Graphics VS Framerate?

[brownninja97]

as long as im above 50 fps im happy.

 

Unless its something like skyrim then i dont mind going down to 40fps for better textures.

[MF Patrick]

It depends on the game. Singleplayer, 60 FPS and mediocre graphics. Multiplayer lowest graphics and the highest framerate possible.

[Humbug]

It's because casual users are more easily impressed by how good something looks visually than the framerate which is why companies (particularly big ones) will focus on that. For people that actually give a shit about the gaming experience - obviously we'd take the 60fps.

Not just casual users. In the pre-release promotions everybody looks out for stunning graphics.... Nobody is going to watch the trailer and publicity gameplay footage and write press articles about the good framerate.

 

It's our dilemma; after we actually buy and play the game framerate matters more to us, but in pre-release we focus on graphics. The framerate only matters once we have the mouse/controller in our hands and crave that responsive feel.

[Humbug]

I dislike the use of the term mediocre graphics in the poll. Graphics do not have to be mediocre to run at 60fps. It's called optimization. And no game that looks stunning at 30fps is going to look mediocre at 60fps.

[KE2012]

Yep. A lot of people don't get that. E.g. Crysis 3 when maxed out gives low framerates But it still feels smooth because there is no microstutter. Which makes it a Good gaming experience. Obviously something has been done right in the rendering process. Many games are like that thankfully. But then You also get stuff like watchdogs where framerates Sometimes look Ok on paper But the actual gameplay experience is bad due to microstutter.

 

Don't mention watchdogs ha. Like you say I get reasonable frame rates but the micro-stuttering drives me insane. I would take 'low' frame rates anyday over microstutter

[jayctech]

Not just casual users. In the pre-release promotions everybody looks out for stunning graphics.... Nobody is going to watch the trailer and publicity gameplay footage and write press articles about the good framerate.

 

It's our dilemma; after we actually buy and play the game framerate matters more to us, but in pre-release we focus on graphics. The framerate only matters once we have the mouse/controller in our hands and crave that responsive feel.

That's cause in pre-release trailers we don't pay attention to the fps. If the games were running at 20 fps in the trailers we'd complain too. Not to mention most people view trailers on Youtube where until recently videos were locked at 30fps so we're already conditioned to watching it (cause that's all we're doing - watching it, not experiencing it) at a low fps.

 

 

When it was announced Watchdogs was what? 792p at 30fps, LTT jumped on it.

[HullZ]

So yeah I always played League of Legends on lowest graphic settings because 60 fps was the very most important thing for me.

I dont need 60 fps always. But I lower the graphics settings often just to get better gameplay. Which is so important.

[Imaniac]

I think it mostly boils down to the type of the game. If I play any online competitive game (fps, mmo) I need that stable 60fps no matter what. But when playing an offline story based game I'm ok with 30fps. I mean it is NOT "more cinematic" or stuff but it's enough for that kind of game. The real concern is consistency of the framerate. I think that's almost even more important that the fps itself. If I could play that fucking ac unity at STABLE 30fps I'd be more than happy. It'd be smooth enough for me, but it has to be stable, with no stutters and lag bullshit. On the other hand I can have a game running 60fps 90% of the time but when I get those huge drops down to 30fps it just ruins it.  Thats my opinion.

[HowToGaming]

I dislike the use of the term mediocre graphics in the poll. Graphics do not have to be mediocre to run at 60fps. It's called optimization. And no game that looks stunning at 30fps is going to look mediocre at 60fps.

Perhaps the terminology could be improved yes, but the main question is what you find more important. Yes, it may be important for game devs to optimize their games, but what I am trying to get across is that most devs are now choosing 30fps as their target framrate, with better visuals, rather than 60fps and, still good, but worse visuals.

 

EDIT: I tweaked the poll to make it more clear.

[Humbug]

Perhaps the terminology could be improved yes, but the main question is what you find more important. Yes, it may be important for game devs to optimize their games, but what I am trying to get across is that most devs are now choosing 30fps as their target framrate, with better visuals, rather than 60fps and, still good, but worse visuals.

 

EDIT: I tweaked the poll to make it more clear.

Cool.

 

Anyway I think framerate is more important until you get above 60.

Because graphics have reached a point of diminishing returns. i.e- you would need twice as much GPU horsepower just to make a scene look 10% better to the human eye. For the well made games it's hard to tell the difference between ultra vs high settings, you have to look closely, and yet it puts much more strain on your GPU.

[HowToGaming]

Cool.

 

Anyway I think framerate is more important until you get above 60.

Because graphics have reached a point of diminishing returns. i.e- you would need twice as much GPU horsepower just to make a scene look 10% better to the human eye. For the well made games it's hard to tell the difference between ultra vs high settings, you have to look closely, and yet it puts much more strain on your GPU.

Yes, I've been noticing that too. I tend to run games at high settings, rather than very high or ultra, even with a rig like mine, because there isn't all that much of a difference and it is worth it for the extra 10fps or so (depending on the game of course)

[The Knome]

I think it also depends on the game type,,, if you are in a shoot me up then you need clean fast graphics or you die, quickly, and often. And in honesty don't really need (or are able) to take in the world around around you.

If its an open world thing? exploring, or more simulation based/building FPS matters little as long as it doesn't look jaggedly. 

[HowToGaming]

I would recommend this video and I choose the second option.

 

Interesting video, thanks for sharing

[Vedge]

It's a wrong place to put this poll This is a #PCmasterrace forum after all!

 

I'll go for a balanced approach. It has to be smooth and look good. For smoothness I'm prepared to kick down the settings as much as needed, but I dont want to have 140fps in every game. 50-60 is usually pretty fine.

 

30fps on a mouse is too low, but on a gamepad it could be fine if the game is not too fast paced, like say Demon's Souls or Dark Souls. It will still be better with 60fps, always

[LukeTim]

Personally I couldn't care less about graphical effects (provided that those that are used are used well to service a strong artistic direction), but I cannot stand playing games at anything other than the native resolution of my screen. Possibly with the exception of 1080p on a 4K screen provided the right kind of scaling is used which simply increases pixel size and makes it look like 1080p.

It's more of a balance between FPS and resolution, to me. I like having 40fps minimum at 1080p (assuming that's the resolution of my monitor), with 60fps being ideal. I feel like 30fps is a little too low for me. I have recently begun to appreciate the benefits of high framerate stuff... especially now that Youtube supports 60fps video.

[A.D.A.M]

Its kinda a balance for me. 40 fps on medium is good to me.

[FunkyFeatures]

My take on this: I'd rather sacrifice some of the graphics to get more framerates, BUT as long as it is over 60fps and stable there, I will push the graphics until it goes below. 60FPS is smooth enough since I don't own a 120hz monitor.

BUT(again) if it's a driving game, where it looks smooth anyways at 30fps, I will bump up the graphics. Currently have a laptop 670m, with a gtx 970 on the way for a desktop. I have been playing quite a bit of Euro Truck Simulator 2, it's smooth down to 24fps, but for some reason doesn't use all the performance i give it.

 

Should it be balanced? Yes of course. Running 700fps with 800x600 versus running 60 fps at 1920x1080, i would go for the second, as long as i have headroom for 60fps, i will increase the graphics quality.

[TheKDub]

60FPS and whatever settings are needed to keep around there, though I would prefer both 60+FPS and high/max settings.