Frame rate or quality?

[kelvinhall05]

Just a simple question of preference. I prefer frame rates.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, kelvinhall05 said:

Just a simple question of preference. I prefer frame rates.

There's obviously a balance that should be maintained between the two.

 

For example, if performance is insufficient, and something has to sacrifice, I'll sacrifice visual quality to maintain acceptable frame rates.

 

However, once I have acceptable frame rates, I push the quality as high as it'll go. There's no point, for example, in dropping from 1080p to 720p (or ultra to medium detail), if I'm going from 90 fps minimum to 160 fps minimum.

 

At that point, I've already got an excellent base FPS, and there's no benefit (to me) to pushing it higher, when I'm sacrificing quality to do so.

[Charger]

I tend to play first person shooters so fps is generally more important to me the higher the better. However in a single player game as long as I get 60fps or at least a smooth game I'm fine with that.

[Waqas409]

For Online Gaming, i would go with More FPS and for single player games, of course Quality.

[JuztBe]

Depends on a game. But I try to maintain at least 45-55fps(that's how I play Witcher 3). Rest goes to GRAPHICS! 

[PocketNerd]

I personally try to get no lower than 30 Frames on average, but stop at 60 and just up the quality. I ignore moments of extreme activity, which happens most prominently in MMOs

[Misanthrope]

Framerate is quality I don't think you can separate them like that.

 

Nitpicking aside however, Framerate, texture quality and polygon count are equally important for me most of the time. Lighting and shadows are nice but not nearly as noticeable as framedrops or pixelation due to crap textures, models and resolution.

[Centurius]

As long as the minimum stays above 30 and the average above 45 I'll put it in quality.

[Beskamir]

Depends on the game but usually I'm fine with 30fps and best quality instead of 60fps with lower quality.

[JR1911]

I usually start by setting everything to maximum and then lowering the settings bit by bit until I achieve the desired frame rate.

[kelvinhall05]

cool! just interested in what people prefer. i would ALWAYS go for fps, unless i can get both. most of my games are on low or medium

[Tech_Dreamer]

Acceptable frame rates with  focus on quality for me

[Zodiark1593]

Depends on said visual improvements and what the frame rate will get me. Different games have varying levels of improvement (subjective)  from 30 to 60 fps.

 

My basic rule is the frame rate and visuals must not detract from the game or in any way stick out. Aliasing does stick out to me like nails on a chalkboard, so I tend to sacrifice other visuals to achieve some AA as needed. Final Fantasy Xii on Pcsx2 (ran at a higher res + MSAA) is a good example. 

 

Fluctuations in framerate is another nuisance. I absolutely despise the new Pokémon games (or at least the game engine) for this sin. 

[MrDynamicMan]

500+ in shooters (CS. Not exactly hard to run :p) 

I usually aim for around 45fps in other games like though. 

[Syntaxvgm]

frame rate IS quality. 

[kelvinhall05]

1 hour ago, Syntaxvgm said:

frame rate IS quality. 

while i know what you mean, not necesairly. fps is smoothness (in a nutshell) and quality is how good it looks (again, in a nutshell)

[Syntaxvgm]

10 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

while i know what you mean, not necesairly. fps is smoothness (in a nutshell) and quality is how good it looks (again, in a nutshell)

Well there's a problem with playing low FPS games depending on the type of game. It's worse if it's inconsistent stuttering for me, literally unplayable even if it's a good framerate between stuttering. If I'm in a rush, even with my 1080 I'm much more likely to go medium so I can play it. I will play a game at 30, but a very consistent 30. I would make an fps game 640x480 and lowest possible quality before going below 60. 

I agree with the semantic distinction, but I think framerate is directly comparable to resolution, how many pixel vs how many frames. 

[killcomic]

Depending on the game, but generally I prefer quality.

As long as I can get over 35 FPS for a third person and over 45 in first person, I'll crank up the quality settings as high as I can.

 

[lukesterboy]

On 17/08/2016 at 2:08 PM, kelvinhall05 said:

Just a simple question of preference. I prefer frame rates.

Frame rate 1000%. But tbh it's what ever you used first and get hooked on. So personally I tried more Hz first. Ive seen oled on TV's and would love 144hz and oled on a monitor. Simply for the blacks, that would be a dream come true.

[Litargirio]

I try to get the graphics quality as high as possible without dropping below 60 fps. If it drops below 60 fps, lower the quality a bit.

[lukesterboy]

10 hours ago, Litargirio said:

I try to get the graphics quality as high as possible without dropping below 60 fps. If it drops below 60 fps, lower the quality a bit.

Yeh same here, i agree and that's what i try to do.

[kelvinhall05]

honestly, i would want 30+fps before i crank up the settings, though if i can get 25ish fps at high settings, then ill take it.

[Mobby Dick]

On 17.8.2016 at 3:08 PM, kelvinhall05 said:

Just a simple question of preference. I prefer frame rates.

A mix of both is best I think. I would not go under 50fps, but still quality should be decent.

[SuperCookie78]

the highest quality settings i can push and not go under 60 fps thats my goal