Thanx for the answer and the info about the CPU requirements. I saw some posts about CPU problems, but I guess those were about the Linux version. Glad to hear it doesn't require high-end CPU for 100-120fps
Like I said - this physics framerate isn't that important.
About the image in motion - I know, unfortunately you're right. But only about what people think, not what they want.
If you'll let me take 5 minutes of your time, I'll explain the phenomena, and if not - well.. please read at least the last section of this post, thank you.
It's sad that display manufactures and game publishers are stuck in a vicious circle:
No TV/monitors good in motion - no difference perceived by gamers. No good TVs/monitors in gamers houses -> no 60fps games on the market. Not much 60fps games on the market -> less gamers knowing the difference.
It's that simple - you don't know you're not content with your (standard) LCD unless you know and see
It's a complicated topic, really. And really hard to explain because of immediate hitting the wall called "Shut up, I know what I'm seeing, I know what I like or not". At this point - most people are closing for any arguments. Here's why:
- motion perception is complicated. We have blur in real life, we have only a small circle in eye sight, where we can see clearly (the point we're looking at). Depending on how and where you look at - it makes difference. People are lazy and don't want to even think about it, more less educate about it (I'm talking about the majority driving the market). But there is a difference between fast moving object (blur present even in real life) and the same object tracked by our eyes. There is no motion blur there in real life, but there is on 99% of today's TVs/monitors.
- people don't know how to look making a comparison. For example - playing a racing game, going straight - the gamer looks at the centre of the screen, where the motion is much slower. The same for the Trine series - it is possible to play, i.e. fight with enemies, on a non-moving background. All the details will be there, and moving enemies won't look bad, since they're moving relatively slow, or making an ultra-fast movement like swinging a sword - which would look a little blury even in real life. But as soon as someone starts running through the level - details deteriorate. The same in that racing example - on blur-free display, the gamer can enjoy the track surroundings (on a long straight at least
) and he'll see every detail of the track even while cornering (slow corners - many details to appreciate, but a fast "panning" movement since car/camera horizontal movement is significant).
- many games have motion blur, making it really hard to see the benefits of blur-free displays. At below 60fps framerate, blur-free display doesn't even have a chance to show what it can do, and 90% of games these days are 30fps (you can clearly see that it changed drastically since people turned from blur-free displays to LCDs of today, that is the main reason of todays unfortunate "30fps era" even more than insufficient hardware performance or marketing advantage (30fps games look better on screenshots and trailers, since they might be more detailed than 60fps games)
- people don't know what they're missing - that's
really interesting topic. Even those who played on CRTs for 10-20 years, after a few month - they forget... but they don't realize that
- this is really hard to agree with, I know, but I personally experienced this phenomena a few times. And many of my friends disagreed with me and was forced to change their minds when I showed them the same game on two monitors side by side. I showed them a few games at my LCD (one of the fastest, TN based so motion clarity well beyond any TV can have, since in TVs there are no TN panels) and asked them "do you see any motion blur that annoys you or making the game look worse?" I got the same answer every time -"no". And then I switched on the second monitor (same viewable size). Not everyone saw the difference immediately, but after turning their eyes on the LCD - now everyone saw that "something is wrong"! That's really surprising, isn't it?
I was using two monitors for a few years. CRT for the games where the movement was important (FPS/fast side scrollers like Rayman). When I wasn't using the CRT for a few month - even I was forgetting. It seems
there is no problem playing on a standard LCD, but there is, and becomes obvious the minute you see the proper image.
In games like GTA or 3D platform games like Ratchet&Clank or Jak&Daxter - the difference isn't "just a minor thing". It is a game changer! And no - it is NOT possible to judge this difference just by thinking and analyzing the "fun level" you get while playing. I was aware of motion clarity influence on playing for many years, and had many "experiments" done before I played one of my favourite series sequel - R&C Tools of Destruction on PS3. I played it like I always did on PS2, I finished it and sadly though "well... apparently I got bored with this genre or the game". Two days later I hooked up my VGA box and CRT monitor to PS3 and out of curiosity started R&C:ToD. I played a little. I wasn't planning to play for more than 5 minutes. I played 2 hours. And I really didn't want to stop, which wasn't the case while playing on the LCD. I finished the game quickly, started it from the beginning and finished it once more in the next few days. How can it be, if the first time was "boring"?
That is simple - I like the worlds in such games (the same goes for GTA, Mafia, Just Cause etc.) - I turn the camera alot while I play. On the blur-free display, I can enjoy the looks of those fictional worlds. Player gets a chance to go and see the sights. Traveling just for fun makes searching for some hidden bonuses much more interesting.
In Trine 2 - only on blur-free display (and I remind you - I'm comparing to the best TN LCDs out there, which are in majority almost on par with plasmas) I can see the light dancing on the knight shield. Only on blur-free I can really enjoy the ice and watter effects. And detail - man, detail level while running (even more while swinging on a rope) is simply incomparable
It makes the immersion so much better
I could go on and on with examples, but I won't, cause I think anyone reading this "got the picture" by now. Well, maybe just one more ;] - Flatout:Ultimate Carnage - on normal LCD you can't see the water details close to the camera while going really fast. On blur-free display - you can and it's a difference bigger than many games show when changing some graphics levels from "ultra" to "medium/low". :]
As seen on the image above - your 120Hz monitor doesn't really make a big difference, since it's still refreshed in "sample and hold" technique. It needs to have a strobe backlight to make this huge impact on motion representation (of cours I'm not mentioning the influence the 120Hz has on steering (i.e. FPS games))
OLEDs are on the horizon. Situation might change (and might not). So I really hope I'll never see a Frozenbyte game on a PC that is FPS capped in any way below 100fps. It's not a big deal to include it in the game making at the start, but it is a huge problem when it is complete, so even if you would consider this step (capping at 30 or 60) because not many gamers know/care about this, please think about a possible remake in the future. I don't know how will OLED era turn out, but if there will be a breakthrough in motion - you could have much more work to do for example releasing some "HD" verion of your 2014 game in 2020. This has happened already with Double Fine and their games. They're struggling to remove 30fps cap in their PC games for months now
Sorry for wasting your time and thanx for reading this, if you did.
And a huge thanx
for not capping Trine1/2.