Do you care about framerate and resolution in video games?

Josey Wales

I'm curious if the majority of people really care about framerate in video games? From reading various threads it seems like a lot of people are expecting the standard this generation to be 1080p and 60fps. Going by the launch line up, on both consoles this simply won't be the case. Maybe in a year it will after developers get more comfortable with the new hardware.

It was confirmed that Killzone: Shadow Fall will run at 30fps in single player and 60fps in multiplayer. The racing game from UbiSoft, The Crew will be at 30fps as will NFS:Rivals. I don't think it has been confirmed what DriveClub will be, other than they said they are 'targeting' 60fps.

Battlefield 4 is running at 60fps but not at 1080p. CoD: Ghosts will run at 60fps as usual but that game does not look nearly as impressive as Killzone.

For me personally I'm not too concerned about framerate. I would take more detail over the higher fps. The one exception for me might be racing games. Playing WipeOut HD was silky smooth at 60fps. I'd like that as standard for racing. For other types of games I just don't notice. I heard all the complaints about Far Cry 3 and Saints Row 3 on console but I never really noticed fluctuating framerates.

What about everyone else? Does it matter to you?

Also lets try to keep the 'just play on PC' comments to a minimum please.

returnNull

Josey Wales wrote: »

Also lets try to keep the 'just play on PC' comments to a minimum please.

you cant have a discussion about frame rate and resolution with out mentioning playing on pc!

Deano7788

I don't really don't mind that much whether it's 30 or 60fps, except in certain genres where the higher frame rate can be important, as long as it's stable. It's the frame rate jumping up and down that really annoys me.

Josey Wales

returnNull wrote: »

you cant have a discussion about frame rate and resolution with out mentioning playing on pc!

That's true. I just meant don't boil it down to simply play it on a PC.

returnNull

Josey Wales wrote: »

That's true. I just meant don't boil it down to simply play it on a PC.

ah yeah Josey I know what you meant.

Wasnt a massive console gamer but did notice quiet a bit of judder when playing demon/dark souls.Would prefer that they would limit the FPS to make it run better.

Captain Chaos

I'd take a constant, smooth, stable frame rate any day over his res and detail. But then you also have screen tearing from using V sync to lock in frame rates. The frame rate moving up and down and causing a game to stutter ruins the experience imo, while having the odd flat texture here and there is the distance doesn't so much.

sarumite

I also don't really care whether something is 30 or 60fps. However when the framerate jumps around it can feel quite jarring. I think 60fps is a nice box-quote, similar to the megapixels arms race in photography. I can see how it might improve online games where reactions times are important, but I don't care myself. Same for 1080p. I have played plenty of 720p games that have looked great. Good art design is far more important

danthefan

On PC obviously resolution is very important, I've had rare examples of games where none of the supported resolutions matched my screen, making the game all but unplayable.

720p vs 1080p, tbh makes little difference to me. As others have said, art style is more important. Okami looks amazingly good for example and it's not 60Hz 1080p 16xAA HDR ambient occlusion blah blah blah*.

30hz vs 60hz, again I don't think it makes a huge difference to me unless the game noticeably judders or something. If the game looks smooth then I'm happy enough.



*it might be some of that stuff, I don't actually have any idea, you get my point!.

The only real time FPS matters to me is playing a multiplayer game on a PC. Low FPS can get you killed in a first person shooter.

Professey Chin

FPS matters but I don't mind that much as long as it's stable. Nothing worse then it jumping up and down the place.
Art style matters more then resolution. Id rather an interesting looking game then how many pixels are on that building like all the other buildings.

Looking at the threads about new consoles is seriously getting painful though. Bitching about demanding perfect 1080p and locked 60fps on brand new consoles 1st games when the reality is if the game is good theyre barely going to notice. Its like a giant pointless technical micky swing

degrassinoel

I care about FOV almost as much in any first or third person game. There's always a bunch of resolution settings for pc games, so that usually doesnt concern me, fps only annoys me when it drops to a number where i can visually see distortions or graphic lag, but then that generally depends on the game too.

Shogun 2 for instance, my card just cant handle a good framerate with thousands of units on screen at the same time, so that is an annoyance but more so to do with having a 4 year old mid-range video card, that said the game is still playable and enjoyable at low fps. It just has so much more potential with higher fps. Some of the immersion of the game (for me) is taken away when you get chop/stutters or slowdown midway through an epic siege.

Duggy747

Resolution doesn't bother me nowhere near as choppy, stuttering FPS does. I do prefer 60fps but I don't care if a game is actually 30fps, just as long as it doesn't run into trouble maintaining it.

On older hardware I always knew in a game when an event was coming because the frames would get momentarily get choppy, always ruined the element of surprise. :pac:

Retr0gamer

I'd much rather 60 FPS over 30 FPS and even at that most games can't hold 30 FPS.

Resolution isn't a big deal but 30 FPS really negatively impacts how a game plays. I'm really sick of games at 30 FPS on console because the controls are just so sluggish. It's even worse when you have a game with deffered rendering and triple buffering or v-sync enabled since it introduces so much lag into the controls.

When you play something at 60 FPS like Bayonetta or else a game on the PC it plays so much better than on console.

dreamers75

FPS matters for me most in a fast moving game, detail is secondary.

Altho i do like pretty games so for instance Arma 3 is best looking game ever, it would be unplayable at less than 30 fps.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes generally once you go up you do not want to go back as it looks and feels much better. Currently at 27" 1440p 120hz.

Overheal

people who are like "no way man youre an idiot if you play at 30 if you want to be *SERIOUS* about competition 60+ is the only acceptable way"

**** off dude I just killed you 2:1

returnNull

Overheal wrote: »

**** off dude I just killed you 2:1

and dont forget if you're on PC tell him you were using a pad too:pac:

ShadowHearth

Well, pc gaming did spoiled me in all these years and 720p on 42inch TV looks like ****. It really does. As long as developers can do 1080p with locked 30fps on next gen then I am happy bunny.
The only games that I just have to have 60fps - Racing games. Sorry, but racing games are about sense of speed and lower then 60fps make it really bad. I am really excited about GT6 managing to pull off 60fps on 1080p, fair play to devs to push out so much power out of ps3.

CastorTroy

Doesn't bother me as long as it's not noticeable and affects the game. I remember the get frame rates in games like pong and Pac man as well as on systems like the spectrum 128k. :pac:

cherryghost

Here's an interesting fact: When the COD games go over 125fps, you can jump higher.

Yeah, 60fps is always the desired rate for me.

Magill

Framerates depend on the game. Competitive shooters like CS or Quake, i wouldn't play on anything less than 100fps. Bit of fun casual shooting like BF3, 60 fps is fine. Most other games are usually fine with a solid 30 i guess but 60 is much better.

One of the biggest turn offs for me when playing some games on console (AC, UC and even darksouls) is the horrible frame rates and slowdown that comes with it. Resolution isn't as big of an issue, but obviously the difference is huge between say 720 and 1080p or higher.

YouSavedMyLife

How a game looks isn't nearly as important as how many frames per second the game is running at. On PC its fine cause i have a powerful PC to play games at 60+ FPS with mostly maxed out GFX settings.

Dragons Dogma comes to mind of a console game that i was really enjoying for the first 2-3 hours or so but the abysmal FPS made me trade it in the next day.

Downlinz

The type of games I play aren't especially sensitive to fps so can't say I'd notice. 1080p or not wouldn't bother me. People fixated with those things tend to channel that into something or other down through the generations, I've long since accepted that there are people more interested in the technological aspects of gaming than the actual enjoyment from it.

TinCool

512x384 all the way baby

Dcully

Downlinz wrote: »

The type of games I play aren't especially sensitive to fps so can't say I'd notice. 1080p or not wouldn't bother me. People fixated with those things tend to channel that into something or other down through the generations, I've long since accepted that there are people more interested in the technological aspects of gaming than the actual enjoyment from it.

Trust me 60+ fps at 1080+ enhances the enjoyment of any game immensely.
Im sorry but i simply cannot play anything less than 1080 and 60 fps,1080 being the mimimum.

Downlinz

Dcully wrote: »

Trust me 60+ fps at 1080+ enhances the enjoyment of any game immensely.
Im sorry but i simply cannot play anything less than 1080 and 60 fps,1080 being the mimimum.

I trust that this is what you believe, I certainly don't agree with it. You have a warped view of gaming if you consider highend graphics and smoothness baseline requirements for enjoyment.

Josey Wales

Dcully wrote: »

Trust me 60+ fps at 1080+ enhances the enjoyment of any game immensely.
Im sorry but i simply cannot play anything less than 1080 and 60 fps,1080 being the mimimum.

Unfortunately that must mean you miss out on some amazing games. I'm thinking of great games on the 3DS or Vita. Or terrific Sony exclusive games like Uncharted 2.

Dcully

You couldnt be more wrong guys,i play more indie games than i do AAA titles simply because to me they offer more gameplay and are a lot more interesting.
My point is simple ,take an already great game in terms of gameplay add in smooth framerate and high resolution and the result is an even beter experience.
How can you fail to see that?

Im talking PC and consoles here, handheld devices are totally different ofcourse.

Josey Wales

Dcully wrote: »

You couldnt be more wrong guys,i play more indie games than i do AAA titles simply because to me they offer more gameplay and are a lot more interesting.
My point is simple ,take an already great game in terms of gameplay add in smooth framerate and high resolution and the result is an even beter experience.
How can you fail to see that?

Im talking PC and consoles here, handheld devices are totally different ofcourse.

Well you just said you couldn't bring yourself to play a game with anything less than 60fps/1080p. You didn't say if it was indie or otherwise.

Also, I can appreciate that 1080p makes a game look great but unless it is a racing game I don't notice the benefit of 60 over 30 fps. So for me personally, I'll take more detail in the visuals and settle for lower fps.

Skatedude

smoothness is everything for me, so i play at 60fps @ 5870x1080. I'll lower settings if i have to until its locked at 60

Lone Stone

I remember skyrim on my ps3 now that was unplayable fps >_< I felt much better after i acquired it for my pc with its dlc as compensation.

EoinHef

I think there are certain genres that benefit from higher fps, first person shooters being one. But other genres where its not nessacery eg realtime stratage (C&C, xcom) theres no need. So I would rather play battlefield at a lower resolution to get 60fps but I would expect xcom to be 1080p but with fps ar whatever really, once it was over 20 im sure it wouldnt be noticeable in that type of game.

For me the disappoinment with the next gen consoles is that the aim was not 1080p 60fps on release(the bar has been set low), so they are already behind at launch. When you consider how the ps3 xbox360 were so far ahead of any gaming platform at the time of release.

In saying that I wouldnt expect or need every game to be 1080p 60fps but I also would not like to buy a game that has to be compromised because of the hardware its running on. Battlefield 4 being a prime example, its release is very close to the next gen console releases yet it will probably be well behind the pc version of the game yet the consoles are brand new!!

So I guess my point is that I would like my new console to be capable of 1080p 60fps but that does not mean that I need every game to run at that res and speed. For me its just dissappointing that they will start already behind

nesf

EoinHef wrote: »

I think there are certain genres that benefit from higher fps, first person shooters being one. But other genres where its not nessacery eg realtime stratage (C&C, xcom) theres no need.

Turn based strategy: It doesn't matter at all really. It tends to be either "can run" or "can't run" situation. That said they can be quite hard on cards.

Real Time Strategy: You don't care about FPS once it's over 20-25 but you do care about FPS slowdowns a lot (there can be a lot of physics and explosions in RTS battles). Anywhere down around 10 fps on average and it'll become fairly hard to play.

MMOs: Normally 40 is enough (some like EvE are more like RTSs here). 60 is nice but not absolutely necessary. MMOs are rarely graphically demanding though.

None of the other genres I play care about FPS.

Josey Wales

I just completed ACIII: Liberation on the Vita and that is one game that I really did notice a low framerate. I wonder if the engine Ubisoft used on it is too much for the Vita or just poorly optimised. I would have enjoyed the game more if it ran quicker as it became a real chore running around New Orleans in slow motion.

TerrorFirmer

It depends on the game really. If I'm playing an FPS, the visuals are important to me - I try to aim for 40-60fps @ Ultra, 1080p. With an RTS, I'm far less concerned, either either visuals or framerate, once it's not dropping below 15-ish during pitched battles.

Retr0gamer

Downlinz wrote: »

I trust that this is what you believe, I certainly don't agree with it. You have a warped view of gaming if you consider highend graphics and smoothness baseline requirements for enjoyment.

Unfortunately for you what Josey Wales says is fact and not an opinion. A higher framerate will improve the gameplay of everything you will play.

Downlinz

Dcully wrote: »

You couldnt be more wrong guys,i play more indie games than i do AAA titles simply because to me they offer more gameplay and are a lot more interesting.
My point is simple ,take an already great game in terms of gameplay add in smooth framerate and high resolution and the result is an even beter experience.
How can you fail to see that?

Im talking PC and consoles here, handheld devices are totally different ofcourse.

There's nothing wrong with saying "1080p and 60fps improves my gaming experience", there's everything wrong with saying "I cannot enjoy a game of any genre without 1080p and 60fps".

Retr0gamer

Downlinz wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with saying "1080p and 60fps improves my gaming experience", there's everything wrong with saying "I cannot enjoy a game of any genre without 1080p and 60fps".

I know some people that can't enjoy a game with excessive screen tearing since it makes them feel ill.

Richard Dower

Yes!!.......if my GTX Titan Quad SLI setup isint pulling 400+ fps on Crysis 3....i'm out!

ussjtrunks

Having no screen tearing on my pc has spoiled me lol but as long as its 1080p and 30fps without tearing I'm grand hopefully ps4 games will at least have vsync enabled

Taylor365

I remember When Crysis first came out. I had tweaked and tweaked and managed to create a config file that made the game look amazing on a Nvidia 8800GTS.

The only problem came when i moved . Got a nice stable frame-rate of 30fps standing still - move and it dropped to 20, fight and it dropped down to 10.

Ah the good days...

GTR63

Richard Dower wrote: »

Yes!!.......if my GTX Titan Quad SLI setup isint pulling 400+ fps on Crysis 3....i'm out!

That still isn't enough to make Crysis a good game.

Headshot

Playing on 2560x1440 @ 120hz is just amazing tbh

I would find it every hard to go back to 1080p

CastorTroy

This is kind of the time I would care about the frame rate

Richard Dower

Headshot wrote: »

Playing on 2560x1440 @ 120hz is just amazing tbh

I would find it every hard to go back to 1080p

pish!....obsolete tech, 2560x1600 @ 144Hz FTW~!

Grimebox

Always, always reduce graphics/resolution for framerate

C14N

I usually favour the graphical fidelity as long as the frame rate doesn't become perceivable low because of it.

Sarky

Depends on the game. For a FPS response time and control is essential, so if I can get 40fps or more, I'm generally happy. Currently my machine can do Planetside 2 on full detail at the highest resolution my monitor can support and rarely dips below 40, so I might as well enjoy the extra shiny bits and pieces. I saw a friend play Bioshock Infinite on his XBox, and I was shocked at just how often the frame rate plummeted when things got busy, and amazed that this was deemed acceptable for the player to deal with.

Not so important with turn-based games, or even most RTS. I sometimes get some chugging while playing Shogun 2 or Sins of a Solar Empire, but lightning fast reflexes aren't such a big deal there, so I'm fine with a little chugging along.

Cuddlesworth

EoinHef wrote: »

When you consider how the ps3 xbox360 were so far ahead of any gaming platform at the time of release

Bit of rose tinted glasses going on here. At the time of release both consoles were comparable to the previous generation of PC graphics cards(x1950\7900gt). Which in itself was a first(being able to compare) and kicked off pretty much the same threads. Since wide-screen 1600*1280 was becoming the PC standard for gaming you had the same debate over 720p as a substandard.

I think its pretty obvious at this stage that consoles are never going to be graphical powerhouses in comparison to PCs. But that's fine because it allows them to be more affordable and provides steady income over years to chipmakers. And PC's by their nature of faster development cycles remove the r&d costs of consoles by a huge margin by testing and refining graphics.

Jesus I'm getting old.

thegame983

It's just hard to go back I think. I've been playing my 360/ PS3 on my 8 year old 720p HDTV. Just recently bought a half good PC and now gaming at 1080p. After that I don't think I'd consider one of the new consoles witout first getting a new TV. Also there isn't really any good launch games for the new consoles. If you have a half way decent PC i think you should probably hold on to at least this time next year. Anything that is coming out will more or less be out on PC (Battlefield 4/ Titanfall/ Watchdogs) so there's no rush for me

jaykhunter

I love Zelda/Mario (my favourite franchises) but I was hugely bitter playing games on the Wii's max of 480p. I'd have to bear it but jagged edges on the Wii turn me off (Mario Galaxy, Skyward Sword) . For any relatively current game I'm playing now on a home console, it generally has to be at least 720p. I don't mind the fps as long as it's consistent (and doesn't have slow-downs).

Like I wouldn't replay Wind-Waker unless it was upscaled/rendered in HD. I can't go back. I gave away my telly with the huge arse (which would hide the shortcomings) and I'm past having to deal with jags.

(This doesn't apply to handheld or retro-gaming of games from the 80s and 90s)