how much does FPS really matter past 60?

who cares when in a game like rdr2 the animations will feel sluggish as hell

>>717885880 (OP)
I have never played a single Rockstar slop.

>>717885880 (OP)
>1.86 MB
>1080x1920
>240Hz
yeah okay buddy

>>717885880 (OP)
It's only useful for certain genres, like pinball.

>>717885880 (OP)
60 is pretty low and hard on the eyes. I would say 144 should be the lowest and past 240 it gets negligible. but side by side 144 and 240+ is very noticeable 60 looks like a slide show once you experience it.

>>717885880 (OP)
It only really matters within competitive multiplayer games, outside of that it's just a nice-to-have.

Anyone that needs to ask this question is truly retarded.

>>717885880 (OP)
For a second there I thought that was the RE4 remake and expected Del Lago to eat that dude

>>717889739
>past 240 it gets negligible

>>717885880 (OP)
It’s all a psyop. We could already "see" beyond low-res games on CRTs using imagination, but they got you hooked on high-res, high-refresh screens to dull that power. Now they sell you hardware upscaling to “fix” the problem they made, like pushing supplements after wrecking food with GMOs. I'd advise you to start training again at lower res and fps, I’ve successfully gone back to 720p@30fps.

>>717890373
if you're poor it's ok sorry you'll never experience 240hz

>>717890702
The sad part is that people will think this is a shitpost.

>>717890702
Wait till you can play 8k@1000fps in your mind. That's the real gamechanger

I had a friend that was convinced it doesn't matter because the human eye can only see le 24 fps
>set monitor to 60hz and show him
>set it to 144hz and show him
>"b-but muh science says it's true!! it's not possible to notice the difference! nuh-uh I don't see any!!!"
It was often like this. This retard believed everything "scientists" and "experts" told him, even if it's stupid shit like this that you can easily see for yourself

>>717890771
Thinking it's negligible at that range is retarded. It needs to be beyond the 10 kHz range before diminishing returns are considered. If you owned a 240 hz or better monitor then you would understand this.

>>717891839
No "scientist" or "expert" has ever said that though. Your friend literally fell for internet memes.

Yes, but it depends on the context:
Competitive Games: In fast-paced multiplayer games like CS:GO, Valorant, or Overwatch, higher FPS (120Hz, 144Hz, even 240Hz) can improve responsiveness and reduce input lag. Players often report smoother aim and better reaction times.

Casual or Cinematic Games: For titles like Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3, the benefit is less noticeable. These games prioritize visuals and storytelling, and animations may feel sluggish regardless of FPS.

>>717891839
The idea that humans can only see 24 or 25 frames per second is a myth—and one that’s been widely debunked both scientifically and experientially.

>>717885880 (OP)
60 is the bare minimum for me as I've been on 120hz+ monitors since 2011
90+ is where it's smooth enough for me but more is always better

>>717891839
>human eye can only see le 24 fps
that was a coping meme from console users during the 360/ps3 gen as games ran at 24fps on those

>>717885880 (OP)

It matters, a lot

>>717885880 (OP)
It's more pleasant to the eye and less tiring.
But I'm perfectly fine with just playing in 60 fps.