Why does 30fps look better on a console then a PC?

[DavidTheWin]

It's all the controller. With a controller you can't turn any faster at a certain point, making it seem much smoother than flicking with a mouse. When you see demonstration videos of gameplay they are deliberately making their controller inputs as smooth as possible (you can see it pretty blatantly in this BORDERLANDS PRE SEQUEL GAMEPLAY SPOILERS) so it looks as smooth as possible. 

 

[DavidTheWin]

At 300$, you can't have a PC that can play games as good as a console, and will lack features. Not to mention that the console comes with a 60$ game.

 

Any $300 PC has more features than a console even if it can't play games.

[Misanthrope]

People have done a good job at pointing the smokes and mirrors here but the answer I agree the most with is the TVs being the number 1 culprit: They're just crappier than even basic PC monitors.

 

It's like having a person with eyesight issues look at two pictures but removing his glasses for the second one.

[ACatWithThumbs]

After playing Destiny on Xbox one I find I'm not bothered at all by the 30fps, however it's a completely different story on PC, I have 2 GTX 780's so can play most games at 120fps on a 120hz monitor yet when I try playing them at 30fps by capping it just to see what it's like, it looks horrible.

First a controller is way more forgiving with fps you can feel every frame drop with a mouse with controller not so much.

Second before you cap it to 30 you're running 60/120fps so you feel the difference right away.

Play a game that is locked naturally to 30fps on PC like NFS Rivals and it won't bother you at all.

 

[GoodBytes]

Any $300 PC has more features than a console even if it can't play games.

No you can't play games. Not as well. And definitely not with the form factor.

[DavidTheWin]

No you can't play games. Not as well.

 

You lose the ability to play games but gain a million other features. Not disputing the fact that a $300 console will run games better than a $300 PC, but the original comment was "At 300$, you can't have a PC that can play games as good as a console, and will lack features."

"and [the PC] will lack features [in comparison to the console]"

[Tacitus]

I use both my PS4 and PC on the same monitor and it doesn't bother me, not sure where all these tv theories are coming from...

 

I personally think it's to do with having a completely stable framerate. Gameplay starts to look choppy when your framerate dips, if it doesn't dip it doesn't look so choppy.

[Juliogol]

Isn't it because of the 240 hz, real motion crap on the TV's?

[GoodBytes]

You lose the ability to play games but gain a million other features. Not disputing the fact that a $300 console will run games better than a $300 PC, but the original comment was "At 300$, you can't have a PC that can play games as good as a console, and will lack features."

"and [the PC] will lack features [in comparison to the console]"

Yup it will lack features. In your 300$ budget, you can't have a controller, you can't have a second screen in your controller. Assuming you can buy at cost, and hack a WiiU gamepad. That is ~150$. So now you have 150$ to build the rest of the system, including case.

[Askew]

simple. 2 reason:

1- console games have the game run 30fps SOLID. Fluctuating fps is the worst. If you have a run run at 500fps, but drops at random at 100fps, you'll see it, clear and simple. If your interested, I can find you an article on that.

2- Some TVs with features like '120Hz!', or '240Hz!' or '600 Hz!!! Buy me!', takes the 30fps content, takes the current frame, waits for the next one, once it has it, it generates missing frames in between,to reach 120fps, or 200 fps or 600fps, all by displaying 60 or 120. Notice that 240Hz, and 600Hz are missing, that is because the display doesn't go that far, but emulates it, but mixing the 2 frames.

That is why TV and movies looks strange on them. It fakes that. That also why 120Hz TV looks also strange, but not your (if you have one) 120Hz computer monitor. The downside of this, beside making everything look strange, is that it has huge input lag, over 100fps in come TVs. Some TVs allows you to disable this feature thankfully.

 

Interpolation also causes more visible artifacts in fast motion, and if you are playing a game where there is any HUD/text on screen when there is a lot of motion you can see that HUD/text having artifacts distorting it between frames due to this.

 

In the 'game' mode on by Bravia HDTV it is not possible to turn on interpolation, smart Sony.

 

I'm more interested in a TV that can run at 23.976hz than having interpolation features.

[SeriouslyMikey]

30FPS doesn't look better on anything. 

[DavidTheWin]

Yup it will lack features. In your 300$ budget, you can't have a controller, you can't have a second screen in your controller. Assuming you can buy at cost, and hack a WiiU gamepad. That is ~150$. So now you have 150$ to build the rest of the system, including case.

 

When did I ever talk about gaming except to concede the point that a $300 console will run games better than a $300 PC with more features available for gaming, however "features" encompasses everything from gaming to word processing. A $300 PC has much more functionality than a $300 console even if it can't game for shit with no peripherals, you can do so much more with it, which was my disagreement with the original post.

[MeltyMoon]

For people like me it's unplayable. I been running on a 1440P monitor with 2 780's for a while. When I see my sister playing ps3, it's hard for me to think that's an enjoyable experience.  

 

I have a 1440p monitor with 2 7950s, my ps3 doesn't really annoy me when I play it every once in a while. I still find exclusives very enjoyable

[GoodBytes]

When did I ever talk about gaming except to concede the point that a $300 console will run games better than a $300 PC with more features available for gaming, however "features" encompasses everything from gaming to word processing. A $300 PC has much more functionality than a $300 console even if it can't game for shit with no peripherals, you can do so much more with it, which was my disagreement with the original post.

The conversation is on gaming.

[Visionnn]

Back when I played on APB Reloaded and tried to use a Xbox controller to play, I did notice that using the controller made everything felt smoother and less choppy compared to the mouse. It was probably because using the sticks is a lot slower than using a mouse so it just feels smoother.

[EChondo]

I don't know what this talk about TV's have to do with anything.

 

Consoles have introduced motion blur, a lot of motion blur. Add enough of it and the game will look and feel fluid to a certain extent.

 

On PC, most games that aren't complete arse console ports, will have little to none motion blur implemented and will have the option to disable motion blur if you so desire.

 

Console games are merely tricking your eyes into seeing and filling in the missing frames.

[VG Docs]

@Trogdor8freebird

>semi-comp

>only 50+fps

   >Wut?   ,-,

I know this is a late response (I've slept since then)... what exactly are you trying to ask?

50 FPS is minimum, usually I go above to about 70, depending on the game. Even so, I used to have to deal with less than 30 for competitive gaming. I actually wonder if it made me a better player, because I look at my old MW3 recordings and my aim was seriously on point somehow. 

[©D0n7H8M3™®]

@Treogdor8freebird    on minimum settings, 50fps and comp in the same sentence usually makes me question wut? I dunno it's a habit

[-iSynthesis]

A lot of TVs will actually process what you see and "fill in" the missing frames. That's why you see TVs with like 240Hz panels, the TV is actually just taking a 60Hz signal and "guessing" the frames in between.

Whether or not your TV does this is a different thing, but generally, monitors are simplified TVs without all the post-processing mumbo jumbo.

No. They'll just multiply the hz, its a huge money making of the tv companys.

 

It depends on the game. Dont know why, but games like arma look completly fine on 20-25fps, mw2 for example looks like its lagging to hell with about 55 fps.

And of course things like other viewing angle, your sitting further away and stuff like that.

[Legion]

Mouse vs Controller I would imagine.

I find I notice the lag from low refresh rates more with a mouse but I still find 30 fps unplayable with a controller so no idea how you can cope with it.

[MadManMarsBar]

Honestly to me i can notice the frame difference just by looking at the screen but i i can feel the difference in mouse movement and aiming more

[SkilledRebuilds]

30fps VSYNC on Console

30fps Vsync off (in most cases when at 30fps) on PC

[MahtXL]

It all comes down to smoothing. Joysticks input is smoothed out, vs a mouse which is usually raw input. Try playing GTA 4 on PC at 30 fps with a controller, and then again with a mouse, and thats about it. If consoles used mice only, people would be more upset about the low frame rate. Not to mention most console games also have motion blur on to hide the "jittery" nature of 30 fps.

[StareX]

I played Destiny and didn't enjoy it at all... very laggy.

[MahtXL]

I played Destiny and didn't enjoy it at all... very laggy.

I was playing it on the PS3 all weekend, and while i still hate the dualshock 3 with a passion, i didnt notice any lag at all, just really dont like the controller much. It even looked pretty decent compared to the "next gen" version. Not near as "good" if you can call it that, but very nice, and playable.