Framerate Vs. Graphic Fidelity

Hagan

Hagan

Check my new Avatar
Not everyone has a MONSTER of a PC, running the latest titles at highest graphics at 4K, whilst getting a super smooth solid 60FPS (or higher, if available).

Yeah! Some of us have to trade good looks for the sake of a higher framerate!

No way!

No really, I shit you not!

:D

Do you prefer good looks at the cost of lower performance; you like a good balance or don't you care to witness PSOne graphics so long as you get your solid 60FPS :D

IMO, it differs from game to game.

If accuracy isn't necessary, I don't mind frame dips, be it racing or RPGs, but when it comes to FPShooters, that's where I'll make the compromise; aiming is imperative.

As long as cloth looks like cloth, skin like skin, metal like... You get it. I'm satisfied.

Where do you stand?

Are you a graphics-whore or framerate junkie?
 
I like a compromise between the two. I'm not really one to worry too much about frames, as I am also a console gamer. Saying that I do notice when the framerate tanks. Though I still maintain, as long as it looks the best it can while maintaining a playable framerate. That said, I can play games at lower framerates, it's the microstutters that annoy the fuck outta me!

But then again, you are talking to someone who upgraded their PC and monitor purely for the purpose of being able to play that one game at Ultra settings (or as close to); that being Elite Dangerous.
 
singleplayer games i dont mind lower fps for details but as soon as i go into multiplayer i need fps.. In division i max out settings when doing PVE but as soon as i go into the darkzone i drop all to low/medium
 
A balance for me, but I'll always lower the graphics a bit if it struggles to get a steady FPS. I learned that with Quake yay back, better to have a good fps than looks and play like crap.
 
And it's strange and worth mentioning that I can feel when a game is running less than 50-60fps on PC, but on console I couldn't be bothered and hardly notice it (unless the game battles of course).
 
Graphics is flash for the first couple hours, then fades away.

If the game is real good,for me all I care is frames above 60 fps, no dropped network packets or latency issue's.
 
ArchieChoke said:
Graphics is flash for the first couple hours, then fades away.

If the game is real good,for me all I care is frames above 60 fps, no dropped network packets or latency issue's.
Click to expand...

This. I was amazed with Hairworx in The Witcher 3 for the first hour. Even though it never slowed down to unplayable levels, I just yearned for a smoother experience. Disabling Hairworx gave a huge performance increase, with the rest of the settings maxed out. Suffice to say, I don't even notice the absence of Hairworx anymore.

I can say the same for Far Cry 4. Simulated fur isn't used all that often in the game, so turning it off made barely any difference to the visuals. It did, however, make sure the game stayed at 50+ FPS.

So, in summary, I tend to fiddle with high impact, low fidelity settings first to balance out visuals and performance. First setting I usually drop is AA, as it usually has the biggest impact on performance. I try to keep it as close to maxed out though...
 
Well, it depends... it depends really on too many things. I want the animation and gameplay to feel smooth, irrespective of the actual framerate. I've played titles that pump 30FPS without so much as a stutter, and then I have played titles pumping 90+ FPS that seems jerky and twitchy at times.

I have no skaam dropping graphics down to keep a title from becoming jerky, but framerate only goes that far.
 
I am all about framerates. I have always said that good animation and movement will beat good graphics for assisting with immersion. Look at Prince of Persia 1 and Flashback for instance, exquisite animation making the games still highly playable today.

Same for framerates, i see choppy movement Im done, its an eyesore.

Playing Arma 2 and I have all textures and anti-alias, anisotropic filtering all turned off but boosted the view distance and kept the res to 1080. Its an infinetily better, smoother playing experience comapred to better graphics that are jerky.
 
Balance for SP. All the way down for MP (or well mostly)....found that most are programmed in a way that FPS affects the responsiveness of the inputs....so even though its smooth at higher settings its still a competitive disadvantage.
 
Personally I just prefer smooth gameplay. Some may argue, but as long as I hit a "CONSISTENT" 30 fps I am happy. However, in more recent years I have been able to afford a PC that can sustain 60 fps for a lot of titles, and I often feel the Ultra High setting and Medium setting only have marginal graphical fidelity differences, but the performance difference can be vast. So, as much as I love 60 fps, I just need minimum of 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top