Do you not blink for more than 100ms? I also doubt anyone has motor reflexes capable of responding within that period. Also, you're saying you can spot 56.4 vs 60fps? Have you ever seen a movie?
*sigh* There are still people who use that movie line to say theres no difference between 60 and 30 fps? Movies have motion blur, games do not (some do now, but its not nearly as complex as movies) http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm Granted its extremely difficult to notice between such a small number (56 - 60) I doubt most can see that. I dont even think I could. But your logic is flawed and the above article will show that.
The logic is sound; lag is not a loss of frames... only audio and gameplay will be out of phase (60ms early). This only affects players who need precise control for over 56/60 frames, during human play, you really don't. This means that if it takes you 10 frames to respond (in a fighting game), it will now register as ~14. I was pointing out that if you can do a view-think-respond operation over 60ms, which NOBODY can, he would find movies unbearable as he could catch inbetween frames.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html I can notice 6ms (grey to grey) on an LCD in reguard to mouse movments, just as this study shows. And yes, it does affect my ability to play as Im expecting my crosshair to be at a certain point, and if its not then my hand eye cordination is thrown off.
Plenty of people have reflexes within that time period, especially anyone that plays competitively. Take Virtua Fighter 4 or any of the Soul Calibur games as an example. There are moves with liability windows of less than 3 frames -- and there are players who can exploit those exact windows. This is one of the reasons why you simply don't see fighting games over the net as a massive feature. Simple latency from network transit is enough to turn a skilled sparring match into a game of chance. As for films, yes, I do enjoy them in the theater from time to time, but the lowered framerate is noticeable (as is the drop in framerate when going to a PAL display after staring at a NTSC display for awhile). Natural motion blur covers a lot, but if the shot has a lot of movement or is a wide angle image the jitter cannot be missed. If you ever have the chance, you should watch a film shot and displayed in 60fps. Looks way better than a film at the standard 24 fps and it will make you seriously wonder why the film industry is still using such outdated (relatively speaking) technology as a medium. Of course, that's also the curse of working with state of the art technology. Once you know where to look for flaws in a system, you *always* notice the flaws. Having a critical eye can actually ruin some of the enjoyment factor. This is one case where ignorance really can be bliss. -hl718
I can bet that Sony might just drop the PS2 hardware and backward-compatability all together in later revisions of the PS3 console. Otherwise they need to be making a killing on the software sales to offset the cost and market analysts don't have highhopes for the system in the next fiscal season.
am I honestly that first person in this topic who can't see a difference in the comparisons? I have 20/15 vision and my monitor doesnt suck. I cant see anything different. come on guys, its about the gameplay not the graphics!
Yeah, but if your 600$ system that claims to play your old games plays them slower and makes the games look like an etch a sketch I'd be pissed.
Look at ashleys arm. If you cant spot any difference then I declare you officially blind. This isnt about graphics. This is about the horrible artifacts that are introduced. Tell me, would you like to play all the games on your television through a piece of glass with scratches throughout it? Because thats exactly what this is like.
precisely why I've vowed to never buy a system at launch anymore. I learned my lesson with the PS2 launch in 2000. I swear I've taken that beast apart at least 5 times just to clean the laser lens to get stop the DREs. It just seems that console manufacturers dont care anymore about making a quality machine. Yes, it is nice and flashy to read blu-rays and to have wireless everything, but if you have trouble with a feature [backwards compatibility], then your product is not finished. Respect your customers and release a quality machine. Nintendo realeased the Wii already, but already has plans to upgrade the machine to have dvd movie support. Granted, everyone on earth should have a dvd player by now, but you can't help but feel gyped out of your money when your system seems to become inferior so quickly. I dont even need to go into all the problems the 360 is [still] having, a year after its release. I would equate the situation with making jello (bear with me here). It seems like the console manufacturers metaphorically serve us jello about 30 minutes before its ready, so everyone clamors to get their hands on a watery mess that isnt ready yet, despite the fact that its still edible.
the "upgrade" will most certainly only be software from the shopping channel that you can buy for some wii points. Guess it pads onto the disc/game channel maybe. (Possibly some of the Shopping channel stuff or some wii points will be bundled with systems later) One of the reasons why features like some of the channels that're probably already planned for the Wii are not included at launch is because you'll have to raise the price of the system (or pull a sony/ms and sell a system you don't earn money on). And if you do have it available for download on launch, all at once, then you get the "Yeah, the system might cost ____, but you have to shell out _____ extra to get all the features, making it cost _______! So you could just as well buy _____ instead" (Kinda like that weird ass PS3>360 thingy from before, where they said you HAD TO buy all sorts of weird ass extra junk for the 360, making it more expensive than the PS3.
This issue reminds me of an argument a Sega diehard (read: fanboy) used to churn out everytime someone used to compare the PS and Saturn on the alt.videogames.sega usenet group. He'd lament about the "full screen dithering" graphical "feature" used in PlayStation rendering, but it was only ever noticeable if you took screenshots (at least in my opinion). Is this problem a case of something you only see in screenshots, or does the actual in-game footage suffer?
Watch the link that johnny posted earlier in the thread & see for yourself. It looks bloody horrible like your looking at it through a lenticular piece of plastic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCD9TwLrVs
