30 is the lowest any game should hit. Higher is ALWAYS better. I can't ever see myself saying I wish this 60 FPS game ran at 30.
I can see turning down effects for better framerate. I can see putting up with 30 for the effects if the developers gave me no choice (consoles) or the leap from high to ultra is noticeable.
I can't imagine anyone saying, "I really like it when my games run slower".
30 is the lowest any game should hit. Higher is ALWAYS better. I can't ever see myself saying I wish this 60 FPS game ran at 30.
I can see turning down effects for better framerate. I can see putting up with 30 for the effects if the developers gave me no choice (consoles) or the leap from high to ultra is noticeable.
I can't imagine anyone saying, "I really like it when my games run slower".
30 is the lowest any game should hit. Higher is ALWAYS better. I can't ever see myself saying I wish this 60 FPS game ran at 30.
I can see turning down effects for better framerate. I can see putting up with 30 for the effects if the developers gave me no choice (consoles) or the leap from high to ultra is noticeable.
I can't imagine anyone saying, "I really like it when my games run slower".
In any situation when would less frames per second be better? The more frames per second the smoother the gameplay is. And as far as console games being 30 fps is kind of a joke because quite a bit of games drop below that count and cannot maintain a consistent fps especially when more things onscreen start to occur. And all of this is at only 720p shows the consoles hardware limitations (not to mention the textures and details are kinda meh) while 60 fps is very desireable, a consistent range b/w 40-60 is really good.
this of course is a benefit of owning a gaming computer where detail, resolution, fps, etc is all greater for a smoother and more enjoyable experience
30 fps > 60 fps. I see everyone above me only plays CSS and Cod games :O
hd5870corei7
how can you justify that? 60 fps is always better, with the exception of some older games that have internal framerates, like old n64 games that are completely locked to 17 fps.
30 fps > 60 fps. I see everyone above me only plays CSS and Cod games :O
hd5870corei7
Then you've never played a fighter before
Why would I play a fighter on PC ? :S
You know fighters are on consoles as well right? And you know that the fighters on consoles almost universally run at 60fps right? Its the standard in fighting games.
You know fighters are on consoles as well right? And you know that the fighters on consoles almost universally run at 60fps right? Its the standard in fighting games.
9/10 in this thread are saying 60 fps is a must, 30 fps is way worse or unplayable or whatever. 95% of all console games are in 30 fps. and I don't know a single PC gamer that plays 60 fps with his high end games like Crysis. I can run Crysis with 60 fps if I run all high in 720p no AA but I'd rather get 31 fps if I run all very high 1080p and 8 X AA....
A constant 30 is playable, anything lower is bad. 60 is awesome but I don't find it extremely necessary. I am normally between 40 and 60 and that's good enough for me!
[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"] Why would I play a fighter on PC ? :Shd5870corei7
You know fighters are on consoles as well right? And you know that the fighters on consoles almost universally run at 60fps right? Its the standard in fighting games.
9/10 in this thread are saying 60 fps is a must, 30 fps is way worse or unplayable or whatever. 95% of all console games are in 30 fps. and I don't know a single PC gamer that plays 60 fps with his high end games like Crysis. I can run Crysis with 60 fps if I run all high in 720p no AA but I'd rather get 31 fps if I run all very high 1080p and 8 X AA.... ok, but how does that mean 30 fps is better? If I can get 60 fps without a major visual hit, im going for 60fps.
Some games are fine at 30 fps. RDR ran at 30 fps if i'm right and it was fine. But a game can't drop below 30 fps. For online fps i want 60 fps. When you throw 100-400 ms lag. the 60 frames make a huge diffference. Go play bc2 then play mw2
I can tolerate 30 frames per second, but I want 60 frames to become a standard. Halo Reach would be significantly more awesome to me if it could pull off everything it does at 60 frames.
Depends on the game If i play a strategy game even low 20's are OK Racing games and multiplayer FPS games no way i can stand anything less than 50-60fps Other games i prefer 60fps but if my 8800gt cant cope with them i'm fine as long as the minimum Fps stays above 25fps
Framerate is one important factor of video game graphics. Compare Mass Effect 2 on a 360 and then compare it with a decent computer (one that costs 600-800 if you only count the box)
60fps is appreciated but it can tax your PC if its a big destructive game. I accept that not all games can have 60fps, but if its a fast paced shooter like MW2 or a racing/fighting game its usually a big plus. If its a game like BC2 where it would chug too much otherwise or a big open world game then I accept it if it has 30fps.
I generally prefer framerate over graphics, KZ2 looks amazing but doesn't have the smooth crispy feel of 60fps. I actually play Bioshock 2 with improved framerate settings over graphics.
I just hope with the next-gen consoles, 60 FPS will be more standard in games. I would love Halo so much if it was 60 FPS :P My friend has one of those anti-judder TVs though, it makes Bad Company 2 on 360 look as if it's running at a higher frame-rate!
[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"] Why would I play a fighter on PC ? :Shd5870corei7
You know fighters are on consoles as well right? And you know that the fighters on consoles almost universally run at 60fps right? Its the standard in fighting games.
9/10 in this thread are saying 60 fps is a must, 30 fps is way worse or unplayable or whatever. 95% of all console games are in 30 fps. and I don't know a single PC gamer that plays 60 fps with his high end games like Crysis. I can run Crysis with 60 fps if I run all high in 720p no AA but I'd rather get 31 fps if I run all very high 1080p and 8 X AA.... Yeah some people may want the prettier visuals does not mean they would rather have the same effect running at 60FPS. Games only benifit from higher FPS no matter what the game. Surely that would be obvious no?
I don't notice any difference in functionalality but the higher the fps the smoother it looks, although at some point it starts looking like animations run slightly too fast, kind of like when i had re1 for pc running at 120fps, the cutscen animations were done long before the voice acting was...
I would rather have 60 FPS because 30 is slow. Also developers opting to make a 30 FPS game with better graphics I can't stand that. Because a game at 60 FPS but less detail looks better IMO anyway because it is smoother.
I cannot tell the difference between the two, either is fine with me but I will say this the framerate has to be constant whether it be 30 or 60 frames per second, framerate dips are awful and noticable for me.
If you play sports games... of course 60 is needed..
Is it me or does the 30 fps look better?
Aboogie5
Well the developers usually cut back on the graphics to get the games at 60 FPS. So usually if the game is at 30 FPS the developers are focusing on Graphics.
Log in to comment