Why Are People Going Crazy About FPS? Who cares

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassins-creed-unity-director-who-cares-about-res/1100-6422838/

All I see in comments are people going crazy about the fps when all I care about is no loading screens and amazing detail. The game in question is Assassins Creed Unity. I'm excited about the game but all I hear is people shiteing on it. Really?!

I prefer loading between stages and play with smooth gameplay(high fps) than have No loading and then stuttering gameplay cuz low fps

Not sure if serious...

So... do you like higher FPS or how amazing a building looks in a game?

I think FPS is more important than resolution. There's something incredibly fluid about seeing something running in 60 FPS.

As for resolution, I'd place my bets that had Ubisoft not told us the PS4 version of Unity was in 900p, there'd still be PS4 fanboys bragging about much better it looks than the Xbox One version.

^^And I'm a PS4 user, so shut up with the Xbox fanboy talk.

On PC, you can have both!

I'll take fps over resolution.

Thought it's Ubisoft so even one of those two must be sacrificed. Obviously not due to inferior hardware but simply due to shit ports.

Any other dev, we can cherish both things though at a silky smooth 1440p. ;)

Consolites fighting for whose system or multiplat is less worse than PC.

Everybody gets it Jankar.

I'm not sure he knows how to do anything else. Forgive him.

FPS is definitely important, as a higher frame rate makes a game more fluid to play. But I think some gamers blow it a little of proportion. 30FPS is completely playable and a lot of games run at that FPS.

How could FPS not be important..

Loading has literally nothing to do with framerate.

FPS is the only aspect of graphics that matter.... It must be high and it must be smooth... In Every game !

Yeah i know but TC seemed to choose between them

I think he means that he's just happy to have no loading screens and good detail, even if the fps is locked below 30 fps.

There is no direct relation between loading screens (i.e. dividing areas to save memory) and performance.

Not when it comes to Unity. Performance is confirmed to be terrible.

I'm confused. What did i say tha was wrong?

I just want to shoot people. Like, a lot of people!

Nothing. Why are you trying to retread an old argument? I'm simply telling you to shut up with the rhetoric.

Nothing, actually. You've just repeated the same basic fact over 9,000 times at this point.

so between 720p/60fps, 1080p/45fps and 1440p/30fps what would you take

Why buy games? Just run a slideshow of AC Unity screenshots.

this^ the idea that a game isn't 4k and 120FPS that its blurry unplayable and shitty is beyond stupid.

@darkangel115:

This is what I was getting at. The game looks amazing and I doubt I'll be upset about the framerate. I'm just shocked it there is so much complaining about a good looking game. We might be a bit spoiled.

For gameplay purposes. It just feels alot smoother to play @60fps or higher.

@funsohng:

Really?! Exaggerating much?

Yes, dear, it's sarcasm. I'm so happy you weren't fooled.

@funsohng:

I try not to be. How would one play such a game?

1080p60 was the apparent standard everyone wanted to achieve last gen. Now with 1600% more RAM they can't even achieve it as a bare minimum.

60FPS is a must for Fighters, FPS, Racing, Action adventure.

Basically all the types of games that require fast movement and reaction times.

it is kinda pathetic. i remember the debates between 256 ps3 had and 512 the 360 had... Now its not only 8gb but its also gddr5 and fugly ass games like cod advanced whatever can't even run at stable 60fps.

Well everything is exaggerated in SW's and on the web in general.

@SonySoldier-_-

Screw that... I want 60 fps in My Puzzle and Strategy Games too. I want it everywhere !

Is this a joke?

Personally its why I game on PC because no matter if I have a £120 GPU or a £500 GPU I am gaming at 60FPS... I just lower settings till I get 50-60FPS. Simple, for example my R9 270 plays Shadow of Mordor on the highest settings at 2560x1080 at 25-35FPS... I lower the textures to Medium and everything else on High and I get 50-60FPS.

Below is what a R9 270 can do at 60FPS for £120... why buy multi-platform game on a console?

Gallery

I buy console's for the exclusives because I have to... I play everything else on PC because I'm not stupid.

@Lulu_Lulu: field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view field of view

@EPICCOMMANDER

That goes without saying.

Compared to what?... 900p at 30FPS on medium settings with dips to the 20's?

If performance is bad on PC its worse on console. Its why you are gaming at 900p at 30FPS in 2014.

A 970 and acceptable processor should be maxing this game out at 60 FPS no problem. Anything less is unacceptable. I'm not talking about consoles because we can all agree console standards are so far below the realm of acceptability that it's comedic.

We'll see how performance is tomorrow with the day one patch.

Wow, you're one of the first people that understands my plight.

Yes, of course a high FOV should go without saying--and it's rarely an issue on PC because 1 console command and you're golden.

Consoles developers don't understand that though. The Master Chief Collection is one of the most gimmicky things I've ever seen because they flaunt the 60 FPS, yet all the games still run at 70-88 FOV.

**** that!

FOV > 100 should be prioritized over a high FPS ten times out of ten in my book. If you need to drop the game to 30 FPS so be it. I'll take the higher FOV plz.

Why should it be maxing it out at 60FPS?...

A poorly made game and or a demanding game doesn't abide by any standards. Which is what Unity is.

A GTX 980 can't run Day Z at 1920x1080 at 60FPS maxed out... and neither it can run Crysis 3 at 1920x1080 maxed out. Why?... Ones running on a horrible engine and the other is stunning. Unity is a combination of both... Its a poorly made game on a pretty engine.

AC Unity looks great, but not so great that it shouldn't be playable at max settings at 1080p/60 FPS on top of the line cards. Poor performance has more to do with the fact that Ubisoft cannot into optimization for the AC games.

720p/60fps all the way baby :P

Anyone who tells you that they can tell even the slightest difference between say 50 and 60 fps is lying through their fucking teeth.

You can notice a slight difference between 30 and 60, but it still isn't earth shattering unless you play a shitload of online shooters.

This whole 1080p/60fps argument is retarded. And that's coming from a PC gamer.

It's mostly benchmark whores who are obsessed with this shit. The same goofs who pay $500+ for a GPU, and then run out and buy another one 4-5 months later when the new line comes out just so they can get an average of an extra 4-5 fps in some games, which isn't going to be visible to the human eye in the slightest.

@EPICCOMMANDER

Theres just a few things developers should get right without gamers having to going through the pain of experiencing it before they decide to fix it.

doug lol

@Zelda187

If its locked then no I couldn't tell yeah the difference between 50 and 60 fps, but if that if it fluctautes then yeah. Its easily noticable. One second isn't that long and its easy to spot when 10 missing frames in shorter bursts than it would be to miss 30 frames in longer intervals.