Originally Posted by TheSandman
Have and no not really, I can play FPS just fine at 40FPS most people can actully. The human eye can't track much over about 45-50 frames per second thats a medical fact, and if you doubt that then why in the early days was 30FPS considered 100% playable by everyone, Quake1 and Quake2 getting 30FPS was hard to do on the hardware of the day, and people played that to death and it was alot more fast paced. The 60FPS rule is a flawed statement and its simply your notion not fact, when your eyes cant actully see it that fast. I can promise most aka 99% of the people on planet earth wouldn't notice a diffrence between about 45FPS and 60FPS for the simple fact the normal human eye can't
Where, may I ask, does this factual medical evidence come from? No offence, but anyone who actually knows anything on the subject knows it's a well known, frequently disproved urban myth.
No one is saying YOU cant enjoy your game at your settings. That is ENTIRELY subjective. Ignorance is bliss and you're clearly full of it.
What we ARE saying is that factually, what you are saying is untrue. It is up to the end user to decide if something is good enough for them - you have no place telling them what is and is not satisfactory to someone else. You can only tell the facts how they are and let them judge for themselves.
Personally, as part of the vast majority of people who are physically capable of seeing a difference between 30, 60, even 90 and 120 fps, and the minority of people who actually know how to understand and put to words what they are seeing, I can tell you I would be pissed to no end if someone convinced me to put my money into buying something that would give me the best experience and I was only reaching 50 fps. I don't really care what is playable to someone else on someone else's monitor. I only care what is satisfactory to ME, on MY monitor, which means 1920x1200 at 60fps minimum. If I cant run ultra at those specs, i'm not going to be happy with ultra. If I put money into my computer specifically to play at ultra, then I'm not happy with that investment.
Quite frankly, if you don't want to be told you're wrong, don't make strong assertions without supplying proven factual support. You're telling me to get off my high horse, and yet you're doing the same thing I am - arguing a perspective. In this particular case, my perspective is backed by science and common sense, yours is backed by urban myth and subjective testimony.