Frame rate or visual fidelity?

[RichardTheKing]

High frame rates.

Visual quality can only go so high before it becomes needless, superfluous, especially since there's plenty of fantastic games that still look great even without extreme visual quality (Xenoblade 2, Ghost Trick, Fire Emblem Engage, Ratchet & Clank 2 and 3, etc.).
And too high quality can result in lag, as my not-exactly-top-end GPU and CPU can struggle, let alone consoles with fixed hardware, harming the game experience.

Visual fidelity is good, to a point, but ultimately it's frame rate that truly matters - a high frame rate can have decent or good visual fidelity, but high visual fidelity does not always have a decent frame rate, unfortunately.

 

[RAHelllord]

Depends on the game. A stable, playable frame rate is the most important thing but what exactly "playable" entails depends on the game itself. The faster paced a game is the more important a high and stable frame rate becomes, but for slower games 120fps+ makes no difference over 60fps so might as well crank the details up to max.

 

[tabzer]

The quality of movement should match the quality of picture. I'd say that FPS had been falling behind in that respect (consoles), and that 60FPS should be the target for more detailed games, with 120FPS being an option at decreased video. Some games make sense at 30FPS or even lower. I just don't like a beautiful smooth picture having jagged looking movement. It's jarring.

 

[Veho]

Depends on the game. FPS need fps. Other games don't. Some games don't need either.
And we're still so far away from photorealism it's completely pointless to try to achieve it with current tech, so pushing for that in lieu of a smooth animation is silly.

 

[TheCasketMan]

I prefer better graphics at 30fps. A stable 30 is better than a jerky 60.

 

[KingVamp]

Since more games are giving you choice, I prefer choosing frame rate over graphics. That is, as long as the graphics aren't sacrificed too much and with AI help, getting performance without too much visual sacrifice is getting easier.

 

[CoolMe]

Nothing below 30 fps for me, 40fps minimum, 60fps (or more) is preferred. But that also has to do with the games that i like to play, anything below 30 will impact my gaming experience greatly.

 

[hippy dave]

I've never gone above 60fps for gaming, and as long as I never do, then I don't know what I'm missing I don't play competitive twitch shooters or whatever anyway, so 60 is plenty.

I agree with those saying that an unstable frame rate is more of a problem than a lowered rate. I thought I'd be one of those people who was anal about 60 vs 30, but BOTW at its stock 30fps didn't bother me at all (overclocked to avoid drops tho obv)

 

[mightymuffy]

Hedge porn.... Ahh the memories! Shame my lads (probably) never experienced it, and while I had no issues forcing them to play through Secret of Mana with me when they were kids, there's just some things you can't really relive with them...

Anyway, what are we talking abou-ah yes..... another nod towards 'depends of the [type of] game' from me, but if forced to choose, has to be framerate. I do remember getting the 60fps patch for Forza Horizon 4 on the Xbox One X - that one was 1080p ...but 4k with improved visuals at 30fps: a pretty tricky decision, but ultimately went for 60fps. If I had mates over and wanted to show off the new (at the time) One X however, then I'd switch to 4k/30 before they came round..

 

[V800]

Personally, I don't feel attracted to games with sluggish gameplay and, if I ever do, I tend to give up early.

 

[Kioku]

Frame rate is priority for me. A smooth, stable and higher frame rate makes the experience that much better.

 

[SAIYAN48]

A perfect balance!

 

[Niels Van Son]

Ideally, both. It depends on the game, though. Competitive games and games running on low end hardware, as well as minecraft, fortnite, etc. will want me maximizing framerate but a beautiful walking sim on good hardware will have me prioritizing fidelity. The framerate has to be stable, at any rate.

 

[HarveyHouston]

The best graphics I can have, at 1 FPS.

Seriously, though, as long as a game doesn't feel super laggy, I'm fine with a lesser frame rate if I can have better visuals. I try to get what I can out of my machines, and I'm quite satisfied with 30 FPS max, as long as it doesn't dip too low where I feel like I'm playing on a machine that's twenty years old.

 

[RyanTheArchivist]

Do you want all those frames or do you want the most immersive, eye watering, mind bending, advanced graphics tech possible? The age old question that can divide gamers.

And as consoles and TVs advance in tech, a lot more developers are giving the users the option; something which wasn't so common in the sixth and seventh generations of consoles.

A high frame rate can sometimes give players an advantage especially in multiplayer games such as first-person shooters or racing games. The higher the frame rate, the smoother and more responsive the game is due to reduced input lag, which can give players a competitive edge. Additionally, a high frame rate can reduce motion blur, making it easier for players to keep track of fast-moving objects on screen.

On the other hand, better visual fidelity can make a game more immersive and show off your next gen hardware with features such as ray-tracing, higher quality textures and more elaborate character models. This may make more sense in slower paced, story focused games where a sense of presence is more important than high frame rates.

So, which do you prefer - a high frame rate or better visual fidelity? Do you prioritize smooth, responsive gameplay, or do you want a game that looks as realistic and visually impressive as possible?

If it can keep a stable framerate I have no issue. In most cases at least a cosistent 30fps would be preferred. Anything above that is a bonus. Visuals I don't really care about.

 

[AlexMCS]

60+fps or GTFO.
We're not in the 90s anymore.

Shove your 4k if you can't support at least 60Hz.
My target for gaming is 4k120 and that's what my gut says will be "good enough" for a loooooong while in my book.

At minimum, do 720p60.

And as said above, stability above all. If you can't stick to 60 fps, don't wobble from 45-60, tone down the res and make the 60Hz the ultimate goal.

I think people must have defective eyes if they find sub 60fps acceptable in modern games.

 

[EpikJimmer]

My opinion is interchangable.

For one, I REALLY like having a buttery smooth framerate at the cost of visual effects.
But on the other hand, I don't MIND having a stable 30fps WITH amazing visual effects.

Bottom line: I like having a STABLE framerate. If you're gonna give me 60fps but it sometimes drops to 40 or 30, no, i don't want it. Either 30fps, or 60fps. That's my philosophy.

 

[x65943]

the most important is compatibility with the nude patch website

then very very far behind, the second most important is frame rate.

Why does that place have 4 different nude mods for Stardew valley

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Why does that place have 4 different nude mods for Stardew valley

because they did not had enough time to make the 5th one, but the community can't wait!

 

[Marc_LFD]

FPS.

I'd rather the game run smoothly or relatively so than better graphics.

Post automatically merged: Apr 4, 2023

We're not in the 90s anymore.

That made me chuckle because it reminded me of gamers in PAL regions in the 90's. lol

They'd pay more or less (or the same), yet play an inferior version of the same game. However, there were a few games that were the exception:

Here's Dragon's Lair - NTSC vs PAL



That actually looks playable in PAL format (strange to say that).