Framerate vs. Graphics: Whats more important?

Im a bit tied up on what is more important:  Framerate or graphics?  I love how amazing a game looks, but it takes me out of the experience if the framerate is low and choppy.  If a game has a consistent smooth framerate however , it seems so amazing like a high budget movie even if the game doesnt have that graphical polish to it. I also believe that framerate is  important for multiplayer games So I guess Im more into framerate than graphics though I dont think one should be taken out for the other.  But I do Like to know what others think is more important.  amazing sharp detailed graphics like Gears of war and crysis or a game with smooth consistent framerate?

I think in this day and age we should have both. there's no excuse for games that lag about the place, and no excuse for crappy graphics. The Xbox360 has mutiple cores but only one is still being used . WHY? Look at gears of war, that game only uses one core and look what it can achieve. If games designers/programmers got of their asses and did some hard work we could have it so all games look amazing and run at 60 fps.

...Rant over

Definitely the framerate - it has a direct impact on gameplay so has to come first really.  Bear in mind that often framerate drops are actually unnoticable. If a game tends to run at 60fps and then drops suddenly to 40fps in a detailed indoor area, the player is unlikely to realise even though a benchmark highlights.

Seriously choppy framerates, on the other hand, really do detract from a game's playability. There is nothing more frustrating that dying due to the game's inability to keep up with the action.

I think framerate is more important than gameplay as well as graphics. If a game constantly drops down to the 20's and under, it is doesn't matter even if the gameplay was excellent. I'm satisfied with 30 as long as the developers push the games as hard as they can and make the framerate constant. I've never been to picky about graphics for example: I've had a gaming pc since late 2004 and the game I played the most on it was Warcraft 3. I may have played WoW for more but hopefully not.

It seems like all new games are going way over the top on motion blur. I played lost planet on the pc, which I had to move to the lowest setting imaginable which honostly did not look that much differen't from the highest, and I only gained about 10 more fps but the motion blur seemed unreal in the bad way. It doesn't look bad but...

Games like Gears of War and Crysis can have a high framerate. Cutting edge graphics and stable framerate can go hand in hand, there's no reason for anyone to choose one over the other - we should demand both. Who cares if a game looks amazing, but instead of playing it, you're watching a slideshow. On the other hand, a stable 60fps is no great achievement if your game looks like garbage.

Besides, graphics aren't always responsible for crappy framerate. Neverwinter Nights 2 isn't anything special graphically, yet the framerate is horrible due to poor optimization. It's just a matter of how much effort is a developer willing to put into it (assuming the publisher isn't breathing down their necks which is, unfortunately, the norm rather than an exception).

Im a bit tied up on what is more important:  Framerate or graphics?  I love how amazing a game looks, but it takes me out of the experience if the framerate is low and choppy.  If a game has a consistent smooth framerate however , it seems so amazing like a high budget movie even if the game doesnt have that graphical polish to it. I also believe that framerate is  important for multiplayer games So I guess Im more into framerate than graphics though I dont think one should be taken out for the other.  But I do Like to know what others think is more important.  amazing sharp detailed graphics like Gears of war and crysis or a game with smooth consistent framerate?

martialbullet

I think in this day and age we should have both. there's no excuse for games that lag about the place, and no excuse for crappy graphics. The Xbox360 has mutiple cores but only one is still being used . WHY? Look at gears of war, that game only uses one core and look what it can achieve. If games designers/programmers got of their asses and did some hard work we could have it so all games look amazing and run at 60 fps.

 

...Rant over

acanofcoke

I never notice the good graphics of a game if the framerate sucks... for instance, when I maxed out Oblivion on my 7900GS and P4 2.8ghz (not a good idea) it looked choppy and ugly. I scaled back the settings some, and it barely looks any different but runs a lot smoother - and it looks MUCH better.

Gamecube games that run at 30fps tend to look kind of bad in HD, I've noticed (or maybe it's just my monitor)... because right now games like SSBM and MP2 look WAY better than Zelda TP and RE4. 

I never notice the good graphics of a game if the framerate sucks... for instance, when I maxed out Oblivion on my 7900GS and P4 2.8ghz (not a good idea) it looked choppy and ugly. I scaled back the settings some, and it barely looks any different but runs a lot smoother - and it looks MUCH better.

Gamecube games that run at 30fps tend to look kind of bad in HD, I've noticed (or maybe it's just my monitor)... because right now games like SSBM and MP2 look WAY better than Zelda TP and RE4. 

Funkyhamster

I notice that 60 FPS games from last gen look far better than 30 fps on my TV aswell, the extra framesmust makes the transition to upscaling better.

I notice that 60 FPS games from last gen look far better than 30 fps on my TV aswell, the extra framesmust makes the transition to upscaling better.csliney

Yeah, that's probably it... because TP looks more grainy close up than even a game like Animal Crossing. 

Well if it looks like ass and flows like water... ah... never mind, I won't pursue the anlogy any further.

Basically, if the game has great graphics... but only 1 in 3 frames are shown, it will look like a flip book animation.  If it has great speed though, but the characters look like crummy stick figures, well, you got some fast moving but crummy stick figures.

It's your choice, but generally a balance is best, although I'd lean to graphics overall, providing the FPS were still playable. 

One might offend my eyes...and I still happily play NES and SMS games.

The other (if too erratic in 3D games) might give me motion sickness...

I leave the rest to you 

Bad framerates DESTROY games.camreeno360

I think that's pretty much it. Bad graphics certainly make a game less good, but a bad framerate can render it unplayable. If a game's unplayable it doesn't matter how pretty it looks - no one's going to know. 

[QUOTE="camreeno360"]Bad framerates DESTROY games.PhoenixMDK

I think that's pretty much it. Bad graphics certainly make a game less good, but a bad framerate can render it unplayable. If a game's unplayable it doesn't matter how pretty it looks - no one's going to know.

Yeah... I really can't play Geist in 480p, because it just gets way too choppy. 

Cool Necro/gravedig.

Looking through some old threads. I think this argument is still relevant.

For the love of god this thread is over 6 years old.

I'd say it should be balanced out. Just like what makes a great video game, gotta balance it out for it to be amazing.

This.

But if I had to decide, it's between playing a game properly or eye-candy.

I'll choose playing an unlaggy game.

Why would you as a moderator dig out a 6year old thread? seriously i thought you where here to close down on such behaviour.

I know, just a bit of fun