So right-wing garbage site Breitbart has apparently decided to pander to the angry gamer demo even more explicitly with the launch of Breitbart Tech, “a brand new vertical dedicated to coverage of tech, gaming, and web culture.” Naturally, they’ve tapped the unlovely and ungracious Milo Yiannopoulos, Gamergate panderer par excellence, for editor.
Yesterday Milo went to the KotakuInAction subreddit, one of Gamergate’s main hubs, to announce the good news.
One Puckish Redditor gave Milo a little pop quiz to test his knowledge of technology and gaming. Milo, well, failed it.
![HBlight 314 points 19 hours ago Can you, offhand, name your specs for your pc? What model phone do you use? What do you think makes it good? Same question for a tablet if you have one? Complete the following phrase: "It's not a big truck, " Who is Linus Torvalds? Why is 60fps better for gaming even if 24 is perfectly fine for movies? If you can't answer these questions, do you plan to hire those who can? Plenty of "tech" writers out there who just use technology a lot. I'm just wondering if you are willing to get more into the culture of tech beyond this culture war in tech. :P permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply [–]yiannopoulos_mActual Yiannopoulos, and a pretty big deal ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)[S] 181 points 18 hours ago I can see I still have much to learn.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/milofakegamer.png?resize=526%2C364&ssl=1)
One might presume that such an obvious fake gamer would quickly be hounded from the business by an angry Gamergate mob.
But, nah, someone explained all the answers to Milo and the regulars went on celebrating Milo’s new gig.
Because it’s all about ethics in knowing absolutely nothing about video games.
H/T — r/ShitRedditSays
Wasn’t the whole reason Milo went to selling his pen to Breitbart because he fucked up the Kernel so bad he had to sell it off? Didn’t he burn literally all his bridges in writing about tech by taking shots at rivals and making himself unhireable? And now Breitbart just so happens to open a tech branch once he’s created an audience for himself and only himself?
How…how does nobody see that he’s putting on a show for money. This is so painfully clear he doesn’t know fucking anything about games or tech and is just going to write about the shit he already was writing about, but under a “Tech” line in the url. This is so stupid.
Well, it’s not that big a leap going from being a gay man who opposes LGBTQ rights to being a gaming site editor who knows nothing about gaming.
See, David, it’s a very complicated if-else routine.
if(non_player.ideology != feminism) set_acceptance_level(true);
else rage_the_fuck_out();
“Ethics” ≠ “pandering”, GamerGoobs!
Meanwhile, even though the only one of those I can’t answer is the FPS one (because with my crapsack vision, I literally cannot tell the difference), you just know that’d be enough to label me FAEK!!! forever. Because feeemale.
And remember: he’s not just a spokesman, he’s a member.
http://idledillettante.com/2015/10/14/milo-yiannopoulos-gamergate-propagandist/
Whatever happened to ethics in games journalism? Or is blatant pandering palatable to Gamergate, so long as they’re the ones getting pandered to?
What was that questioner thinking? Geek quizzes are only for the Fake Gamer Girls who want to do nefarious things like go to conventions or have shirts with circuit diagrams on them. Quizzing a dude who simply wants to be the paid editor of a tech site is just rude.
I think it’s more worrying that Milo apparently couldn’t find the answers to any of these questions on Google before responding. Seriously, that would take, what, 30 seconds?
Actually, could someone – in their own words – explain the 60fps thing? I know that 60fps can feel smoother and more fluid, but is that the extent of it?
Also, I feel like the famous Senator Ted Stevens ‘series of tubes’ thing (“The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.”) is actually a lot less stupid than people make it out to be – I mean, what he’s saying there is basically true, right? The internet isn’t just one massive channel that all information goes through at once; it’s made up of many different conduits, and some of those conduits have less capacity than others. He was using this argument for fundamentally stupid purposes, though (arguing against net neutrality; also against net neutrality: a certain Mr. Yiannopoulos).
GG will still claim they aren’t a reactionary rat-king
Also WHY DOES HE ALWAYS LOOK LIKE A CORPSE? (I’d usually avoid making fun of other peoples appearances but when like 50% of your shtick is “fart fart blue hair fart fart” its fair gam)
“Why is 60 FPS better for gaming even if 24 FPS is fine for movies”
Because of some weird obsession where higher framerates equals a greater superiority over those you do not like. Hence why it’s the “PC Master Race”, which is actually what people call it (“We’re not Nazis, guys!”), that shits on “peasants” who play on consoles, which typically cannot his higher framerates.
Because video games aren’t just a form of entertainment to pass the time to these people, it’s about some kind of smug satisfaction derived from “knowing” you’re “better” than other people because of the amount of money you spent on your computer and the games you play. It’s all just a giant dick measuring contest which is why something like Gamergate was so easy to form out of an already shitty “gaming culture”, because harassing and belittling people for the smallest reasons (such as their sex) is exactly what gaming is all about to them.
60fps does smack of bullshit game specs, doesn’t it? As far as I know, your eyes are literally not capable of perceiving the difference, but it sure sounds advanced.
Regarding 60 fps, I assume it’s because each frame of a film represents a period of time between the previous frame and the next. Thus, objects moving quickly across the screen will be smeared out along their path of motion. However this so called ‘motion blur’ is difficult and expensive to reproduce in real-time computer graphics, so it instead of a smeared object you’d see a very crisp one. Your brain has a much harder time dealing with that. However if there’s more frames per second, the smearing happens inside the photoreceptor cells in your eye and your brain will be able to track the motion of different objects better.
The 60 fps thing is mostly meaningless the way those guys mean it.
HOWEVER in some programs the backend calculations are done at the equivalent of the framerate so higher framerate is a benefit, this leads to hilarious problems when the MUST BE 60 FRAMES guys uncap the framerate on a game designed to run at 30
Also they have such a poor understanding of it they will complain about a game that uses traditional animation running at 24 FPS as is standard for motion pictures (or really 12 fps if its drawn on 2s)
David: Since when are motion blurs hard to animate? CG movies have been animating motion blurs since Jurassic Park, and modern games are full of hard-to-render stuff like hair textures and reflections. And is animating a motion blur really harder than doubling the frame rate, which alters a fundamental standard and probably requires all kinds of onerous changes?
Doubling the frame rate on 3D movies is about the only time I can think of where an increased frame rate is actually helpful.
Katz, movies aren’t real-time. If you can spend one hour of computation time on a processor farm to calculate a single frame, sure you can compute all the motion blur you like. But doing it realtime in DirectC or OpenGL is a very different story.
“And is animating a motion blur really harder than doubling the frame rate, which alters a fundamental standard and probably requires all kinds of onerous changes?”
Yes, it requires a whole new set of algorithms and won’t run well on older hardware. Whereas framerate will scale pretty linearly if you just stash more processor power on a video-card, so it’s both the most scalable and the easiest way to better quality graphics.
I can kind of explain the 24 fps thing from a film perspective (I’m not really a gamer). Basically it’s the way it’s always been done, at least since the start of the sound era. Then 30 fps was used for stuff like daytime soap operas and sitcoms shot on videotape. So what we think of as “movies” is kind of tied to the 24 fps look (i.e. it’s actually supposed to look less fluid). Stuff shot at higher frames rates looks cheaper, because we view movies as the best scripted content visually (for example, we tend to call great looking TV shows “cinematic”).
Peter Jackson’s first Hobbit movie was poorly received partly for this reason. This also might be more an old guard, new guard thing. People raised on high frame rate videogames might have been more okay with it, but most of the people writing about it were older film critics.
So, basically we just expect movies to have a 24 fps look.
Thanks dude, I didn’t realize.
I’ve spent my entire life thinking that movies were acted out live for my amusement. Repeatedly.
Some of my friends swear by 60 FPS as a definite improvement of the gaming experience, but I think it’s partly that they want to justify the masses of money they spend on their gaming rigs.
When you’ve gotten to the point that you’re maxing out the graphics settings on every game you own, the framerate is the only thing you’ve got to measure by, so you look at that to combat the creeping feeling that you’ve wasted 800 euros on an overhyped graphics card. Myself, I’ve been playing on mid-range PCs for so long, I consider 24 FPS to be great performance.
My understanding is that it has to do with motion blur as well, although it might be better tied to a signal to noise thing. The shutter is open for a certain amount of time, things move around, and because our eyes naturally work by taking continuously moving things and seeing them for a certain length of time we are very good at extracting various sorts of detail out of those messy signals.
A computer game creates perfectly clear instantaneous images, so to get enough signal for things to go smoothly requires higher framerates.
It’s like in a weird way we are so adapted to extracting signal from noise that we NEED the noise to parse the signal properly.
As for the 60 or 30 frame rate thing, I think it has to do with the fact that monitors refresh at those rates? So it is better to build something to produce 60 and be in sync with the monitor than to produce it at 45 and be in between the two refresh rates.
I do think the frame rate also makes a difference in games involving reaction time, because there are more frames for the signal to hit? It seems like there would be some milliseconds of lag with fewer frame rates that would matter to competitive first person shooter games or something, but probably don’t really matter otherwise?
If you want a good explanation on why 60fps is better for gaming, just watch this. I couldn’t give you a better more complete explanation even if I tried. It’s a bit more than just looking smoother. https://youtu.be/LCbTRSv9sQ8
As I understand it, in addition to minimizing the perceived flicker and unsmoothness that highlights the artificial nature of game graphics at lower frame rates, 60 fps is desirable because that speed, the speed of most monitors’ refresh rates, is less likely to cause a disparity between a quick input made by the player and the result of that action on the display.