heh now for my replies..
Gosh, these guys are a dime-a-dozen. It's amazing how many people come up with these "movies = 3D games" statements.
well the thing is, 3D Games can be movies.. just look at my responce above to see how close you can get to a never changing framerate.
I wouldn't call 60 fps a slideshow, but it does hurt my eyes/brain/whatever. Anything less than 80-90 fps annoys me.
I'm guessing you're talking about your monitors refresh rate? or do you only play quake 3? if a GAME's framerate below 60fps hurts your eyes, then theres something wrong.
With an average of 60...sustained minimums of abouts 35-40FPS....
have you ever played a flight sim? 35 FPS is perfectly acceptable, becuase objects don't move incredably fast onscreen.
in a shooter, objects onscreen move quickly, esp. with twitch moves of the mouse. in that situation low framerates are more visible. only in some cases would fast action not be visible in low framerates (~30 FPS). such cases require only part of the screen is moving quickly, and that you have the famous 3dfx T-Buffer affect running: motion blur. you know how theatres employ motion blurring (quite by accident) to great success. that's why they can get away with 24FPS (and how they prevented films from getting even longer). I personally can ONLY see the movie 'stuttering' sometimes, but that's only if I concentrate on it..
To those of you who said that 60 FPS wasn't a slideshow, do you think that 29 FPS is a slideshow?
depends on the game.
Because that's what you're actually going to be getting on a card with a 67 FPS average in the heavier areas. And in extremely intensive areas it'll drop even further, probably into the 20s or teens.
umm no UT actually measures the slowest framerate in a given demo. I trust Anandtech would have been running the proper demo to illistrate how low a card can go.
given that this is UT, and that I own UT and run it on my Radeon (in OpenGL mode) I've only ever experienced slowdown in framerate when in one level so far (I can't remember the name). I assumed it was because of large amounts of overdraw (thus a CPU limitation), but I don't know for sure, becuase my CPU (a Duron @ 866mhz) isn't too strong. it wasn't bad to look at, but what bugged me about it was the gameplay felt worse.
I'm not looking down at anybody. If you want to play at 5 FPS that's fine by me. Just don't tell me that I don't need anything more.
that's an interesting statement.. I have no comment, yet.
Reading this entire thread (ALL the responses) has given me a headache.
WHO CARES?
I totally agree with u
Another reason is that we know absolutely nothing about the voters. They could be hardcore 3D gamers like me or people who were simply bored and rolled the dice to pick which option they should vote for.
no that statement is inaccurate
it's more like this: I play one type of game only, and that is First Person Shooters.
in nearly every other type of game it's alot harder to see frame rates dipping down to 25 FPS or so.
want to know how I know? guess what? almost EVERY benchmark out there is based on.. you guessed it. FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS. guess what? when that's all a reviewer sees is FPS games, then his opinions on playable framerates will also be more like BFGs opinons.
have you ever played (or even seen) Homeworld? NFS3, NFS4? Starcraft?
how about this? can you see the differences in framerate that you get when running the Tiny Winamp Visualization thingy with the Random Intelligent thingy..
guess what framerate it's running, then turn on the FPS counter.. for me I CAN see a difference in smoothness between 25 and 40.. anything beyond that is hard to differentiate..
anywho, I might be wrong, but most people who define themselves as 'hardcore gamers' basically play one type of game. the fact that you're sensitive to framerates like that points me to (aptly named) FPS games.