First Person Shooters, what's more important?

Most definitely graphics.

You can't see framerate.

If only that were true.

Just an opinion that most people agree with. That's all.

Graphics.

I can always improve the frame-rate with new hardware.

You are so insecure over Floplo 5. If you like it go play it and stop worrying what everyone else thinks of it. It must not be that good if you spend more time damage controlling its shortcomings instead of playing it.

This is pertaining moreso to console games.

Agreed.

Frame rate.

Shooters should have an unshakable 60fps, anything below than that will dumb down the experience.

You can perceive a framerate, you can see the drops and increases, you can feel the fluidity in motion change, it's not an opinion.

@nyadc: Same goes for 30FPS, which is why most developers go for it. It's the standard they strive for.

Most developers go for it because it's of little importance to them, they want to push graphical boundaries and they're hindered by the hardware they're developing for and target a realistic medium. I'm not exactly understanding what this comment has to do with what you and I both said previously.

Exactly. I'm glad you agree.

We're not talking about developers, we're talking about players, you're off the map right now...

I side with the developers. They know what they're doing. And they know what's best.

Okay, this is officially bait, well played.

Visuals, it is.

Nice cop-out.

It's time for... Binky's Facts and Opinions!!

That's not a cop out, developers targeting 30 FPS for a first person shooter is asinine. If it's all they can hit that's one thing, but to intentionally create one that operates at 30 FPS by choice is beyond stupid.

Halo CE 97%

Halo 2 95%

Halo 3 94%

Halo Reach 91%

Halo 4 87%

Halo 5 85%....

Didn't help much Halo score that is for sure only Halo with 60FPS and the lowest score on the main series.

What 60FPS does on shooters is make controlers a little more responsive,if gameplay sucks or the game sucks it sucks and PC is filled with shooters that suck and have 60FPS some way more.

@tormentos: It's still best rated FPS this year and standards have changed significantly now.

Yet it's the functionally best game in the franchise, the most mechanically sound with the best gameplay...

You might want to read the reviews again, it wasn't panned because of how it played, everyone has praised that to the high heavens, it was panned because of differing opinions on the direction taken with the campaign.

P.S. I love how you made this about Halo, the effect that game has on you people is incredible.

For video games period, framerate.

Frame rate should always come first in multiplayer shooters. I would rather have a smooth experience than visual eye candy. Obviously, one would prefer both, but that's not possible with the hardware.

Of course Halo 5 plays the best, it's the game with the most updated shooting, and mechanics. That's a fact, not a silly opinion like the narrative that FPS magically made Halo 5's combat the best. FPS had nothing with it.

The framerate dramatically improved the feel, fluidity, responsiveness and functionality of the game and control.

The framerate is a large contributing factor in why Halo 5's combat is so good and mechanically it was designed around it.

Frame Rate. More fun to play when gameplay is fluid.

@nyadc:

Man saying it still is the best rated FPS this year mean little on a year with bad scoring ones.

Come one man how have standard change so badly.? Most FPS are recycle as much this gen to.

I don't think it has better gameplay more resposive controls sure,halo gameplay hasn't change much.

That is not what several reviewers think.

No i made it about Halo because you claim that 30FPS worked on casuals games like Killzone,yet you forgot Halo is also 30 FPS and even more casual,so your whole argument was garbage.

More responsive controls don't warrant you will have a great game neither do graphics but if i had to chose 1 i chose visuals those i enjoy more and since on consoles most games are 30 it doesn't buther me at all.

For SP I don't really mind a lower FPS.

But for precision, fast reaction, and just about anything that is important in an online FPS: framerate is king.

Manichean poll ...

Another option is to go with higher graphics and 30 fps in SP and lower res/graphics and 60 fps for MP!!!

I don't care about the frame rate as long as I have a steady one. Dips bother me more.

As a single player gamer mostly, as long as the framerates never drop from 30, i always prefer visuals and resolution.

In my opinion 1080p30 should be the standard, except maybe for competitive arena multiplayer shooters, but then again, i rarely play that kind of game.

Is Gamespot notifications broke? I don't seem to be getting alerts that people have responded to me lately.

Depends on the game. If wolfenstein was 30 fps I'd be bothered by it.

Played Singularity a while back. The game is super ugly by todays standard. The very high framerate I could get didn't help because it wasn't enjoyable to explore those enviroments, nor to fight the silly looking enemies. I much rather play a modern looking FPS at 30 tbh.

I don't think 30 kills a game, ugly visuals do however. (obv there are unplayable framerates like say 2 or something)

Marketing marvel !!!

Frame-rate

The options are to simple for my brain. I aware that chossing either wud be inaccurate in some way. I need a balance or depending on the situation a semi balance of the two

-_-

Also I don't think we should compare old Halo's to Halo 5...The standards and measuring sticks have changed drastically...

Obviously visuals. What have frames ever done for me?

I'm assuming this thread came about because of Halo 5?

Yup my friend, Halo´s force to make them bovines go bezerk is strong. It´s still interesting to see that Sony´s little darling FPS ( KZ ) has had one less than 7 score, one 7, one 8.5 and one 9, in other words, Sony has only being able to make it right twice, which means 50% fail rate, not bad !

Framerates over resolution for me personally and I say it for all games, not just FPS.

Frame rate, especially for FPS.

Still trying to justify that Xbone purchase? Sad Xbone can only do one or the other and not both.

fps'

Balance of both is best. I don't need 60fps in my shooters, I can settle on a roughly stable 30fps if it helps boost image quality, special effects, physics, even as far as that stuff is concerned I'd rather see a cut to resolution and texture quality or character polygon counts to enhance other aspects of a games visual flare. I feel this target 1080p/60fps is limiting what they can do other areas.

I am going to say neither, and write in "art direction"

Style and visual substance is more important to me than 1080p and 30 fps....neither of which are really a concern for me since I game on PC.

Obviously Crysis looks better from a technical standpoint, but Team Fortress 2 is more appealing to me because of its cool aesthetic. Just one example...