I don't know why the game "should at least be run at the recommended requirements" when ZGL stated it was important to consider what PCs can do with the minimum requirements instead. Going by the official minimum requirements he stated that 60 FPS should be achievable and a fair expectation for everyone to have.

And that comment about running in the Olympics-- no they don't all have to run at the speed you're capable of, but if someone was wearing rocket boots and you were wearing flip flops you'd probably think that was a disadvantage right? There's a reason that Nike's Vaporfly shoes were almost banned recently, and why they have rules about sole thickness and other specifications of the footwear you can have. An advantage is an advantage; the goal should be to try to keep things as equalized as possible.

Good thing we didn't have to wait until runs were milliseconds apart to realize 60 FPS is different.... Kappa

I've already seen comments that people are aware there ARE differences with lower FPS (such as input delay) which over the course of a run will affect the time (thinking about menu-ing here) and cause lower FPS runners to eventually be unable to compete when runs are optimized.

I'm surprised anyone can dismiss that kind of time-loss as "no big deal" and not be a good enough reason for an FPS cap. It will matter in the long run and force people to have higher FPS to be competitive.... especially when you consider how just "a few seconds" are currently the difference in several RE2R WR runs.

I think Moose (RE2R Hunk WR Holder) actually tested 30 FPS and under in RE2R and it significantly affected inputs (stairskating, menuing, shooting delay, etc) as well as enemy patterns. There's also a thread somewhere in the RE2R section that explains how going too low in FPS can affect enemies loading into the game as well as their ability to attack you-- it fundamentally changes the way the game works by using a 3rd party tool to limit FPS.

So as to "why not 30 fps?" that would be my answer. My question of "Why is 120 FPS the specific choice we've settled on?" is still there. I'm open to hearing the reasoning as to why this was the decided number.

It's definitely important to have capped FPS to make sure that competitive runs are fair.

However... if the real goal of this community is to make runs more accessible for people to submit, then that main category capped limit should be 60 FPS instead of 120 FPS.

• 60 FPS is already supported in-game with no need for Rivatuner
• More people will be able to compete at stable 60 FPS than 120 FPS (120 fps players can easily limit to 60)
• 120 FPS is an arbitrary number with no real competitive explanation as to why it was chosen, besides "it feels good and people should have good enough computers for that by now."

That's just my two cents. Fortunately I'm able to run the game at 120 FPS so I don't have an issue either way.