30 vs 60 FPS

I'm a bit late here but I'll leave this here.
https://imgur.com/gallery/rNahC

Great link that demonstrates the fps myths, however I can almost guarantee that someone is going to post that they cannot tell the difference!

Cobby87 wrote:I'm a bit late here but I'll leave this here.
https://imgur.com/gallery/rNahC

Was waiting for someone to post this

Oh.... Now i know why 30 fps games do that! I used to think it's a slutter that is meant to be in a game and it happens for sure due to some reason. So this means that human eyes are too good for 30fps while 60 fps looks buttery smooth.
Thnx for that link!

When you regularly deal with 10 fps

30 fps looks godlike

And while 60 fps is still better (I can see the difference) I don't think it's necessary. I can do alright if I can hit a consistent 20 fps but when it drops below that my gameplay starts suffering. You'll probably still have even better performance but I think the minimum threshold is about 20.

I'm not talking about low fps issue bro. I'm talking about the jump step 30fps is making time to time. Load up your xbox and play HALO Reach, you may see what's shown in that gif. I did, you can too!

Abdul Fatir wrote:I'm not talking about low fps issue bro. I'm talking about the jump step 30fps is making time to time. Load up your xbox and play HALO Reach, you may see what's shown in that gif. I did, you can too!

Yeah I understand. I meant to reply to Cobby's post, not yours.

Heatguts wrote:When you regularly deal with 10 fps

30 fps looks godlike

And while 60 fps is still better (I can see the difference) I don't think it's necessary. I can do alright if I can hit a consistent 20 fps but when it drops below that my gameplay starts suffering. You'll probably still have even better performance but I think the minimum threshold is about 20.

Here's the thing:
Because you're used to poor performance doesn't mean it's acceptable to other players.
20fps honestly gives me headaches and makes me feel ill whilst a solid 45 fps is around the mark where I stop having nausea.
Same argument goes for resolution, just because you may be used to low resolution visuals does not mean a higher resolution is un-needed.

Well yeah but I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. Obviously you don't want playing games to make you sick but if getting used to high framerates hampers your ability to enjoy the game at any but the most elite (although at this point 60 fps seems to have lost the "elite" aspect among the pc community) settings then perhaps having to anticipate things half a second before the frame comes in is a useful skill. I have a friend with a decent pc but the problem with it is that he can't take it places so when we find ourselves in some spot and we decide to take turns playing games on my laptop he can't aim worth crap because he's used to being able to correct it and immedietly have that visual feedback.

I mean this brings us back to the console thing. A lot of console gamers seem to think they're on PC's level (I know a guy who owns a ps4 and he is firmly convinced that the gap between consoles and pcs is diminishing to which I remind him pcs do 4k and 120 fps at high levels easy) and frankly if MS and sony had just kept out of the 60 fps thing and did their best with 1080p they would (besides being able to consistently hit 1080p) not have a bunch of whiny peasants complaining about framerate, and it's because they're all used to 30fps.

My point is that it's perfectly acceptable to a lot of gamers. It's only a problem if you are competing at a very high level (where "git gud" doesn't really apply because you've pretty much mastered every skill in the game - otherwise you can solve your disadvantage by gitting gud) or are so used to 60 or higher fps that you can't go back, the latter case being your own fault. Seriously, film is in 24 and it's not like there aren't plenty of motion blur effects in AAA titles these days. I turn off motion blur cuz making things blurry is harmful in any game but if it's such a big problem you could probably adjust if you were given a few hours.

Did you just say because 24fps was fine in films it should be too in games?
Please read the link I dropped.

I did. I've never heard anyone complain about 24 fps in film. I have heard that people complained when watching the hobbit movies, where parts (or maybe the whole thing, not sure) were shot in 48 fps, that the action looked unnatural. Of course higher is better and people only feel that way because they're used to the 24 fps with motion blur, it's nothing they can't adjust to. My point is, to the untrained and/or uncaring eye, 24 fps with motion blur might as well be 60. Higher framerates mean better performance but the amount of times you frag someone because you saw them 16 milliseconds faster is going to be way, way less than the amount of times you lose out because you didn't see him until 200 milliseconds after he saw you (of course sometimes my pc drops entire engagements and one frame I'm at full health entering a room then a few seconds later the next frame shows my dead corpse slumped against a wall). You can chase these returns all you want but the performance increase gets smaller each time. It never truly stops but if you divide 1 by 2 forever you won't ever reach 0 either. You could probably compute the threshold on a per-person basis where mistakes are the fault of the player and not a fault of the machine not giving player adequate information if you knew their reaction time (although I don't know what the exact correlation would be).

24 fps is probably low for most gamers (especially without motion blur and more especially on PC) but some of us don't care and in any case given the requirement anyone could probably adjust (maybe not without a lot of kicking and screaming but stuck with a 30 Hz monitor (which probably doesn't exist) you'd have to deal).

Read the explanation in the link I provided.
you will have ample information on why film FPS and video game FPS are independent to each other and why your argument holds no merit.

I did read it. Twice now, first when you posted it and again now.

Cobby's link wrote:the 24fps argument originates from film. Film has always been shot at 24 frames per second; but, why isn't it choppy then? Pause any movement in a movie or on TV and you'll notice that there is signifigant motion blur. This blur creates a simulated smoothness to video whereby the human eye cannot as easily distinguish the difference in distance between an object in one frame versus the next. However, video games lack this luxury - when you screenshot a video game, all moving objects are still (unless a motion blue effect is being used), and the difference between an object moving is readily apparent.

It sure is. As I'm sure I've said by now it's quite ugly and blurring things intentionally in a video game is the most counterproductive visual thing you could do besides a fov locked at 60. But you still get adequate information to make judgement calls - for the most part, obviously with such a low number of frames the difference between 24 and 30 fps is larger than the difference between 54 and 60 fps.

30 fps is an ideal minimum and I'd expect a game to run at this minimum on consoles or minimum spec PC's. My PC doesn't have the graphics card to run pretty much any of the games I've bought from steam but I did it anyways and while some of them are literally unplayable (usually due to what I think is the mouse input being buffered, causing the cursor to slowly drift to where you want to aim rather than just look at it. Even Skyrim is playable as long as you don't Leeroy Jenkins your way into a horde of enemies, even though the framerate drops to 10-20 fps whenever you swing a sword in the presence of an enemy.

Cobby's Link wrote:The human eye has no limit as to framerates. We don't have refresh rates, just a constant stream of information. While after around 120 frames per second one starts getting diminishing returns on how big a difference that is, there is always a visible difference. Watching a movie at, say, 5000 frames per second, would look absolutely incredible. At that framerate, provided an extreme resolution is used, film would become almost indistinguishable from reality - but you would still see a difference between 5,000 and 10,000, no matter how tiny.

Yeah. I agree. Perhaps 120 is the magic number where the curve stops having a slope < -1 and starts having one > -1. I don't know, and I'm sure it varies based on the person, their vision, and their experience with electronics.

Cobby's Link wrote:If, somehow, film cameras had such as absurdly high shutter speed that every frame were unblurred, 24 FPS film would be unacceptable, if not unwatchable.

It would. It'd be super ugly and choppy during actions sequences. But games don't have to look nice to be pretty, because they're about interactivity, not cinematic action. If low quality textures mean it's easier to distinguish enemies then loads of people will opt for the lower settings because it gives them an advantage. Obviously you want as many frames as possible, but if having a crappy looking game or an unplayable decent looking game is the choice you're making I'd pick the crappy looking game.

Obviously a lot of people have a minimum graphical standard they're looking for. Some people would pass up a game like this:

because those graphics are super ugly. I've narrowed it down to the hands - everyone has their hand in this chunky karate chop block. (Especially funny is the woman who has a cup of coffee hanging on her fingers. But the fact of the matter is it's probably still a playable game if you can get past that. I pity my friends who look at Doom 2 and say "ew how could anyone ever play that" and walk right by like it isn't a load of fun. One of them is determined to get the new Doom, but they don't have a next gen console because their tv is a crt and doesn't have hdmi in (yeah I know I said the same thing you're probably thinking).

Film also is not an interactive media. Cinematic effects tend to blow things out of proportion so that it looks cooler than real life actually tends to make things. If you want to see an interesting switchoff with this, go watch any video on youtube that has 60FPS, but watch it in 30 for a while before switching to 60. The smoothness is so significant that its jarring, and when youtube first implemented that it was almost too jarring for me to watch videos. I still did it anyways and after only two videos (given both were like half an hour long) I very easily got used to it and there's no big deal.

Games on the other hand are an interactive media that require players to act based on what they can see. Having more information to work with allows them to make better judgement calls, and in the case of an FPS where every small motion makes a huge difference, having a low framerate is unacceptable even if you have a computer that runs the game at lowest settings. Here's an example, I have the new DOOM game and my graphics card is way below minimum spec. I run the game on the lowest possible settings (with a small change to textures cuz lowres textures are kinda meh imo) and I'm lucky if I hit 60, wherein I'm at around 30-40 most of the time and drop down to 20. While playing at 30 isn't too bad for most games, in a game like Doom where everything counts, its almost unplayable. I trudged through it because I would occasionally bump to 60 for a while and stay that way and I could go to 40 if I lowered some settings, but hell if I would willingly play that game at 30 all the way through.



TLDR: 24 is unacceptable for interactive media and the cinema crowd need to give it up. 30 is ok for low end shit but not a FPS. 60 is/should be minimum aim for developers on their target hardware.

R93_Sniper wrote:Film also is not an interactive media. Cinematic effects tend to blow things out of proportion so that it looks cooler than real life actually tends to make things. If you want to see an interesting switchoff with this, go watch any video on youtube that has 60FPS, but watch it in 30 for a while before switching to 60. The smoothness is so significant that its jarring, and when youtube first implemented that it was almost too jarring for me to watch videos. I still did it anyways and after only two videos (given both were like half an hour long) I very easily got used to it and there's no big deal.

Exactly. But if youtube had never bothered then you'd never have cared. Nobody has ever bothered to make a large amount of high-framerate movies either before the hobbit ones and people were a little put off. If they give it more goes people will get used to it. But until then they're all perfectly happy at 24 fps. Kick up that number to 30, 48 or 60 and you'll have people who love it and want it to be the standard and people who don't care and won't mind 24.

Obviously movies are different, as you point out next but also their framerates are pretty locked. If the film was shot at 24 you can't watch it in 60 (without it playing the same frame a few times). In this way it's a little more like framerate capping by developers, which is indeed stupid and not something I want to defend. My point is that if we were all stuck playing Quake 1 on MS:DOS without Voodoo cards, nobody would mind the subpar fps because it's worth suffering through every explosion to see the rest of the game.

R93_Sniper wrote:Games on the other hand are an interactive media that require players to act based on what they can see. Having more information to work with allows them to make better judgement calls, and in the case of an FPS where every small motion makes a huge difference, having a low framerate is unacceptable even if you have a computer that runs the game at lowest settings. Here's an example, I have the new DOOM game and my graphics card is way below minimum spec. I run the game on the lowest possible settings (with a small change to textures cuz lowres textures are kinda meh imo) and I'm lucky if I hit 60, wherein I'm at around 30-40 most of the time and drop down to 20. While playing at 30 isn't too bad for most games, in a game like Doom where everything counts, its almost unplayable. I trudged through it because I would occasionally bump to 60 for a while and stay that way and I could go to 40 if I lowered some settings, but hell if I would willingly play that game at 30 all the way through.

Games are interactive media. The problem I have is with diminishing returns. The difference between 60fps and 59 fps is that you get a new frame .3 milliseconds faster. The difference between 30 and 29 fps is 1.1 ms. Obviously reaction time is different for different people, but does seeing an enemy .3 ms faster than you would have seen them before really mean anything? I doubt anyone has a reaction time so fast that their muscle memory kicks in and flings the mouse and clicks all within the 16 milliseconds it takes to render the next frame?

When you play an FPS at the low end of the spectrum - and I mean really low - you begin to value your framerate a lot more. It becomes less about being on even terms and seeing the enemy as fast as possible to knowing when to back out of a fight because the enemy has such a large advantage. How many frames do you need to lay a carpet of stickies near a corner? If the mouse is nice and responsive despite the framerate, it doesn't matter because you aren't being pressured. How many frames does it take to detonate that carpet of stickies? Well, if a scout runs over a 3-sticky trap that's about as wide as himself and you have to detonate that carpet probably when any part of his body is over it, maybe 10-15 minimum because he can move pretty fast. Obviously more frames are better, but if the first frame you see him he's a fraction of an inch around that corner, and the next you can see three total pixels off his hat, you probably didn't really need those frames. You could have lived with just seeing the first three pixels of his hat, and then seen him move to perhaps his torso and head and arms entering the picture, as opposed to his head and his arms which you would have seen had you had twice the framerate. So exactly how many frames is too slow? If we say you need two frames of the scout being over the stickies then we can go pretty low. From experience I personally need more like 4 or 5 minimum. The two or three frame spec usually happens around 5-10 fps. A little higher and you've achieved the minimum playable framerate, still possibly less than 20 and definitely less than 30.

Obviously I'm not sure exactly what you'd see because I can't just go record 60 fps gameplay but my point is that the amount of frames you really need is less than 60 and probably closer to 30. Some fps games need more frames - doom is pretty fast paced, and you move pretty quick, so you need a good amount of frames so that you can see what's around a corner without entirely exposing yourself to fire and without slowly edging your way around it, and if you're going to be a 1337 snoiper then you want a large amount of frames so you can accurately deduce your target's movement as precisely as possible. I would dispute that you could work through doom and have a good time at 30 fps if you weren't so used to 60 (or maybe not, cuz that seems to be what you're trying to say, but we can't just erase all 60 fps memory from your head to try now can we) in doom or playing as a sniper of some kind. Capping framerates is pretty unacceptable, but games are still quite playable at 30 fps (even first person shooters, although if you're being super competitive then you'll want the 60) even if they function better at 60. Games are NOT playable at 10 fps. I'm sure if I asked you to play some Garry's Mod at 20 fps and try to fight some NPC's you'd tell me it's utterly impossible, even though that's exactly what I do with no problems at all (other than the occasional drop into 5-10 fps territory).

If your argument is based on people not caring because something better doesn't exist.
I sincerely hope you don't end up in a negative situation where there is no resolution.

Here's the fact of the matter;
30 fps = 30 frame updates per second, it's quite the literal definition of FPS.
The human brain when in deep thought processes quite fast but when the stimulation to that processing is slower than the brain prefers, accidents happen because the brain will begin to create its own version of events.
If you do not think the brain does this, check the image below.

your argument is needing to anticipate movements is still relevant to higher refresh speeds, the difference is, higher refresh rates allow for even more precise anticipations as there is less waiting time for the latest information.

Cobby87 wrote:If your argument is based on people not caring because something better doesn't exist.
I sincerely hope you don't end up in a negative situation where there is no resolution.

It's not... at least I don't mean it to be. I'm simply saying that a lot of people don't care because they've never been exposed to higher framerates. It's one thing to expect a game to not have an FPS cap, and it's another to expect 60 fps at mimimum when playing any game, as the other 3 platforms you might want to port to had a standard 30 (at least last generation). People who are out of touch with the PC market probably were just like "Hey it hits 30, let's ship it". (And then there's console ports that are just like "Hey it doesn't crash on startup let's ship it".) Obviously games have minimum specs on PC, and it's up to the developers to define "minimum specs" as "lowest settings at 60 fps" or "lowest settings at 30 fps" and the same goes for "recommended specs". There's really no standard... although now that we bring it up there really should be. People on PC complain that they can't hit 60 on some titles even though they have the recommended specs and that is probably due to the developers defining "recommended specs" as "normal" or "high" graphics settings at 30 fps (and then again it might be a developer oversight on Nvidia cards or not taking advantage of multiple cores in the cpu or something like that).

Cobby87 wrote:Here's the fact of the matter;
30 fps = 30 frame updates per second, it's quite the literal definition of FPS.
The human brain when in deep thought processes quite fast but when the stimulation to that processing is slower than the brain prefers, accidents happen because the brain will begin to create its own version of events.

Trufax

Cobby87 wrote:your argument is needing to anticipate movements is still relevant to higher refresh speeds, the difference is, higher refresh rates allow for even more precise anticipations as there is less waiting time for the latest information.

Exactly, and that's why higher framerates are better... except "more precise" isn't the same as "lowest value at which you can achieve". The minimum playable value isn't 60, for some games it's less than 30 (like non-reflex based games where framerate really only affects the animations). If people couldn't play first person shooters at 30 fps the console market would have never adopted the fps genre past the first few titles where it was a novel idea. If you play at 60 for a really long time and get super used to it your minimum playable value might actually be 60, but that's not to say it's always been 60 and that's not to say you couldn't go back if you absolutely had to.

@ Heatguts. Correct me, but the gist of your reasoning is as follows
1. People that have never seen 60 fps will never miss it!

I guess thats true, but for those that have seen a pc playing the same game as a console at a store, { yes people do compare and I guess why Consoles, scream about exclusivity. } notice the immediate quality difference, I cite my own mother here upon seeing me looking at displays at the technology center at a certain big name store at my local Mall ( Trafford Centre), commented at the picture quality difference, My mother is 78yr old and is no eagle eyed hawk gamer.

2. Guessing ( or anticipation ) is key to your gaming at low fps!

Hell if thats all it takes, the spray and pray crowd are going to own us all at any FPS, but wait no that doesn't happen,  [usually] there are many factors involved here, latency aka ping is also a massive factor adding any one issue is less that optimum , adding both and I might as well just pack up and move in with an Auzzie.


3. Consoles with low fps are ok if they have playable games!

If by design the exclusive console only wonder offering from AAAA+ rip-off sub-par games house does not strain the tender innards of the console.
As far as I remembered early pc games managed high frame rates using 8 bit blocky graphics and simplicstic background/ annimations.
The early consoles of the day ie Atari 800, etc could match fps and graphics quality ( fond memories of road rash).

Maybe because of cost issues or whatever 2 main camps of PC and console only players developed. and because of the different rate of tech use consoles fell behind.

The point is for all I loved the early Atari stuff, today I find I DO notice , I DO dislike stuttery Graphics or Blurry details. Yes you may play at this and enjoy it. But for myself (and even my sainted mother can see the difference) I do not see why I would Want to play at that standard when I have A Better Choice.

Deadmeat wrote:@ Heatguts. Correct me, but the gist of your reasoning is as follows
1. People that have never seen 60 fps will never miss it!

I guess thats true, but for those that have seen a pc playing the same game as a console at a store, { yes people do compare and I guess why Consoles, scream about exclusivity. } notice the immediate quality difference, I cite my own mother here upon seeing me looking at displays at the technology center at a certain big name store at my local Mall ( Trafford Centre), commented at the picture quality difference, My mother is 78yr old and is no eagle eyed hawk gamer.

Well, yeah, I guess that's kind of my reasoning. I was kind of going for "other media consumers and gamers have been surviving <60 fps amounts without having any problem with it so why should 60 fps be considered a minimum if it's clearly possible to play games effectively with lower framerates".

But in any case just because you can see the difference (also lucky you the nearest computer store in my area is 40 miles away) doesn't mean you're suddenly blinded by the frames and can't play games at less than 60 fps.

Deadmeat wrote:2. Guessing ( or anticipation ) is key to your gaming at low fps!

Hell if thats all it takes, the spray and pray crowd are going to own us all at any FPS, but wait no that doesn't happen,  [usually] there are many factors involved here, latency aka ping is also a massive factor adding any one issue is less that optimum , adding both and I might as well just pack up and move in with an Auzzie.

Well yeah, anticipating strafing patterns to assist in aiming is a pretty universal FPS feature, I think. I never played a multiplayer FPS where everybody was glued to the floor.

Of course anticipation isn't everything. Some games have this weird method of updating mouse movement where it happens a few frames after you move the mouse, meaning that at lower framerates aiming is absolutely impossible. (never had the joy of playing one of these at 30 fps so can't say much for what the minimum framerate is for aiming) But anticipation is still a universal component that is highly dependent on framerate, and when determining minimum playable framerate I think that would be a good place to start.

And then there's lag. I'm not quite sure why you brought it up. You can have 5000+ fps and 5000+ ping and unless your game features Valve's hitbox rewinding you're never going to actually kill someone you intended to shoot.

Deadmeat wrote:3. Consoles with low fps are ok if they have playable games!

If by design the exclusive console only wonder offering from AAAA+ rip-off sub-par games house does not strain the tender innards of the console.
As far as I remembered early pc games managed high frame rates using 8 bit blocky graphics and simplicstic background/ annimations.
The early consoles of the day ie Atari 800, etc could match fps and graphics quality ( fond memories of road rash).

Maybe because of cost issues or whatever 2 main camps of PC and console only players developed. and because of the different rate of tech use consoles fell behind.

The point is for all I loved the early Atari stuff, today I find I DO notice , I DO dislike stuttery Graphics or Blurry details. Yes you may play at this and enjoy it. But for myself (and even my sainted mother can see the difference) I do not see why I would Want to play at that standard when I have A Better Choice.

I'm pretty sure that at one point the execs at Sony or Microsoft (or Sega) looked at the issue and were like "will we sell more games if they look better but play a bit worse or play better but look worse?" and settled on "it's easier to show off graphics than framerate and more people care about graphics than framerate so". Obviously the PC community has always been different. If you want to play a game on PC and aren't satisfied with the graphical performance, you can upgrade to the point where you are, so nobody is sitting around making decisions like this.

Obviously console games would play better if they sacrificed graphics for framerate but they didn't - and nobody outside the PC community cared (and if they did they probably just bought a PC) and would have cared had Sony and MS not decided to kick up the framerate this generation in addition to the max resolution before realizing neither of their machines could handle it.

By talking about console gamers I'm giving an example of a large community of gamers that regularly plays games at lower FPS amounts and has no problem with 30 fps. I'm trying to reiterate my first point - if people can play pretty much all PC games at 30 fps (on consoles, lets be honest nobody with a decent rig sacrifices framerate for fidelity) and not have a problem with it then why should 60 fps be considered the minimum if clearly it's not.

Of course PC is a different market and as I mentioned above you can always upgrade your PC if you've got a problem with your FPS amounts. The nature of these platforms boils down to either "are games even playable at 30 fps" to which I cite the past few console generations and say "Yes, or people would have revolted long ago" or "can you go back to 30 fps after experiencing the glory of 60" to which I say "Well if you want to play a game with your IRL chums then a console is probably your best bet because it's a lot easier to sit down at a TV and play some 30 fps FPS on a 360 than it is to supply four people with gaming-grade computers and monitors and gather them all in one place to play some games." Even if all your friends have those gaming grade computers they have to lug them over to someone's house and find a place to plug them all in and don't trip on the stairs with my $2000 machine or I'll wring your neck. I get together with a few friends of mine (about 4 of us total) and occasionally we meet up at this one guy's house and this guy has a gaming PC, a gaming PC from last upgrade cycle, and a laptop he borrows from his mom which I assume has a high-end integrated card (I supply my own computer) and then we all play some Garry's Mod and stuff and it's a blast but it requires so much setup and planning beforehand (you gotta install all the games, update all the games, somebody didn't subscribe to the workshop collection so you've got to wait for that to download) that we only do it about once a year. It's far more likely we'll meet up at someone else's house and just play SSB4 (granted I think that does run at 60 fps, correct me if I'm wrong) and before that we played SSBB.

Anyways, back on topic, they manage to do it. Of course there's some gamers so used to 60 or higher that they'd walk into a room where their sister was playing Mario Kart Wii and fall to the floor screaming "TEH FRAYMMES!" but for the most part I think any PC gamer could go back for a couple hours and deal with the small tiny splitscreens and framerate. I mean, this is literally a forum about a PC recreation of a console game that has run at 30 FPS for the majority of it's lifespan and I'd expect anyone here who isn't still avoiding spoilers in videos about Halo 3 because they're still waiting to finish the fight to be able to play on a console for a bit.

@ Heatguts

I mean, this is literally a forum about a PC recreation of a console game that has run at 30 FPS for the majority of it's lifespan ~( and would benefit from running at Higher detail at Higher frame rates ) just added what I the hope that target of Project Contingency is.

Ahem. Wiki extract quote
The games of the main Halo trilogy were developed by Bungie, and are first-person shooters in which the player experiences most action from the protagonist's perspective.[21] The first title in the series is the Xbox version of Halo: Combat Evolved, released on November 15, 2001.[22] The game was initially intended to be released for Windows and Mac OS, until Microsoft's purchase of Bungie in 2000 led to the game becoming an Xbox launch title and platform exclusive.[23][24]

Sorry I have digressed I just wanted to point this out.

Yeah of course Halo would benefit from 60 fps. And as I'm sure we all know at this point Halo CE had a very strange development cycle and went through many iterations before the final FPS released on the Xbox. Windows and Mac release planned by Bungie I'd believe, given that Bungie started out working on it as a Mac only title and Marathon was aimed at the Mac market (possibly Mac exclusive? I remember playing it at one point so that can't be completely true), so a Mac release makes more sense than a Windows one until you factor in Window's larger install base.

can we get a tl;dr of the whole of page 3 pls

Lol you're right

tl;dr 30 fps is ok to Heatguts and nothing below 60 is ok to anybody else

Does this site organize pages by length or by amount of posts per page? I'm kind of curious now

Pretty sure it is dictated by post date in the forum section and the thread to have the last post gets displayed on the home page.

Heatguts wrote:Lol you're right

tl;dr 30 fps is ok to Heatguts and nothing below 60 is ok to anybody else

Nah... 15 fps GO GO GO!
*throws 15 fps in the battlefield* -chances of winning how much?