Some good .gifs and stuff have already been posted to illustrate the difference.
[b]Yes.[/b] The difference is noticeable; especially with side by side comparisons.
[b]Yes.[/b] A lot of the bickering comes from "console warz" bullshit.
[b]No.[/b] The above does not invalidate the claims that 60FPS is [b]objectively better[/b] than 30FPS.
[b]No.[/b] It shouldn't really affect your choice of console too much. If you like a console, get it and don't worry about what others thing.
[u][i]
[b]BUT[/b][/i][/u] it is reasonable for those who care about FPS to care about it because they are spending $400+ on a new games machine and they want it to run at a level of graphical, technical fidelity that they feel is up to par for this console generation.
English
-
Ok, so it looks better. But I've been playing 30FPS games for years and have loved it. The problem is that people think it needs to be a standard for games to be 60FPS and that just isn't necessary.
-
We played on 8bit for years, it was fine. It still is. We played on 16bit for years, it was fine. It still is. We played on 64bit for years, it was fine. It still is. We played on 30FPS for years, it was fine. It still is. But that does not invalidate the claim that new technology should output visuals at a higher quality. Like I said, it's not the end-all-be-all but the argument that 30FPS was good enough for awhile is not a strong one, IMO.
-
Some people paid $600 for their PS3s and they don't output at 60fps, so the hardware vs price and what can be accomplished is kind of weak at this point. I mean, people have only spent $400 or $500 on a console at this point, so to expect everything to be optimized in 1080p and 60fps is a tall order since some gaming PCs can't handle that on the titles they are producing for them. This is of course assuming the gaming PC was built on a $500 budget.
-
Edited by VIC: 2/7/2014 12:51:19 AM[quote]Some people paid $600 for their PS3s and they don't output at 60fps, so the hardware vs price and what can be accomplished is kind of weak at this point. [/quote] This is only true if you want to willfully ignore how expensive BluRay players were at the time. The PS3 at $600 was one of the cheapest BluRay players around.
-
I'll give you that point hands down. The PS3 is still the best blu ray player on the market. (PS4 if you want to get next gen with it).