Your video, How Hard Can You Hit a Golf Ball? (at 100,000 FPS), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Lightning at 103,000 fps, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've built so many maps for this game for my friends and I to enjoy. God I miss the 90's FPS gaming.

There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

I never played against Thresh but Quake 1/2 TF/CTF/Death Match and Half-Life 1 TF/CTF/Death Match are among the best gaming years I've had during my teens.

I really miss those early glory days of FPS.

Your video, Bird Taking Off at 20,000 fps - Smarter Every Day, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

does it look nice? sure... does it look next gen? nope. Character lighting seem absent but I think it may have been a gameplay choice to better see players. Building deformation is not new but rare enough that it is always an awesome thing to see. Snow particles are nice, but particles are nothing new. Snow is still just as deformable now as it was the past 5 years. Come back to me when snow banks can be moved. Still to see them while maintaining 60 fps in a shootout is nice.

I kind of had to scoff at how much destruction was afforded a plane cratering in the ground. Plane support seems pointless on a map this small but I imagine the map could become bigger (bigger player modes) later on. In the end though.. looks fun, although more of the same. I am no fan of loot box style power ups hence I havnt played a battlefield in many years, we will see how this one turns out.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by BSR.

The animation looks great, but is it just me or do some parts look like they dip into the low fps and seem kind of choppy.

I really liked the 3 main games in this series, though the first version I played of the earliest ones were apparently nerfed on the PS2.

Good video too, really synthesized what seemed to be happening with the company teeter-tottering between improving the core mechanics of the squad tactics with appealing to more the quicker twitch FPS play that seems to be the industry default.

The squad tactics are what made these games fun to play, but the inaccuracy of the weapons in iron sites was infuriating. Authentic? Maybe, but I think it was a reasonable criticism and I can see how the over-correction lead to watering down of "what made the game great".

Ill just say again, it's not the FIRST hour. This is a section of gameplay that was chosen as it has a few of the mechanics they wanted to show off (quantum travel, player NPC interaction, FPS combat etc). It's not the start of your Single player experience.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Mordhaus.

Does anyone remember the early days of bots in FPS games? I'm not impressed by the bot winning because of those early FPS bots.

Walk round a corner with an old fashioned Quake 1 bot? BAM you're dead as soon as a pixel of your head appears (headshots existed in QTF); you probably won't even see the bot because of your refresh rate.

The learning is incredibly impressive, but as someone said earlier the impressive thing would be filling in as a player in a 5v5, or maybe a team of them. I'd always expect a bot to win a duel of reactions unless they are programmed to miss. The bot makes its decisions and performs them instantly, so if you make better decisions than it, they still must be better enough that you can beat that huge speed advantage.

considering what it takes to render actually photoreal CG at 4K, doing it in real time at 60 fps is at least 10+ years away. and that's extremely generous. this stuff looks awesome... for realtime renders in a video game. they're way the fuck off from photoreal.