Jump to content

Gaming To Console Gamers: Graphics or Framerate?


Graphics vs Framerate  

33 users have voted

  1. 1. If you're a console gamer, do you prefer better graphics or higher framerate?

    • 60FPS. Developers should focus more on smooth gameplay; games look good enough already.
    • 45FPS. Developers should balance smooth gameplay and graphics; both could use some improvement.
    • 30FPS. Developers should put more focus on game graphics; I don't mind the lower framerate for better visuals.


Recommended Posts

I have seen that plenty of newly released games for PS4 and XB1 run at 30FPS. This made me wonder about how console gamers feel about graphics vs framerate. So what do you think? Should 30FPS continue to be an accepted framerate, should developers shift focus to having games run at 60FPS with the possibility of graphics not improving or even getting worse? Or should there be a balance and have games run at 45FPS? What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges


Register now to remove this ad.
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, yes, I'm sure that means something to people really into tech, but those words don't really mean anything to me.   And from what I've seen, it's just another area of needless nitpicking.   T

Oh yeah, if you prefer 30FPS over 60FPS because of the "cinematic experience" it supposedly provides, I implore you to read this.  

You want to know some more details of The Order: 1886? The game runs in 1920x800 because the PS4 cannot handle those graphics in a full 1080p frame without the frame rate dropping to... I'd guess abo

Posted Images

Framerate? What even is that? I hear about it, but I never notice it. Apparently Mario Kart 8 runs with 59FPS, but it is a gorgeous game. I don't care about pointless specs like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a balance between the two.  I'd rather the rate be slower to have much better graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can live with subpar graphics as long as the framerate is at least STABLE! I can play anything with less-than-ideal graphics, but if the framerate is equally less-than-ideal, then it's gets aggravating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For multiplayer, I would prefer as close to 60 fps as possible, though stability is much more important overall. For a slower paced single player game, I'll take 30 fps for some nicer visuals. Something like Skyrim I wouldn't mind the framerate hit.

 

That being said, I'd play it on PC if possible and get the best of both worlds. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

I'm honestly fine with 30FPS as long as it doesn't drop below that.

Anything below that is just unacceptable for me.

So, graphics :P

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

being a happy wars fanatic I don't notice frame rate drop at all. The game looks amazing at the same time so I have nothing to worry about.

 

My answer: I choose the graphics, frame rate never bothered me 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Framerate, i'd much rather have smooth gameplay and be able to experience the game comfortably than have the game look nice, but have my character jutting across the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Framerate? What even is that? I hear about it, but I never notice it. Apparently Mario Kart 8 runs with 59FPS, but it is a gorgeous game. I don't care about pointless specs like that.

Frame rate is how many still frames are shown on the screen per second. It can vary dramatically, BUT, the standard is 30 fps because that's the limit where the human eye can't tell that it's not actual motion. Any framerate above this will, to the human eye, look essentially the same. However, having a higher framerate often results in better performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frame rate is how many still frames are shown on the screen per second. It can vary dramatically, BUT, the standard is 30 fps because that's the limit where the human eye can't tell that it's not actual motion. Any framerate above this will, to the human eye, look essentially the same. However, having a higher framerate often results in better performance.

 

Your eye can't, but your brain can.

 

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Frame rate is how many still frames are shown on the screen per second. It can vary dramatically, BUT, the standard is 30 fps because that's the limit where the human eye can't tell that it's not actual motion. Any framerate above this will, to the human eye, look essentially the same. However, having a higher framerate often results in better performance.

False statement. Your eyes can easily detect the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, and people who regularly play on 120FPS can tell the difference between that and 60FPS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

False statement. Your eyes can easily detect the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, and people who regularly play on 120FPS can tell the difference between that and 60FPS.

 

Not false.

Your eyes cannot tell the difference. However, you yourself can. As in, at 30 fps, it looks like actual smooth motion, not like individual pictures. There is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, as well as 60 and 120 fps, but, it's FAR smaller than that of 15 and 30 fps to the human eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Not false.

Your eyes cannot tell the difference. However, you yourself can. As in, at 30 fps, it looks like actual smooth motion, not like individual pictures. There is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, as well as 60 and 120 fps, but, it's FAR smaller than that of 15 and 30 fps to the human eye.

http://30vs60.com/

 

Go to there to see for yourself rather than have some guy a brilliant man on YouTube (which is still locked to 30FPS for some reason) tell you. There's a huge difference and it's so easy to tell. Your eyes can tell the difference between 30 and 60FPS, saying they can't is bullshit and I for one am so sad that such misinformation is being spread around like wildfire. In fact, why not read a more scientific approach to the issue? And I am sorry if I come off as brash, but I will not stand to see people claiming that your eyes can't see past 30 or some odd FPS when science has proven time and time again that the eye doesn't have a frame rate limit.

 

 

On topic, 60 should always, always be the target frame rate. Never settle for less, even with lies about how our eyes work to justify a lower frame rate. I'd rather take a smoother, more responsive gameplay experience over a laggy, choppy one any day, regardless of platform.

Edited by Daring
  • Brohoof 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

I generally don't care so much about graphics, or rather I care more about the art style and how it's implemented.  And the "games look good enough already" dealie in the voting options is ABSOLUTELY how I feel.  At this point, graphical upgrades don't matter to me or are making a push towards overly, disturbingly photorealistic lol.  Do not want.  A higher framereate, however, I do appreciate.  It isn't totally necessary in order for me to enjoy a game (things that gameplay, play control, and fun factor matter most in that department), but I appreciate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

When playing online at least, I definitely prefer a better framerate to good graphics. Who cares if everything around me looks gorgeous if I can't enjoy it to its full capacity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel very strongly about this subject.  Performance (i.e. framerate) is far more important than graphics.  Your game can look better than real life itself, but it means nothing if it doesn't run smoothly.  I'd rather play an oldey that runs smoothly and is fast and fluid than play some brand spankin new release that's shiny and pretty and runs like garbage.  The corporate giants of the game development world seem to think that graphics is everything.  All they do is push the limits of hardware, thinking that the prettier their games look, the more people will buy them, when all the while they basically don't give a rat's ass about performance and reliability.  Developers build your hopes up with incredible games, only to disappoint you with unplayable products. 

 

Back in the days of cartridges, you could just buy a game from a good developer, sight unseen, and you knew it word work perfectly, every time, on any console.  An SNES was an SNES.  They're all the same, any way you slice it.  Now, when you see a new game you want, you have to do your friggin homework before you buy.  How does it run?  Does it run better on Xbox or PS?  Will it run on my Xbox/PS?  Does it run better/worse on fat PS3 or slim PS3?  Is there some bug with Xbox Arcade or Elite?  Gotta update system software before you can install the game.  Have the devs put out any patches yet?  Do the patches work, or do they cause more problems than they solve?  I won't even buy a new console game for at least a year to give them time to update it, then I have to research how the updates perform.  Sometimes I think it's all BULLSH*T!  And the worst part is the attitude of some of these corporations with regard to fixing their broken games.  The stance is basically, "We may or may not fix it, but you'll never know.  We'll get to it if and when we get to it."  The days of olde were superior in many ways.  The capabilities of games was limited, but at least all of this crap wasn't an issue.

 

So, to reiterate, performance is everything.  Make sure your game works, above all else.  If you start dropping frames, than take it back to the drawing board.  A game with spectacular graphics and poor framerate would be like a fancy sportscar with no engine.  In other words, utterly useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Gameplay! I still play old ps1 stuff and they entertain me for more hours than all of the new crap :P what good is 60fps HD nonsense if i can finsih a game in 5hrs or less. :P

 

(playing FF8 as we speak lol)

Edited by Malinter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I am more of a PC gamer I still play some console and the rule still applies for console, playability over graphics. And by playability I mean a minimum of 30fps, Now that doesn't mean make it look ugly, presentation matters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to graphics, they don't need to be stellar. As long as I can see what's going on and can discern different things from each other like terrain and obstacles, then they can be as bad as they want to. If a game looks good then that's great, but it's not very important to me.

 

Framerate is very important to me because, once again, I want to be able to see what's going on and if there is going to be slow down or the fps is not as high, I may have trouble playing and reacting. For example, I was playing Wipeout 2048 for my Vita many months ago. It run at a constant 30 fps, and wwhen I raced on the A+ Class (the fastest speed in the game), I had trouble playing not just because it was fast, but also because it was tougher to react properly since the framerate wasn't as smooth. Simply put, it was hard for me to turn as effectively. Did that make things unplayable? I say no, but it did make things unnecessarily difficult for me.

 

In summation: framerate>>>>>>>>>>graphics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...