Thank you for the example. You said most games had a 200 ms latency. I wasn't trying to attack you, I just doubted that figure, admitting I wasn't sure. You found one example of a game with 160ms latency, listed among a bunch that are much lower.

RDR 2 isn’t a racing game or a fighter. You could argue it isn’t really an action game.

Also, why do you believe the latency of a display or a controller isn't sequential to the delay on Stadia?

Yeah, sorry for getting tilted, man. It's just annoying when you try to give out some helpful info, and then you get dogpiled by people who have no idea what they're talking about spewing nonsense. Particularly the dude who doesn't understand the difference between latency and framerate, man oh man..

You can see right in the half-assedly-found top YouTube result 11 frames at 16.6ms delay each, so that's 180+ ms of delay, before ANYTHING happens AT ALL on the screen. Much less something noticeable. It'd be very straightforward to shave 100ms off the buffer bloat in one of these games, so Red Dead Redemption 5 the Stadia Exclusive could have the exact same responsiveness controller-to-screen as Red Dead Redemption 2 on a fast internet connection.

I said AAA games, I meant the super big-budget action RPGs that dominate the industry. Obviously well-tuned shooters, racers, and fighters aren't going to play well with an extra 100ms of lag. That said, even super well-implemented games in those genres have a few frames between a button press and the screen unless you're talking VR or something from the CRT era.

Anyway, I have better things to do than try to explain to the Dunning-Kruger Boys how latency works, especially since I hate Stadia anyway and your ignorance will help speed it toward its inevitable doom.