Do you care about framerate and resolution in video games?

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)

gizmo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

Mainly true, I mentioned this in one of the older PC vs Console threads here and here. The GPU issue is slightly different as (to take the Xenos GPU in 360 as an example) while the card was based around its desktop equivalent, it supported functionality not seen until the next-gen DX10 cards were released as well as also featuring the added eDRAM which also altered its performance profile.

C14N

thegame983 wrote: »

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

Definitely true. I remember my Gamecube used to look fantastic to me, even with the rubbish composite cable. Now even the Wii looks pretty lousy with component cables. PC gaming spoils you for sure.

nesf

C14N wrote: »

Definitely true. I remember my Gamecube used to look fantastic to me, even with the rubbish composite cable. Now even the Wii looks pretty lousy with component cables. PC gaming spoils you for sure.

A while back I started messing around with a few of the hex based, turn based wargames of my youth that were very influential for me. They were 2d so that stood up fine but my rose tinted glasses couldn't hide the granieness of the textures and the very low resolution that these games were designed for back in the early 90s.

They were still kick ass games though.