PSO2: 60 FPS or 30?

[D-Inferno]

Does anyone know if the Alpha ran at 60 fps or something lower, like 30? I recall someone who claimed to be in the aplha telling me it was at 30 FPS. Is this true? It would be really silly if the final product only did 30 FPS despite a powerful computer...

[Macman]

I'm sure the final product will give you an option to run at 60. The alpha probably just defaulted to frameskip 1.
Whether it'll be optimized well enough to run 60 on a majority of machines is a totally different matter.

[RemiusTA]

Im almost positive it runs at 60. If it defaults any lower then i really have no idea whats going on.

[Zyrusticae]

I really doubt the game uses the same ridiculous system as PSU. More than likely it'll work like every other modern PC game, i.e. frame skips based on internal time and NOT based on a predefined threshold (60/30/15 in PSU) where everything sloooows doooown below that threshold.

[RemiusTA]

PSU was programmed like garbage.

[Malachite]

Yes, it was. If PSO2 were to suffer from those same problems (which I'm almost sure that it won't) then I would probably /wrists

[SolRiver]

Being a PC only game, it should be able to go all the way to stratosphere if your hardware can take it.

Considering that 3D is coded in, it has to at least be able to do 120FPS. (actually, now that I think about it, I don't know if 60FPS can do 3D with 30FPS on each eye... )

[Ezodagrom]

In the title screen the framerate wasn't locked, basically the framerate is as high as what the PC can achieve.
In-game I have no idea though.

[Kyrith_Ranger_Pso]

does 30 or 60 fps even matter? i heard that after 24 FPS the human eye can't even detect the difference anymore

[RemiusTA]

No, you can definitely tell the difference.

IIRC most movies run at like 24 FPS, but if you look at most Blu-Ray quality movies, they run upwards of what feels like 60.

My eyes can easily tell the difference, and it bothers me because they no longer look like movies anymore, they look like Videogames or something. Not to mention, older special effects look terrible on Blu-Ray / HD with high refresh rate because they just were not designed for such display.

Basically, movies that used to have realistic looking special effects no longer do to me. They look like special effects from a Videogame or CG movie or something.



But i guess im just someone who can instantly notice the difference because i've grown up with videogames with constantly changing refresh, from the 20s to the 30s to 40s-60s. Half of my family literally cannot point out a difference.




But yeah, generally PCs dont really aim for such a thing. Programming some basic crap in C++, my framerate displays at like 20,000 FPS and higher...

[Malachite]

does 30 or 60 fps even matter? i heard that after 24 FPS the human eye can't even detect the difference anymore

Oh wow, no. If you play a game at 24 FPS, it feels INCREDIBLY laggy. Almost unplayable, in my opinion. Anything less than 30 is just unpleasant.

60 however feels smooth as silk, and anything higher is just frosting on the cake.

[kyuuketsuki]

No, you can definitely tell the difference.
Just one of those things that depends on the person. Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day. Some people couldn't care less about 30 FPS vs 60 FPS vs 1495840598 FPS, for some anything less than 60 FPS is intolerable. I can tell the difference, myself, and although I prefer the smoothness of 60+FPS, I will generally accept around 30-40 FPS and even tolerate dips into the 20s in order to turn graphic options up.

If you've ever used a 120Hz monitor, you can tell the difference between that and a 60Hz monitor (if you're sensitive to that sort of thing). Even simple things like moving a window around on the desktop looks a lot smoother. It also practically eliminates ghosting, all other things being equal.


IIRC most movies run at like 24 FPS, but if you look at most Blu-Ray quality movies, they run upwards of what feels like 60.
The 24 FPS thing is what the film industry settled on as a standard forever ago for various technical reasons, and most Blu-ray movies actually display exactly (more or less) 24 FPS if that's what the film was originally shot in. The 60Hz/120Hz/240Hz thing is done by the TV itself and has nothing to do with the source media.

My eyes can easily tell the difference, and it bothers me because they no longer look like movies anymore, they look like Videogames or something. Not to mention, older special effects look terrible on Blu-Ray / HD with high refresh rate because they just were not designed for such display.
What you're talking about is the so-called "soap opera" effect that occurs because the source material is not originally shot in the 60/120/240 that the TV is displaying it at and the TV uses interpolation (rendering approximated frames in-between the actual frames that were recorded) to fill in the extra frames required to get it to 60/120/240. It's smoother, but, due to the interpolation, it doesn't look right and you get that effect that bugs you. Honestly, it's nice for watching sports, but otherwise, you should turn your TV's 120/240Hz interpolation feature off (it's under various proprietary names depending on the TV manufacturer).

If movies were actually shot at 60 FPS, it'd be a different story. Of course, that would also be twice as much video information per movie, and we just got to the point of wide-spread adoption of a media that can hold high-definition movies (Blu-ray), so it require yet another new and expensive format to do so. Plus, the film industry itself is resistant to the idea due to various technical and nostalgic/stubbornness/money/old-people-running-companies reasons.

Plus, 24 FPS really looks just fine, really.

Anyway, on topic...

I very much hope that, this being a PC-exclusive, there is no "lock-in" to 30/60 FPS, as that's a hold over from consoles. PC games generally just render as many frames as the hardware can and then frame skip as necessary to display it at the monitor's refresh rate, unless you use v-sync to force it to render at the monitor's refresh rate (only necessary if there's noticeable tearing).

[Kent]

The human eye can handle a number that's something closer to the equivalent of 75fps. Past that you can still tell a difference (for various reasons - mostly due to proper interpolation), but it won't be a very huge one. Games running at a solid 60fps sure do look nice though (especially that delicious Revengeance footage).

Ideally, considering it's a PC game, it should run at... whatever your rig can push out. Capping framerates is a red flag when it comes to designing a game engine to run on a PC.

[Ezodagrom]

Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day.
The video for SDTVs is interlaced though, it kinda gives a 60 fps (or 50 fps in the case of PAL TVs) feeling, so it's not a surprise that some people don't notice the difference between an HDTV and an SDTV.

In progressive scan video, the difference between 30fps and 60fps is really noticeable though.

[Kyrith_Ranger_Pso]

ah, so it turns out the 25 FPS thing is just a myth,

"The key point to take away from this discussion is that there is no set scientific value for minimum FPS. Your eyes and brain don't have a precise trigger point at which, say 23 FPS appears stuttery but 24 FPS is smooth. It's more complex than that and all the factors above need to be considered. If a game looks and feels smooth to you, you are getting 'enough' FPS as a minimum, but don't expect other people to agree with or experience the exact same thing - it is in large part subjective." i guess my eyes are just ok with having 30 FPS while some others are not

[SolRiver]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.

[kyuuketsuki]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.
If the study was about a single air force pilot, then that's not exactly a sample group that can conclusively prove anything. All sorts of things could have tainted that result, not to mention the fact that a highly trained air force pilot's very quickly identifying something of certain size and shape which has, doubtlessly, been drilled into his head endlessly is not applicable to the general populace's ability to distinguish between various frame rates. I also question how they determined how quickly he recognized said object given that it would have taken far longer than 1/2000th of a second for him to relate the fact that he had recognized it.

Though I doubt you're actually suggesting that we move to 2000Hz TVs with games rendered at 2000 FPS to match.

[SolRiver]

lol, someone is in a debate mood? (probably just bored of waiting for PSO2)

The point of the study was to explore human eye's limit. (to my understanding)
It really just provide evidence for further study of how/why/when/etc.

[pikachief]

Just one of those things that depends on the person. Some people can look at SDTV and just shrug when you show them an HDTV playing a Blu-ray, and for others (like me) the difference is night and day.


Too true. My eyes are just lame though. I watched The Dark Knight in standard definition then in High Definition and in High definition right after another on an HDTV and I couldn't tell any difference. They looked exactly the same to me. :/

I also can't see 3D very well. Most 3D movies and games look either the same or slightly different. I played Ocarina of Time 3D, all the way up to the end of young link, and i couldn't really notice the 3D effect the whole time :/ In avatar it just made the foreground pop up way too much and i couldn't focus on the movie.

[RemiusTA]

If you guys are curious, there is actually a study that had an air force pilot being able to spot AND identify a jet fighter within 1/2000 in a second.

Google it.


Uchiha Itachi


no seriously, back before i realized naruto was the shittiest story on earth, i was intrigued enough to look to see if the human eye had the capacity to actually be made to see much faster than it currently can.


I think the search was "At what FPS does the human eye see", but the answer is basically "too complex to answer since the human eye doesn't work like that."

[SolRiver]

Uchiha Itachi


no seriously, back before i realized naruto was the shittiest story on earth, i was intrigued enough to look to see if the human eye had the capacity to actually be made to see much faster than it currently can.


I think the search was "At what FPS does the human eye see", but the answer is basically "too complex to answer since the human eye doesn't work like that."

Yea, it is pretty amazing how our body work.

There are also some record of drag racers saying "Everything slow down" when they are doing their race. The interpretation was that their brain "ceased to ignore information" and took in every "data" our eye received. If you want a sharingan... that's it right there (though it is more to do with the brain than the eye).

[Ezodagrom]

Too true. My eyes are just lame though. I watched The Dark Knight in standard definition then in High Definition and in High definition right after another on an HDTV and I couldn't tell any difference. They looked exactly the same to me. :/

I also can't see 3D very well. Most 3D movies and games look either the same or slightly different. I played Ocarina of Time 3D, all the way up to the end of young link, and i couldn't really notice the 3D effect the whole time :/ In avatar it just made the foreground pop up way too much and i couldn't focus on the movie.
Comparing an SDTV with an HDTV is not the same as comparing 30fps with 60fps.

[Zyrusticae]

I feel compelled to point out that there is a big difference between a game running at 24 FPS and a movie running at 24 FPS for two reasons:

1. Motion blur (not CAMERA motion blur, which tends to induce motion sickness, but actual proper object motion blur), currently only implemented in the Crysis games, Battlefield 3, Lost Planet, and Tekken 6/TTT2 to my knowledge. Also, the Source Engine is capable of it, but doesn't show it in the options for some reason:[spoiler-box]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKCxTuRWGI[/spoiler-box]

It continues to befuddle me that developers ignore this very obvious and very massive visual upgrade. It's not just a matter of masking a low framerate - it's a very big boon to verisimilitude. Our eyes do not show objects in motion as being discrete and clear as they are in games. Objects that are moving quickly relative to our eyes are always going to be blurred, and if they aren't, that tends to be jarring - hence why, say, RemiusTA has trouble with movies running at 60 FPS. Because of the higher FPS, the camera picks up less motion blur, which can actually be detrimental to the viewing experience. It should also be noted that it is a serious boon to screenshot-takers - without proper motion blur, it's impossible to tell what was in motion during the time the screenshot was taken.

2. Input lag. By far the biggest difference between the two, input lag can make or break a gaming experience. The difference between 24 FPS, or 41.6 milliseconds per frame, and 60 FPS, or roughly 16.6 milliseconds per frame, is pretty much night-and-day. This difference is why a lot of pro e-sports players have all their settings turned down to the absolute minimum, increasing the frame rate as much as is humanly possible so that they do not suffer from the travails of input lag. This difference, tiny as it is, is often the difference between life and death in fast-paced shooters and even strategy games like Starcraft 2.

http://guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/the-more-you-know.jpg

[RemiusTA]

Tekken 6's motion blur is so god damn sexy, it seriously makes all the animations just look so butter smooth. Especially for the characters I really like using (Lili and Fang just have such awesome looking fighting styles), it makes every move feel so fluid.


More games should use them but i dont think everyone has to.

[Malachite]

Zyru is completely right. Watching a movie at 24 FPS is completely normal.

Trying to play a game however... it'l just be a laggy, choppy mess.

[amtalx]

I've never liked motion blur. I'd much rather have a crisp image.

[RemiusTA]

It really depends.

[amtalx]

I'm not saying other people can't enjoy it. I just find post-effects that try to reproduce an artifact of low frame rates in video to be irritating.

[MegaZoneXE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRBTo4zaAt0

[Zyrusticae]

I'm not saying other people can't enjoy it. I just find post-effects that try to reproduce an artifact of low frame rates in video to be irritating.
What?

It's not an artifact of video. It's how our eyes work!

Our eyes do NOT see in discrete frames. Seriously, trying waving your hand in front of your face and see how clear it is. Trying following your hand with your eyes and see how clear everything else is. Our eyes interpolate, it's only natural. When that interpolation is missing, we can very clearly see it, and that can be jarring and immersion-breaking.

I guess if you're used to the completely unnatural clarity of 3D video games, that's your thing... but to say it is anything other than unnatural is complete bullhockey.

[amtalx]

I don't like it for the same reason I don't want my mouse pointer to have motion blur. I tend to separate viewing content on a monitor with events that occur in the real world. Maybe it's just my eyes, but I don't really perceive much motion blur unless an object is unusually close to my face or moving at a ridiculous speed if it's further away. Games tend to produce a blur effect far sooner than I would naturally perceive it, which was the basis of my low frame rate comment.

[SolRiver]

I have found motion blur tend to blur things that I could have seen. (not sure if it is caused by my other training) For example: Tekken 6. It is not that hard to follow a round house kick. If it was on a 540 kick, then okay.

I feel the current understanding of where to put motion blur is still not quite at the right level yet. Nor is the way it blur things accurate enough (the shape of the blur). Or perhaps, it is more like the developer simply slap it onto the game instead of carefully simulating it. Either way, I end up disliking motion blur, it often disturb my eye/confuse my brain looking at it (just from watching it normally on HD screen).

I remember seeing tekken 6 for the first time at somewhere you can buy HD TV, and I had to walk away holding my eye because it was tearing up. I wonder if my eye teared up because it thought something was stuck in there due to blurry vision.

Anyway, as blur motion as it is, it is definitely not for everyone.

[Zyrusticae]

No doubt some games go overboard with it, but that is hardly a condemnation of the effect itself.

For that matter, if anything, it's just good grounds for having the effect (and most post-processing effects, for that matter) tweakable by the user, since everybody's eyes are different.

I will also note that even if you don't consciously percieve it, it's still there. It always is. It's one of those things where you will notice it when it's missing more often than you will notice when it's there (unless it's overdone).

[Dragwind]

I'm pretty positive they'll stick with what they've always done, and will offer a frameskip option. 60 fps PSO2 does sound tasty though.

[RemiusTA]

I have found motion blur tend to blur things that I could have seen. (not sure if it is caused by my other training) For example: Tekken 6. It is not that hard to follow a round house kick. If it was on a 540 kick, then okay.

I feel the current understanding of where to put motion blur is still not quite at the right level yet. Nor is the way it blur things accurate enough (the shape of the blur). Or perhaps, it is more like the developer simply slap it onto the game instead of carefully simulating it. Either way, I end up disliking motion blur, it often disturb my eye/confuse my brain looking at it (just from watching it normally on HD screen).

I remember seeing tekken 6 for the first time at somewhere you can buy HD TV, and I had to walk away holding my eye because it was tearing up. I wonder if my eye teared up because it thought something was stuck in there due to blurry vision.

Anyway, as blur motion as it is, it is definitely not for everyone.

Really? I honestly wouldn't have noticed Tekken 6 even had motion blur unless I saw it in the options. Tekken 6's motion blur makes the game look absolutely amazing to me.


Its effects are best seen on characters that move alot, like Lili, Feng, Eddy or Xiaoyu. It just makes everything look far more fluid, you can feel the movements and impacts so much better IMO. And the best part about it, since it's properly done it's far more subtle than other games that use a lesser version of it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUUQubYN-Dw



It almost has a tweening effect. I honestly couldn't notice how good of an effect it was until i turned it off. Youtube doesn't help though, gotta play it on a TV.



I think most games would indeed benefit from the type of motion blur that T6 uses. Of course, it doesn't make Tekken 6 look good, it only completes the look. Tekken 6 is one of the few games i can actually enjoy watching others play. The impacts and animations are great, motion blur just makes it look even better.



And PSO2 looks wonderful in motion, im pretty positive it runs at 60. But for huge mobs and stuff (Rockbear, Dragon), Full-time variable motion blur would make the game look absolutely amazing. IT's already animated pretty well, so it would be like icing on the cake.

[Ezodagrom]

I'm pretty positive they'll stick with what they've always done, and will offer a frameskip option. 60 fps PSO2 does sound tasty though.
In the 1st alpha there was no such option, also in the title screen the framerate was not limited like in PSO and PSU (looks like the framerate can be as high as what the PC can handle).

[Roger Triton]

does 30 or 60 fps even matter? i heard that after 24 FPS the human eye can't even detect the difference anymore
On a fast moving game like PSO2, it could be said that 60Fps would be best. A lower frame rate would make the game seem like it was moving in slow motion. Magic effects would probably be the most obvious.

[Kent]

On a fast moving game like PSO2, it could be said that 60Fps would be best. A lower frame rate would make the game seem like it was moving in slow motion.
That's not necessarily true. Nowadays, a lot of processing actually happens between frames on an update cycle - that is, the game logic updates happen at a set rate and the graphics updates happen as fast as the hardware can churn them out.

Plenty of fast-paced action games run at around 30fps without seeming like they're running in slow-motion - they run at a normal speed, just things don't look quite as silky-smooth as they would at 60+fps.

There are some games that directly tie game logic updates into the graphics updates, but this is really an outdated method of doing things, particularly in PC game development. It's unlikely that a game based specifically around PC architecture would continue on with such a practice.

[Cayenne]

Just letting you all know the human eye can't detect anything higher than 80fps (if you have very good eye sight) but the average eye can detect anywhere around 70fps or so.

[r00tabaga]

Just letting you all know the human eye can't detect anything higher than 80fps (if you have very good eye sight) but the average eye can detect anywhere around 70fps or so.

Copy & pasted:
Our eyes can perceive well over 200 frames per second. Our eyes are also highly movable, able to focus in as close as an inch, or as far as infinity, and have the ability to change focus faster than the most complex and expensive high speed auto focus cameras. Our Human eyes receive data constantly and is able to decode it nearly instantaneously. With our field of view being 170 degrees, and our fine focus being nearly 30 degrees, our eyes are still more advanced than even the most advanced visual technology in existance today.

[Cayenne]

Ok, here's what I'm saying: if you had two games playing side by side, one at 80fps and one at 200fps, you couldn't tell the difference.

Yes your eyes can see 200+fps but you wouldn't know how fast they were going because they look the same.

I remember playing Quake 3 years ago after buying a badass video card, had it running at 350fps and it looked just over 60fps to me.

[r00tabaga]

I've heard that Quake plays best @ 100fps and anything over that is not really noticeable. I just googled 30 vs 60 vs 72, etc...I was surprised actually. With my eyes, I can only tell the difference between girl & boy.

[Cayenne]

I knew this back around '99 when my sister's boyfriend had a badass rig playing counter strike and i saw the frames hit over 80 and I was like "that's it? It looks no different".

[Fenn777]

I don't know much about computers, how would this decision affect playability for weaker systems? I'm not sure I'll be able to run it anyway, would having 60 fps make it even less likely?

[NoiseHERO]

Most games you can choose your FPS...

Or at least find a way to.

But some people just want their game to look nice.

[Ezodagrom]

There's more to high framerates than what the eye can see, the higher the framerate, the more responsive the controls are (except with vsync enabled, which apparently causes a small imput lag, even though I've never noticed that).

[SolRiver]

People should start mentioning what display they were using when comparing FPS.

You can't see what isn't displayed. Most average CRT can't even display pass 60Hz (60ish FPS), let alone a LCD.

[Zyrusticae]

^- That. Seriously, don't make such incredibly baseless claims as "the human eye can't see past 60 FPS!" when you don't even know that the display is actually showing more than 60 FPS. The grand majority of displays do not go past that - the only ones that do, AFAIK, are 3D displays that go up to 120Hz because they have to render alternate frames for both eyes for the 3D effect. There are probably special displays that go beyond even that, but they are just that - displays used, more likely, for medical or scientific endeavors, and not for anything even remotely resembling normal consumer usage.

Also, as for this:


I don't know much about computers, how would this decision affect playability for weaker systems? I'm not sure I'll be able to run it anyway, would having 60 fps make it even less likely?
Man, you really don't know the first thing about how these things work, huh?

Well, for the record, 99.9% of all PC games have variable frame skip based on an internal engine clock that runs on the CPU. This means that, depending on how fast your computer is, the frame rate will vary from anywhere between less than 1 per second (i.e. slideshow) and something above 60 FPS (which is the upper limit of most displays' refresh rates). The world works in "normal in-game time" regardless of your framerate; what it does affect is how smooth the experience is, how fast the inputs are, and so on.

PSU was a completely alien example in this regard - it is the only PC game I know of (at least, past the DOS era, which is ages ago) where the frame skip was fixed, which resulted in such wonderful anomalies as the entire world slowing down when the frame rate did. PSO2 is NOT going to work like that.

As long as you can manage, say, 30 FPS on the lowest settings, you're perfectly okay. It won't be pretty, it won't be the smoothest experience, and you'll be at a disadvantage in competitive scenarios, but it will be playable.

[amtalx]

^- That. Seriously, don't make such incredibly baseless claims as "the human eye can't see past 60 FPS!" when you don't even know that the display is actually showing more than 60 FPS. The grand majority of displays do not go past that - the only ones that do, AFAIK, are 3D displays that go up to 120Hz because they have to render alternate frames for both eyes for the 3D effect. There are probably special displays that go beyond even that, but they are just that - displays used, more likely, for medical or scientific endeavors, and not for anything even remotely resembling normal consumer usage.

My mother is a research scientist, and sometimes she would give me discarded CRT monitors from her lab. They were nearly two feet deep and around 100 lbs. each, but were capable of ludicrous resolutions and refresh rates. I remember there was a PC port of the Pitfall game for Genesis that had the option to disable the frame limiter. I tried it and the FPS counter jumped to almost 500. I think the monitor was only capable of ~200, but it nearly made me sick.

[Cayenne]

Zyrusticae, the guy just admitted he doesn't know much about computers and you're shocked he doesn't know a thing about frames?

Instead of giving him a complex response that's confusing him more, maybe explain what FPS is.

[RemiusTA]

PSU was a completely alien example in this regard - it is the only PC game I know of (at least, past the DOS era, which is ages ago) where the frame skip was fixed, which resulted in such wonderful anomalies as the entire world slowing down when the frame rate did. PSO2 is NOT going to work like that.


The game must have been programmed to follow a clock based on the framerate, or something similar, i dont know. It was just stupid, even for console sake.


There's more to high framerates than what the eye can see, the higher the framerate, the more responsive the controls are (except with vsync enabled, which apparently causes a small imput lag, even though I've never noticed that).



This is more a case of how the game is programmed. If the controls start to fall with the framerate, that's another issue entirely. I know Sonic Generations has this issue, i can't understand why though.

Alot of engines are built to cap at 30 on consoles to preserve horsepower for more important things. Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Sonic Unleashed (360 version) are programmed like this. In alot of cases, the games CAN achieve 60, but only at certian moments. So the constant dips would cause the game to look far worse than if it were just capped at 30. (The PS3 version of Sonic Unleashed had this issue for me. It could hit 60 at times and look absolutely gorgeous, but in some areas its trying just made the game look worse.) But since PCs can be variable in their power, this limitation is rarely adhered to.





Framerate isn't really a question in PC gaming because it depends entirely on your hardware, where on consoles it's all a matter of how well the game was tailored to the system, where the hardware is standard.

[Zyrusticae]

Zyrusticae, the guy just admitted he doesn't know much about computers and you're shocked he doesn't know a thing about frames?

Instead of giving him a complex response that's confusing him more, maybe explain what FPS is.
I was more surprised that someone had absolutely no idea that games could even be run with something other than maximum FPS.

And, um, I did kind of explain what FPS is, in terms of what the user actually feels.

I will freely admit I spend a lot of time hanging around places where this sort of knowledge is commonplace, so I may have difficulties explaining basic concepts to people who aren't in-the-know. My apologies if my attempts are incomprehensible.

The game must have been programmed to follow a clock based on the framerate, or something similar, i dont know. It was just stupid, even for console sake.
Yeah, that sounds about right. The engine was programmed in a seriously bizarre way, with everything linked to the frame rate in a way that I haven't seen in any other game since.

And if PSO2's team has learned anything from that experience, I hope it is at least how to properly code a game engine.

[Cayenne]

I was more surprised that someone had absolutely no idea that games could even be run with something other than maximum FPS.

Do you know what the average person knows about TVs or monitors? They know when they plug in a nintendo (my parents called every game system we had nintendo) to the TV or a computer to the monitor, moving pictures apear.

Just because people use the internet doesn't mean they know how to
<div class="html">
<nav>
<ul>
<li><a href="code/code.html" title="code" alt="code link">code</a></li>
<li active="highlight">a</li>
<li><span>website</span></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</div>

[Ezodagrom]

Yeah, that sounds about right. The engine was programmed in a seriously bizarre way, with everything linked to the frame rate in a way that I haven't seen in any other game since.

And if PSO2's team has learned anything from that experience, I hope it is at least how to properly code a game engine.
They did that to more than PSU, if I'm not mistaken the framerate in PSO BB and Sonic Heroes (PC version) was locked like in PSU.

About PSO2, at the very least the framerate is not locked in the alpha client title screen, the framerate works like in usual PC games.

[Fenn777]

Zyrusticae, the guy just admitted he doesn't know much about computers and you're shocked he doesn't know a thing about frames?

Instead of giving him a complex response that's confusing him more, maybe explain what FPS is.

No, I'm all set, he explained it well enough. I actually prefer a detailed response becuase I like to know why, not just yes or no. Thank you!

I'll admit I'm not a PC gamer AT ALL, hence I own a cheap economy laptop and don't really know much about how PCs work. I know how to USE one pretty well for someone who hasn't don't a lot of research or learning about it, but haven't a clue how it works. I don't care if I'm staring at squares moving around a white background, I am dying to play this game and will crank the FPS down to whatever setting I need to.