001, go right ahead, but that doesn’t mean everyone else has to be.
Everyone’s perception is different. I can do 60 fps. I prefer 90 fps minimum and 120 fps target. I see no benefit at 144 or higher. Anything below 60 fps and I just get frustrated. That’s my perception.
30 fps though is something we should move away from. Given how far we’ve come in with all kinds of hardware and software features.
I remember playing OSRS and Team Fortress 2 on my shitter PC with like 10-20fps.
It was fine back then, considering my brain hadn’t yet normalized 60+, but nowadays I struggle with anything under 50fps. I guess I played too many fast-paced games since then because Switch games that fluctuate between 25-30fps really turn me off from playing.
Any first person game at 30fps will give me motion sickness sadly
Strategy games don’t give me any issues though. Which is good because half of them have their campaign speed locked at 30fps with all game logic and map scripts tied to it
Game was worth picking up for a dollar on a 14 day Xbox PC game pass trial membership. I got to see first hand how dogshit the performance is! Look at these great numbers (medium settings, no DOF, no volumetrics, 1440p, no vsync)
You should double check your settings, you may have “Adaptive Resolution” turned on (since it is on by default), but it actually makes performance worse while making everything nice and vaseline-y. Also maybe change the AA, if you hit the advanced settings you can enable TAA which had better overall performance than the others for me.
Edit: oh and I get just barely below you for performance, on a 3800x (OC) and a 3070 (Undervolt OC). Somewhere around 40fps avg, peaks of 60-70. 1% lows bad, but that’s a specific known issue that they’re working on.
I must admit, when I got my 144hz monitor I was excited, coming from a 60hz monitor. But even if a game runs at 144 fps I don’t see much of a difference, many people do, but I don’t. It’s a bit smoother, but not much.
But if a game runs at 30 fps it’s horrible. The Crew, for example, can be switched to 30 or 60 fps, that’s night and day!
It’s super dependent on the game. Baldur’s Gate 3? 30 fps is more than enough. League of Legends? Yeah, I’ll take those 144hz, tho to be honest I don’t notice a big difference compared to 60 fps.
Yeah, 144hz makes a significant difference for competitive FPS games (especially fast paced ones like Overwatch), but I hardly notice a difference when playing single player or PvE oriented games.
Hell, on some games (e.g. Borderlands 3 and CP2077) I actually prefer to play on my 60hz monitor since a smooth 60hz is much more enjoyable IMO than an inconsistent 100-144hz experience. My computer is admittedly pretty old though.
Just to make sure since it does happen a lot, you did change your monitor refresh rate in your OS right? Windows for some reason really likes to not default to higher than 60hz. You’d also probaly want to enable variable refresh rate in your GPU settings if available. And if you do have VRR, some games are weird and have a specific Vsync option for it, others you can just use VRR on normal Vsync just fine.
Was gonna say the same. I’ve had this discussion before… “Dude 144hz is a scam it’s the same as 60 for me” my brother in Christ, did you enable it in windows?!
Yea it honestly shocks me - I mean… not really but yknow - that Microsoft has not done anything about it. Surely someone from the team that keeps trying to jam Edge down peoples throats could just port that shit over for when people have 60hz+ monitors plugged in.
Yes, everything is configured correctly, but thank you, I too read often that people forget that, so it was the first thing after connecting the monitor I checked.
Dang, I was hoping that was the issue since it’s so easy to fix haha. May I ask what monitor you have just out of curiousity? I guess the other thing I would mention is potentially the Overdrive settings being weird, if it’s too low it’ll look smeary and if it’s too high… well it’s smeary, but “reversed” compared to low. Sorry it isn’t working/noticeable for you though, it is great when it’s present.
It’s the Gigabyte M32U. It’s a good monitor, like I said it’s just me, some people just seem to not profit from it. It is a bit better than 60 Hz, but it’s not the big difference to me compared to 60.
I followed and tried many things from here: pcmonitors.info/reviews/gigabyte-m32u/, including overdrive. I bought a new cable, tinkered with the settings, both monitor and driver, it’s just me :) maybe it has to do with age!
There’s a chance you might not notice it for sure, though most can tell immediately when they get put in front of a standard 60hz display. It might be worth a look at the UFO test for both your eyes and monitor. It should be very noticeable if your eyes are doing the tricking, or the monitor isn’t performing correctly on that site. If you have a newer phone that has a 90hz+ display, you can also use that as a sanity check.
I haven’t heard of that site before and their writing seems… odd. Theres still a couple things that it could be, though they get more funky. It could be that FRC is enabled on the monitor, which on some caused issues with high refresh rate, or adaptive sync (gsync/freesync). It could also (still, if you’re unlucky) be the cable, or port on your GPU, or the GPU itself if it doesn’t support Display Stream Compression if it’s too old. There’s also a chance that the GPU straight up can’t do 4k while your settings are set to 120hz, or vice versa, or even more fun, it might claim to be doing one of those, while doing neither (or just one, but saying it is doing both/neither). Monitor issues are the worst lol.
Anyways, sorry if I couldn’t help. I’m certain there’s a pretty good chance it is not your eyes, but between Windows… being as it is, and monitors being notoriously annoying to diagnose, it’s not a fun one to track down.
The monitor is working, like I said there is a difference to 60 Hz, it’s just not that big of a deal as I was expecting it to be. I don’t feel missing out when playing on my old 60 Hz. When I run the UFO test it’s visible it’s working, and the games I usually play reach high frame rates. I used the cable that came with the monitor and got a new one (primarily because the original cable was a bit too short), it’s on me.
But don’t get me wrong. The workspace alone was worth the upgrade, so I’m not depressed or something like that. And I have fun playing my games, and that’s what matters.
Thank you for your tips, I really appreciate it!!!
The faster something on screen moves, the higher your framerate needs to be for a certain level of motion blur.
A 2D point and click adventure at 30fps could have comparable motion blur to a competitive shooter at 180, for example
Framerate is inversly proportial to frametimes, which is what makes it harder to notice a difference the higher you go.
From 30 to 60? That’s an improvement of 16.67ms. 60 to 120 makes 8.33ms, 120 to 240 only improves by 4.17ms, and so on
Ah, something I want to add:
That’s only explaining the visual aspect, but frametimes are also directly tied to latency.
Some people might notice the visual difference less than the latency benefit. That’s the one topic where opinions on frame generation seem to clash the most, since the interpolated frames provide smoother motion on screen, but don’t change the latency.
poptalk.scrubbles.tech
Top