What do you prefer frame rates or graphics?

Topic

Both, perfect examples would be The Last Of Us - Remastered, Shadow Of Mordor and MGSV, all running at 60fps in 1080p on the PS4 with extremly good graphics/animations.

@ojmstr: lol ps4 is just the more superior console sadly

Obviously both... but depending on the game, I generally prefer nice graphics/higher resolution over frame rates. But again, that's dependant on the type of game.

graphics.

What do you like more, the color blue or pants?

Frame rate is much more important than graphics. A low frame-rate is very distracting and takes away immersion. This is particularly noticeable in games where you are moving the viewpoint around like FPS or games that let you rotate the camera and pan around the environments. Higher frame rate not only increases immersion, but it improves the overall feel of the game with more responsive controls and visual feedback, better graphics rendering with less blur and artifacts, smoother animation, and less eye strain. I like graphics as much as the next guy, but not at the sacrifice of frame rate. Of course frame rate is only part of the equation as frame timing/pacing also has a big impact on the perception of the frame rate. A game like Bloodborne has a steady 30fps (not good to begin with) frame rate, but it gives the illusion like it dips even further and stutters due to poor frame timing. This can even happen on games that are 60fps and over. So, you need a good frame rate and frame timing to get a quality experience.

Having a steady frame rate also makes a huge difference. 60fps is obviously better than 30fps, but if a game can not maintain a stable 60fps, it is better off rendering at a stable 30fps. That way you don't have to put up with tearing, judder and noticeable slowdown. Tech like G-Sync and FreeSync definitely helps with fluctuating frame rates and generally holds the immersion as long as you don't dip too low.

I prefer a stable framerate, no matter how fast it is. As long as it doesn't dip badly I'm fine. As for graphics, I prefer a memorable art style over mind-blowing realism any day of the week.

as any pc gamer who's experienced that sad say when their once powerful rig can no longer run the latest game maxed out and is forced to lower settings to get acceptable performance will tell you, good graphics are nothing without good framerate

frame rate is so much better because you can see what your doing>

I'm going to say frame rate. Was just playing F-Zero X and, despite its low polygon count and simple textures, the game still looks good due to the high frame rate.

I like both

@wwe_xbox360: Framerate is more important, but as long as it is above 30 it´s fine.

Frame rate is definitely more important...but hey, I'm a PC gamer, so I'll take both without too many issues.

Depends on whether the gameplay is dependent on responsiveness. I couldn't care less about framerate for games like the walking dead.

Frame rate. Once my game starts lagging and freezing is when I get irritated.

Frame rate of course, good graphics are pointless if framerates suck.

60fps should be standard

Frame rate. Those people who say "1080, 1080" are idiots.

Frame rate is key, a smooth gameplay experience trumps graphics, case in point: Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Knight (PC). Experience makes the game annoying as hell to play as it affects other things such as shadows and lighting

I don't really care about framerate as long as it's steady. So I do care about framerate. ;-P But if I have to sacrifice 60 fps for better graphics, then I'm totally fine with that. I can also live with occasional framerate dips. My pc can't run TW3 smoothly on ultra, but I will crank up those settings as much as I can. As long as the framerate remains above or on 30, I don't really care. Same with F4. My pc has a tough time rendering some of the outdoor lighting effects, but I don't really care. I'm actually surprised I can completely max out that game without too many problems. Well, I shouldn't be surprised, because it's not that visually amazing, but still... that lighting looks good.

So long as the game doesn't go below 30fps then I say go wild with the graphics. If the game suffers fps dips below 30, then they obviously reached their maximum graphic capability in either their hardware or their development skills.

Both are important but if there is on then I would say graphic. The FPS get less return the higher it gets. There not as large of a different between 30 fps and 60 fps say some claim there is,

I would have to go with fps. That being said, Halo 5's graphics leave a lot to be desired at times. Halo 5 is probably the most meh looking game of 2015. It has an excellent frame rate though.

As long as the graphics are above 30fps I'd rather have the texture and resolution. Below 30fps gameplay gets choppy and I'd rather have the frame rate.

^This.

I really can't see any other answer to this question.

In any scenario frame rate is easily the better option. What's the point of playing a game that looks pretty but you can't play actually play it properly? :) There's nothing worse than terrible frame rates.

*points to mastermetal777 post* that pretty much sums it up for me.

I'm going to have to go with Framerate over Graphics on this one. I find that with Keyboard/Mouse anything under 40-45 fps is noticeable and distracting. With a controller the fps can go down to 30 without being distracting. I guess I 'feel' the fps more using a mouse. The 'control and feel' of my character is more important to me than what he sees.

Usually obtaining 40-45 fps+ means dropping something...a few years ago it was usually shadow quality or distant grass, these days it's SSAO and fine tuning the AA. I've also been known to drop the resolution and play 1680x1050 on a 1920x1200 monitor (free AA!).

In the future please include a little more in your OP than just "topic" or "discuss". You could open the discussion with your opinion, for example.

Anyways yeah, a balance of both. I don't want to play a picture-perfect slide show, nor do I want a smooth view of blurry images.

It's never "one or the other" it's always "what combination do you prefer".

Both! Never settle!

Depends on the game. Overall 60 fps is preferable, but some games like The Order are fine at 30

Framerate.

Good physics, animation, and lip sync are more important than graphics sometimes though.

@Macutchi: You must understand that I signed in just to complement you on the best avatar ever. I had no intention of even reading your comment, but I did... and find myself agreeing. So you get TWO cool points sir. Use them wisely...

30FPS works for plenty of games. But I'd be lying if I didn't like my stable 60FPS in many games I enjoy.

Graphics? . . *spits*

Considering how much joy the 3DS has given me over the PS4 & P.C. In the past few years, you should be able to guess how much I care.

I prefer technical specs that aren't intrusive - if you notice it and it takes you 'out' of the game, it's superfluous.

@ruthaford_jive: why thank you sir. high praise indeed coming from someone who, if their member since is to be believed, has to be the longest serving member on gamespot.

*doffs cap

for most games i will keep notching those graphics settings up as long as the game plays at a stable 30FPS.

racing games would be the only exception for me. i really want to get closer to the 60FPS mark.

if i played games competitively then i would probably stick to a 60 minimum for everything but i dont so im not too fussed.