Better peformance or better graphics?

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

Both, but i prefer performance. On consoles games should never run under 720p and 30fps.

Should have both, especially next gen hardware.

especially next gen hardware.

immortality20

i would take crap gfx and higher framerate every time.

60fps or nothing

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

nameless12345

There's no "either, or". It's both for me....although I'm happy with a steady ~30 fps. Anything above is gravy.

Performance. A unplayable game is worse than a bad looking one.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

jun_aka_pekto

There's no "either, or". It's both for me.

There were never occasions when you had to decide between better quality or better perfomance?

I recall quite some people played Crysis at 25 fps or so to get better graphics when it came out :)

If your game dips below 30 FPS then you need to sacrifice some graphics to get it back.

Performance. A unplayable game is worse than a bad looking one.

Shirokishi_

What's "unplaylable" is a matter of opinion tho. There were times when 15 fps were enough (i.e. Star Fox SNES, PC games on lower hardware) ;)

Of course the "standards" got higher with time but it's still subjective.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

nameless12345

There's no "either, or". It's both for me.

There were never occasions when you had to decide between better quality or better perfomance?

I recall quite some people played Crysis at 25 fps or so to get better graphics when it came out :)

I speak for myself. If I know a game is going to be too much of a hog on my PC, I don't buy it, at least not until my next upgrade cycle can run the game okay. I didn't play Crysis (even the demo) until 2009 and it ran on High-Very High @1440x900 ~30 fps most of the time with my HD 5770.

I go fairly far in my desire to play a game with higher settings at the cost of performance. I think that most games are perfectly playable at 30fps. The only exception may be racing games, which are generally difficult to play for me below 60fps.

[QUOTE="Shirokishi_"]

Performance. A unplayable game is worse than a bad looking one.

nameless12345

What's "unplaylable" is a matter of opinion tho. There were times when 15 fps were enough (i.e. Star Fox SNES, PC games on lower hardware) ;)

Of course the "standards" got higher with time but it's still subjective.

Well, as a PC gamer with a high end PC, i get both, and then some, but i gotta say a console game where you can get both, is Uncharted 2. I just recently borrowed this game, and the graphics and artstyle is blowing me away. Ofcourse there is jaggies, and the game could look better in some areas, but as a whole, it is just beautiful. Most certaintly the best looking game on the consoles. Cant speak for the third game, as i havent played it yet, but i will after i complete this one.

performance, Akyrim on the ps3 is the perfect example. I would have prefer the game to look worse and play better

I prefer a game with subpar performance and terrible graphics.

30 FPS is pushing it sometimes for me because things can get kinda sluggish then. 40 and up is great but I don't care for anything above 60 either. So 40-60 FPS is good for me.

But I do like both equally

30 FPS is pushing it sometimes for me because things can get kinda sluggish then. 40 and up is great but I don't care for anything above 60 either. So 40-60 FPS is good for me.

But I do like both equally

seanmcloughlin

First of all there's no point in framerates higher than 60fps.

But in regards to the question, performance is more important. These are games after all, not movies, and the interaction between the player and game should be as smooth as possible. 30fps with locked v-sync is perfect for a lot of games, but there are games that should run at 60fps.

And it's not just about framerates but also input lag, and for 30fps games it should always be 116 ms or lower (if possible).

Intricately crafted game worlds are indeed important, but not at the cost of the aspect that makes games games in the first place.

And I swear screen tearing better be a thing of the past come next gen.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

30 FPS is pushing it sometimes for me because things can get kinda sluggish then. 40 and up is great but I don't care for anything above 60 either. So 40-60 FPS is good for me.

But I do like both equally

SaltyMeatballs

If you have a game locked at 30 it usually stays at that like Uncharted, so it's a constant looking framerate and not going up and down making it look different at different times. They can probably squeeze close to 45 sometimes but then it would have to go back down to 30 later in firefights and it would be veru noticeable.

I'm sure there are other reasons too

if given the option I would always chose higher frame-rate to overall graphics. But current gen consoles are so weak that the higher frame not only affects the graphical output but it limits the physics, AI, draw distance, amount of action on screen, destructible environments, resolution, etc.. So silky smooth gameplay is only limited to a selected few games like COD, some H&S games like DMC4, a couple of racing games like GT5 and the list is only only getting smaller and smaller.

We need next-gen now!

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

nameless12345

I don't have to choose, thats why i am PC gamer.

[deleted]

LOL:roll:

Is it too much to ask for both?FireSpirit117

Not if you got the cash

On topic: I'm like TC. 30 FPS is good but if I can turn of some crap that I really don't give a damn about I'll do it for an increase in FPS. Mostly is Ambient Occlusion/other shadow detail. Not sure why that is so "immersive"--wow I got an extra shadow on my character.....I got a super smooth shadow over a smooth shadow:|.

What do you like better - better graphics or better performance?

I personally like a compromise of both, good graphics as well as good perfomance.

I would not like to play a game at 120 fps or more at the expense of crap graphics and likewise, I would not like to play a game with amazing graphics that would run at 10 fps (unplaylable).

What about you?

nameless12345

On topic: I'm like TC. 30 FPS is good but if I can turn of some crap that I really don't give a damn about I'll do it for an increase in FPS. Mostly is Ambient Occlusion/other shadow detail. Not sure why that is so "immersive"--wow I got an extra shadow on my character.....I got a super smooth shadow over a smooth shadow:|.

cdragon_88

Ambient Occlusion is great. It's a performance hog but it adds a lot of depth to areas in games. Open these in new tabs and switch between them. There is a huge difference

Ambient Occlusion is great. It's a performance hog but it adds a lot of depth to areas in games. Open these in new tabs and switch between them. There is a huge difference

seanmcloughlin

That was my whole point. You get an extra shadow on the house (yea I know this isn't how it works and i'm simplifying it) but theres not enough of a difference to see in great depths to warrant a FPS drop. Once the game is in motion, I notice none of that. I'm focused on what/where/purpose of my character. Not saying AO isn't good or needed--but saying that the dips in FPS does not warrant the effects.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Ambient Occlusion is great. It's a performance hog but it adds a lot of depth to areas in games. Open these in new tabs and switch between them. There is a huge difference

cdragon_88

That was my whole point. You get an extra shadow on the house (yea I know this isn't how it works and i'm simplifying it) there to really warrant a I see a difference to in great depths to warrant a FPS drop. Once the game is in motion, I notice none of that. I'm focused on what/where/purpose of my character. Not saying AO isn't good or needed--but saying that the dips in FPS does not warrant the effects.

Well I think it makes a big difference. Especially in BF3 and TW2. Eh, whatever floats your boat. I don't have it on in BF3 anyway so I can get the 60 fps for competitive purposes

Depends on the genre. A competative FPS really needs to have a high framerate, but a long singleplayer campaign built around a nice aesthetic (al a Bioshock) may be better served with fidelity over framerate. A fighting game with a low framerate may be terrible as well. Although playing on PC tends to mostly eliminate this dilemma.

Performance also doesn't have to mean "higher" framerate as well, a more "cinematic game" (the value of such a game is a discussion for another time) may actually be better served with a lower framerate, providing that motion blur can be perfectly drawn; that is to say without any feel like it's simply a post processing effect trying to mask it (or as I call it the "Someone just drugged the camera man" effect). To perfectly draw all object and camera motion blur (with NO feeling of forcefulness) would actually probably take more power than rending it at 60 with no real motion blur.

I prefer to use and older DX version or decrease the resolution to have higher quality textures and nice lighting along with 60fps.

Opaque game with blurry textures at 1080p is uglier than shiny game with sharp textures at 720p/768p/900p/whatever in my opinion.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

30 FPS is pushing it sometimes for me because things can get kinda sluggish then. 40 and up is great but I don't care for anything above 60 either. So 40-60 FPS is good for me.

But I do like both equally

seanmcloughlin

If you have a game locked at 30 it usually stays at that like Uncharted, so it's a constant looking framerate and not going up and down making it look different at different times. They can probably squeeze close to 45 sometimes but then it would have to go back down to 30 later in firefights and it would be veru noticeable.

I'm sure there are other reasons too

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] Now that you mention it. I never understand why we don't get a variety of framerates. Always locked at 30 or 60. Why no 45?SaltyMeatballs

If you have a game locked at 30 it usually stays at that like Uncharted, so it's a constant looking framerate and not going up and down making it look different at different times. They can probably squeeze close to 45 sometimes but then it would have to go back down to 30 later in firefights and it would be veru noticeable.

I'm sure there are other reasons too

Ahh :P

I don't know lol

depends on the game, a game like silent hill I'm ok with 30fps and I hope the fog is super realistic, if its a game like bf3 and I'm playing online I might lower the graphics to reduce stuttering and nail down a solid 60fps,

60 FPS, 1080P, and AA on, then you can crank the rest as high as it can go without compromising those things. I need it to be smooth and crisp. Games like CS 1.6 are not bothersome (visually) at all to play, because it can be super smooth and super crisp. of course I like good textures and lighting and such though.

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

On topic: I'm like TC. 30 FPS is good but if I can turn of some crap that I really don't give a damn about I'll do it for an increase in FPS. Mostly is Ambient Occlusion/other shadow detail. Not sure why that is so "immersive"--wow I got an extra shadow on my character.....I got a super smooth shadow over a smooth shadow:|.

seanmcloughlin

Ambient Occlusion is great. It's a performance hog but it adds a lot of depth to areas in games. Open these in new tabs and switch between them. There is a huge difference

Depends on the game.

I'll take high fps (45-60 fps) w/ no jaggies, but far less detail and/or far fewer polygons any day of the week. Basically I'll make any concessions necessary to rid myself of sub-30 fps or jaggies..... man I hate jaggies.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="cdragon_88"]

On topic: I'm like TC. 30 FPS is good but if I can turn of some crap that I really don't give a damn about I'll do it for an increase in FPS. Mostly is Ambient Occlusion/other shadow detail. Not sure why that is so "immersive"--wow I got an extra shadow on my character.....I got a super smooth shadow over a smooth shadow:|.

mitu123

Ambient Occlusion is great. It's a performance hog but it adds a lot of depth to areas in games. Open these in new tabs and switch between them. There is a huge difference

It does a lot for BF3

Me too, TC. But performance is very important to me, if there's a game that is struggling with the performance, I would like the graphics to be toned down. If there's a game that runs at a solid 30fps while maintaining good graphics, then that's great.

Both. I can usually max all PC games and get over 50 fps.