Resolution vs fps.

[ADZ_123_!"£]

Okay console gamers which would you prefer to have.

A higher detailed larger resolution game, but at a reduced frame rate.

Or

Higher frame rate and a less detailed game at a higher frame rate?

 

now of cause if you had wanted both you should have chosen the glorious pc master race.

[minibois]

inb4 "both!"

 

To be honest, at this point I dont care a ton. I just want a fun game.

[EarthboundHero]

Up the resolution till the FPS only hits 50FPS at low.

[-TesseracT-]

FPS must be 200 average with a 144hz monitor.

[cloclo8003]

I got both, PC ftw

But if I had the choice, I'd go for more detailed and lower framerate as long as it's not under 30fps

[ADZ_123_!"£]

I think that the majority of console gamers are probably playing on HD TV's while sitting on there sofa. Therefore for the average user a higher resolution would be better to them than a higher frame rate. Unless they where like MLG standard in which case they should be properly doing PC gaming if you no what I mean.      

[ErickS89]

I think that the majority of console gamers are probably playing on HD TV's while sitting on there sofa. Therefore for the average user a higher resolution would be better to them than a higher frame rate. Unless they where like MLG standard in which case they should be properly doing PC gaming if you no what I mean.      

They could be using something like a Cronus adapter for Mouse/Keyboard on Consoles and using a proper monitor(or a high quality Smart TV). For Halo this is what I use, and I suck at halo...

[skywake]

I think that the majority of console gamers are probably playing on HD TV's while sitting on there sofa. Therefore for the average user a higher resolution would be better to them than a higher frame rate. Unless they where like MLG standard in which case they should be properly doing PC gaming if you no what I mean.      

I think the reverse is true. When playing games on a monitor resolution matters more because your face is almost pressed up against the pixels. I can very easily see the difference between my 1080p 22" monitor and my old 720p 11" netbook. The latter is much nicer. But when I swap between 1080p and 720p on my 46" TV at a few meters away there's not a huge difference.

 

And even on PC games where resolution does matter more, framerate is way more important than resolution.

[Wojethebest]

i would want the fps to be around 50/60 and have highet resolution with that fps

[itachipirate]

Depends on the game. For an FPS(first person shooter) you want FPS. But for single player games resolution matters more to me. I play Skyrim on my computer with tons of mods and getting around ~45fps sometimes doesn't bother me because it looks so beautiful

[Whiskers]

It depends entirely on the game. Halo games are excellent, and perfectly enjoyable at 30fps. Battlefield 3 at 30fps however is a pretty poor experience.

 

For more 'cinematic' style games where the focus is more on slow pacing, story, characters, scenery and overall graphical fidelity, I think a higher resolution and lower framerate is the best compromise. Likewise for more fast paced, competitive games a lower resolution and higher framerate is usually the better compromise. Unless you're Battlefield, then you just compromise both.

[elfensky]

It depends on the type of game for me.

A cinematic, beautiful crafted RPG (Witcher 3 for example) I'll prefer 1080p 30FPS  -> 30 is still quite playable, and I'd prefer graphics over fps in this type of game.

In something like a shooter, where reaction times matter a lot more, I'd prefer 720p/900p 60FPS -> smoothness over jaggies, and to be honest, you're paying too much attention to gameplay to really care that much about resolution. Upscaling is a thing too.

Besides, I'm so used to the crappy 1366x768 resolution and <30fps of my old crappy laptop that anything above that is realistically an improvement.

[inkrededibles]

If it's single player, I'm not bothered by around 40 FPS. If there is an online element, I realistically need at least 50 so that drops under heavy load don't make the game unplayable. Really, though, with resolution, if it's not at least 2560x1440, I'm not happy. If I can't reach that minimum resolution, I'm not even gonna play and go searching for my 3DS or something instead. No point playing low-res games on a PC. 

 

EDIT: I am in the wrong thread. Whoops

 

Console, though, FPS over resolution. They just can't handle high resolutions anyway :T

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

Depends on the game. FPS's I'd prefer a higher and more stable frame rate. RPG's medium and stable frame rate for better graphics.

[AlwaysFSX]

In most cases I'm okay with a game looking like it was developed for PS2 so long as it has a steady 60 fps frame rate.

[XplosiveNoctua99]

I have PC but i'd rather have fps because i don't care about how good a game looks (it's always better if it is pretty) but i like a smoother experience 

Can't stand low fps

[DimasRMDO]

Why not both?

[mapegl]

Up the resolution till the FPS only hits 50FPS at low.

Basically that's how I dial in my settings as well.

I have a 60Hz display and it keeps most of the tearing etc at bay and stays smooth and I get very nice visuals as well. I can't max everything out with my rig, but that's fine as i would not go below 1080, actually often dial in higher res for better image quality compared to 1080 with AA.

[moderategamer]

Okay console gamers which would you prefer to have.

A higher detailed larger resolution game, but at a reduced frame rate.

Or

Higher frame rate and a less detailed game at a higher frame rate?

 

now of cause if you had wanted both you should have chosen the glorious pc master race.

 

Depends on the game if its a FPS then high res low effects for high fps same for racing games but if its slower paced game take the FPS drop for nicer render as long as you don't dip below 30 ideally 50 fps.

[michaelk12]

Resolution. I can't stand non-native res.

[zappian]

It depends entirely on the game. Halo games are excellent, and perfectly enjoyable at 30fps. Battlefield 3 at 30fps however is a pretty poor experience.

 

For more 'cinematic' style games where the focus is more on slow pacing, story, characters, scenery and overall graphical fidelity, I think a higher resolution and lower framerate is the best compromise. Likewise for more fast paced, competitive games a lower resolution and higher framerate is usually the better compromise. Unless you're Battlefield, then you just compromise both.

 

"cinematic"

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-order-1886-runs-at-30fps-because-24fps-doesn-t-feel-good/1100-6419888/

That word makes my gut wrench Q_Q