Edmond wrote:RLBURNSIDE wrote:
As an engineer, I put effort where it yields the greatest dividends. Corporations do the same. AAA studios do the same. Indie studios do the same. They go where the money is. There simply isn't enough demand for a game with simpler graphics but ultra high frame rate compared to more complex imagery with a still-decent 60p. Targetting beyond that is diminishing returns, both from a technical perspective, and definitely from a market and engineering perspective. Trust me, HDR is going to make the next gen games look stunning. Mark my words. We're working on it.
Ye, i disagree... a very small % of people have actually tried 120hz, and all of them say its amazing and a huge improvement and they will never go back.
While people who have not tried 120hz, say you cant see more than 60fps. While console gamers say you can see more than 30fps.
Get it? Why your point of view is a misconception?
Also, why do you think people have these nostalgia feelings towards old games, even stuff like doom1/2? Could it have something to do with the fact that they were experienced on 85hz CRTs. Why is Half life 2 so popular? could the way how smooth it ran on the hardware of the time have some part in it? Why doesnt anyone talk about crysis1?
Its not all blind nostalgia. Its legitimate nostalgia because those past experiences were BETTER, and in a not so obvious way.
120hz desktop is also so much easier on the eyes. 120hz MUST become the standard. Everything else we can debate endlessly on.
But the move from 85hz to 60hz was a fucking travesty.
I've used 120hz CRTs back in the 90s, and couldn't really tell much difference past 85hz. The biggest jump was from 60hz to 72hz which most monitors could do and was something as a computer technician I would almost always do. My clients thanked me endlessly from that one simple settings change I did as I worked on their PCs. But I didn't see a big difference beyond 100hz on my own 17-20 inch monitors.
That said, how 100hz works on a scanline raster display and now a sample and hold LCD is totally different. A 60hz CRT might flicker like crazy, but it had very little to no sample and hold persistence blur, compared to a 60hz LCD. So even at the same Hz, it was a step down I agree. But 60hz LCDs were an improvement overall for casual or business use, for the opposite reason : flicker was virtually elimintated due to that same progressive scan sample + hold display. So given that most people are still using 60hz to this day, and most people using LCD monitors aren't doing so to game on, I would definitely say 60hz LCDs have done their job admirably for what they were intended to do, which is get rid of flickering and give you a small form factor futuristic-looking display with razor sharp text and perfect geometry. CRTs sucked for those things, good riddance!
I just bought a 144hz G-sync monitor and while it's terrific in games, it's absolutely superfluous to move beyond 60hz in windows desktop use. Sure, my mouse slides around smoother, but I stopped being impressed by mouse sampling rate hax back in the 90s.
Tell me, what use is a casual person to have going up to 120hz on their typical LCD? On a TV, yes, it makes sense to improve motion resolution especially when you go up to 240hz with BFI and/or interpolation, but even a 60hz plasma could get 1080 lines of motion resolution while a 2015 4K LCD with FALD probably can't even match that. Even a 120hz 4K LCD at the low range can't beat 600 lines of motion resolution! It's pathetic! My 2008 panasonic plasma locked to 60hz was a far better gaming display than any 2015 120hz input LCD is in terms of motion resolution and clarity.
While I agree with you that 120hz is better than 60hz, where gaming is concerned, the dollars being invested in graphics programming is focused on image quality at lower frame rates, rather than extreme frame rates at the expense of IQ, because consoles make about 5-10x about as much money as PC games and they need to look "next gen". Why do you think they released GTA V PC two years later than the old consoles? Follow the money. Gaming is an industry, and industries follow dollars. 120hz aficinados like us on this forum are not typical gamers.
I do think that 1080p / 120hz would be a better experience than 4K at 60hz, but many gamers don't see it that way, and the industry is moving towards 4K instead. Hopefully TVs with displayport 1.3 will come out soon so we can have our cake and eat it too. And with freesync! That would be awesome.