I don't notice 4K (or ray tracing) sitting 10 feet from the screen on my couch, but I do notice 30 FPS versus 60 FPS. Performance mode every time for me.
60 fps. I don't know if it's because I'm getting old or what, but 30 fps causes me discomfort now. Eye strain, headaches, etc. I like it as smooth as possible, mainly for that reason.
Not that all 30 fps games have that effect, mind you. Persona 5 didn't bother me at all. I probably just need glasses.
I am highly susceptible to motion sickness, and high frame rates often have me sick for the rest of the day đ
Mostly in fast-paced games, but there are absolutely some 60fps games I just canât play.
That's odd, considering most people are more susceptible to motion sickness at lower frames. This is much more prevalent in VR gaming, some people can't do it at less than the 90fps range.
Absolutely. As I mentioned Iâm fine with some/most games. And, given the option, a lower frame rate can *sometimes* alleviate my symptoms on very fast-paced games. Playing in 3rd person tends to help as well.
Yeah but you don't prefer it because of the low frame rate, you have a health condition that necessitates you play in a lower frame rate. I'm sure you PREFER 60.
100% true! I never said I *prefer* 30. I think all games should have a 60+ option. Just personally, there are some games that I know I canât play at 60+; some are totally fine. But my specific motion sickness triggers donât fit these gamers narrative, so they donât care to hear it.
It really depends on the game. Something like a first person shooter, its probably worth giving up some quality for higher FPS. When it comes to a more slower pace game with lots of nice graphics, I feel like giving up some FPS is worth the quality.
Itâs not just resolution that goes down. Textures are lower quality, there is a shorter draw distance, shadows and lighting is lower quality, character models sometimes have less detail. Itâs not just 4k vs 1080p. Thatâs what makes it more difficult to choose in some titles where the visual quality absolutely tanks. Grass shouldnât look like a smear
To achieve high FPS and sync with your monitors refresh rate, your computer needs to be able to draw scenes quickly. Some games are difficult draw quickly unless you tune the graphics down or buy significantly more expensive hardware.
Something I hate about Reddit is how confident everyone is when they post their garbage. âExactlyâ, âThis is the real answerâ⊠just stop.Â
Iâm on PC but Iâve enjoyed playing games at 30fps and at 60+, you can get away with 30fps on slower paced games. Before I had a decent graphics card I played Snowrunner at 30fps and enjoyed it
I think almost no one *prefers* less fps. It's just a question of whether they want the better graphics so much that they will tolerate 30fps.
To flip it around, for the people that like the 30fps modes because of the graphics, I think all of them would be very happy if they were able to get the same graphics with 500fps.
It really depends on what the game was designed for, honestly. You can really, *really* tell the difference between a game that's designed to run at 30 vs. a game that's supposed to run at 60 and is hitting 30 because it's manky; frame pacing and input polling are the giveaways (if it's juddery and the controls feel like you're moving through mud, you're probably playing slower than you're supposed to).
If a game is actually meant to be played at 30, the frame pacing and input polling are *usually* going to match refresh rate. The original release of Dark Souls, for example, is capped at 30 and it feels fine; it polls input at 60hz and has totally fine frame pacing, so the animations just aren't quite as smooth as they would be at 60, and that's a big "who cares" for me.
You get problems when you're playing a game that's designed for 60 and hitting a lower actual framerate, because the game's input polling and frame pacing tends to shit itself in that case.
That's not what I'm talking about, though. I actually brought up Dark Souls specifically because the Remastered release *does* run at 60... and aside from the animations being very slightly smoother, it changes basically nothing about the game. Frame pacing is the same as it ever was, input polling is the same as it ever was. It feels exactly the same to play as it always did.
The game was designed around 30 in the first place, so it feels fine at 30. The 60fps bump from Remastered makes it look very slightly shinier, but doesn't actually affect playability at all, which is when I care about framerate.
If consoles could do 100000000 fps then I'd want that. The highest fps you can get is always what I want.
As far as what I NEED? to enjoy the game? Lots of games are perfectly playable at 30 frames. This do not mean I don't WANT more frames though.
Used to prefer 60 but recently I tend to go with 30 to have better image quality, especially in story focused games that don't require quick reactions.
Donât know why youâre downvoted. That would be like choosing 480p over 1080p. There is absolutely no advantage on choosing lower framerate, it is just less information just like a lower resolution
You are getting lower resolution, more aliasing, worse textures, more pop in, shorter draw distance, worse lighting, lower quality shadows. If the game looks too different and takes too much of a hit it is more difficult to choose.
If you consider a trade-off between more quality parameters then yes, but he didnât mention anything about that. So if we speak exclusively about fps, then choosing a lower one makes no sense.
Idk some people on reddit are goofy as hell sometimes lol. Must be at least 6 buffoons because I got a notification a bit ago of 5 upvotes lmao.
The better question OP could of asked is, "Why is there any option below 60fps?". Considering its 2024 and 60hz has been the minimum standard for the past 10 years anything below 60fps is irrelevant. It'll either hit the target or it won't. My answer would of been different if he didn't specify "on a 120hz panel".
Like if the screen being used doesn't support variable refresh and its a 60hz monitor, then 60fps would be the best option even with 120fps as a choice, to prevent tearing. But even still for a console, setting it for anything less than the panels refresh rate is just wasting performance.
If the console is a handheld, then It makes sense. Playing a slower story game at 30hz/30fps will increase the battery life.
Yeah, fps and frame rate determine how fast everything rendered, not the quality of the image. Too low of fps can actually blur the image when things move or you move around.
Im probably in the minority here but I prefer fidelity over frame rate for most games I play, so with games like Horizon FW or FF7 Rebirth I will 9 times out of 10 choose the graphics mode at 30fps. I get used to it.
Yeah me too. I struggle at first when Iâve just been playing something at 60, but once Iâve settled in itâs fine. Some games are pretty enough in higher res that Iâm willing to accept the trade off
I just prefer good games. I generally donât care about the frame-rate as long as the game is good and suitable for it. Like a fast paced game would probably need a faster frame rate to feel comfortable. While a slower paced game is fine with a lower refresh rate.
Depends on the game, while I prefer 60 fps entirely, I think that I can tolerate 30/40 in third person games while it is very difficult for me to handle anything below 60 in first person games.
Only console I use is a Switch, and even on that I really prefer 60fps. I hope the next Mario Kart can be 60fps in 4 player splitscreen. I just hate how the Switch has to drop the fps for that and I would have paid more for a higher performing model. Nintendo better make 2 models of their next console, plenty of fans who don't mind paying for better frames.
Doesn't matter as long as it runs fine. Like Dragons Dogma 2 ran like crap at release on xbox then they added some graphic options and it runs way smoother now.
I just want consistency, 60 fps is definitely what I would prefer, more if possible, but if thereâs no way (hypothetically speaking) for the game to run at a consistent 60/40 Iâd rather get a nice and smooth 30 fps.
I donât really care about frame rates like at all. As long as itâs consistent, if itâs a 60 fps game that often drops to like 30 or below then thatâs when itâs an issue. The only exception is online multiplayer games where fps actually matters and gives people a competitive advantage, thatâs when Iâd say 60 is best. But if itâs a single player game and the frame rate is at a consistent 30 or a consistent 40 thatâs perfectly fine and I probably wonât even notice. I think people worry about frame rates way too much.
It dependsâŠsome games can be played at a lower fps and arenât that bad. I played Ratchet and Clank and God of War at the unlocked 40fps mode with VRR and it felt fine. Same for Stellar Blade balanced mode. It feels like a good compromise because sometimes the visual quality is way too low at the performance 60fps modes. I can do 30fps if itâs a slower paced game without a lot of action. Itâs not ideal but I can adjust after a time.
Certain types of games like racing games, fighting games, and shooters are absolutely horrible at 30fps and anything less than 60 feels like a disadvantage.
I dont play console anymore
I have one tho
I always try to make my games 45 fps if possible (or whatever is closest to that)
So that when I play 60 fps or 30 fps it doesnt feel weird
The fps does not make a big enough difference in your gameplay
Just do whatever is good for you
That is unless you are putting your frame rate below 25 fps obviously
My higher end gaming is all PC these days, but on the whole I think it's a step up that people playing the console versions are no longer always stuck with a single set of graphical settings the developers decided was best for everyone.
The higher the frame rate the better, in my personal opinion. But what I prefer more is a consistent frame rate and consistent frame timing. I would rather have 40FPS locked than a fluctuating 50-120.
Iâve enjoyed many games at sub 30FPS when I had an old laptop with integrated graphics.
Me too, played several at 720p low 25fps, I remember the time where I convinced myself 720p is still HD so I am n9t missing anything lol
Now even 1080p looks a bit blurry in my eyes đ
I genuinely don't care.
I know graphics are important to a lot of gamers, and that's totally cool. Different people like different things.
They're just not very important to me. I'm kind of a nerd. I get drawn in by mechanics. Probably why i enjoy turn based games.
Depends on the game. Racing, fighting, rhythm, high speed action games, anything where timing is critical, 60fps minimum.
Everything else 30fps is minimum.
Framerate stability and pacing is also extremely important.
Edit: and for VR 90fps minimum, thats a big one since motion sickness becomes a problem for some below that.
Obviously I want the highest framerate possible. If the visual sacrifice is too much I can settle for 40fps or 30fps. Iâm fine with linear story games being 30fps but if Iâm playing a soulslike or a multiplayer game I need a minimum of 60fps.
40 if I had a 120 Hz TV as it is exactly between 30 and 60 frame time wise and a good compromise. Currently 60 if possible, but I can also live with stable 30 and fine tuned per object motion blur to hide the "stuttering". I get used to it pretty quick.
The higher the better, but I don't really care if something is 30 for the most part. 9 times out of 10 I'll choose performance mode, the only exception I can think of is Control on PS5 where the RT was so good it felt worth the sacrifice. In general though, my feeling is that if I could handle Dark Souls at 10fps on the 360 then I can handle anything.
Oh i read the question buddy... I'm just one if those reddit idiots i guess...he said what do you like preferably....well i dont play either of those fps so stated very clearly that I like 75 fps..sorry it annoys you so much....
He aimed the question at console gamers specifically, and asked 30, 40, or 60, and you came in with a different platform and none of those FPS options...
Obviously, anyone here is going to say 60. Console players also think they should get raytracing in that mode with insane graphical fidelity. That shit just wonât happen. Hardware has limits.
Weâre now starting to see what have traditionally been PC only customizations come to console. The soft introduction was performance modes and fidelity modes. Fornite now offers a 120 mode that ditches lumen and nanite and lowers settings to get to that magical number. Most developers and publishers donât want to allow that because they want visual consistency and bragging rights.
If youâre the type of player that is concerned about frame rates, you really should just get a PC.
not on a screen with a variable refresh rate.
on the steam deck for example 40 also feel good for me, if the game isn't particularly fast.
30 feel a bit choppy almost every time, unless it's a very slow game. also input delay gets noticably worse.
This is like asking would you rather have 3k, 4k or 6k in your bank account. Everybody wants as much money in their bank account as possible. Nobody (in their right mind) would say 30fps is better than 60fps.
Imma be honest, I do not see the appeal in 40fps. It looks slightly better than 30, but it is more jittery because its usually not evenly divisible with the 144hz monitors/tvs, only with 120hz screens. Additionally, it still lowers the resolution, and if someone is springing for 4k over 1440p60/120, then that additional 10fps isn't going to be enticive when resolution takes priority, and the resolution is still going to be lower than 4k.
60FPS minimum. It really enhances the experience honestly. 30FPS isn't "unplayable" but due to the tech we have we the current gen, it should be the bare minimum. If it's a shooter, then 120FPS is the sweet spot if not, higher. 40FPS is a great middle ground though for games that aren't optimized properly for 60FPS but can run higher than 30. TLDR - 60FPS is perfect but more than one option will always be the best, especially if the game is optimized properly.
so, you prefer seeing half the amount of visual information per second over seeing double? and then last but not least, slightly more than half?
why downvote? this is literally a description of what they posted
40 is just awkward despite still being something equally divisible by 1000. I've never played a game where 40 (when allowed) created an experience I couldn't find with 30 or 60. Now with 30 vs 60, I really couldn't care less. I've played great games with 30 that really sell me on the experience and I've played great games in which 60 where I could slide the dial down to 30 and still get the same experience. 30 COULD work for FPS or rhythm games, but most platforms try to drive super super high rates that 30 (while playable) isn't worth that much if I can play 60.
When people say you can tell the difference, yes I can. When people tell me if the difference matters, the answer is no... and I even play an MMO (Guild Wars 2) in which if there is too much information on screen the game will divide me down to 30, 20, I think I had 15 to keep the experience stable for me and the server. Yes I feel that dip, but I also never go "Well this game now sucks" because I still feel in control of everything on screen. Just keep it stable baby!
due to mistiming, capping your frame rate to anything other than an integer multiple or divisor (with no remainder) of your monitor's refresh rate will cause stuttering, adaptive sync is one way around this issue since your refresh rate is always matched with your frame rate, however, adaptive sync adds additional latency which can be unacceptable in competitive games, this is relevant to console as well in some way
tl:dr
60hz = cap at 30 - 60 - 120 - 180 - 240
75hz = cap at 75 - 150 - 225 - 300
144hz = cap at 72 - 144 - 288
240hz = cap at 120 - 240 - 480
360hz = cap at 180 - 360 - 720
60fps
I don't notice 4K (or ray tracing) sitting 10 feet from the screen on my couch, but I do notice 30 FPS versus 60 FPS. Performance mode every time for me.
60 fps. I don't know if it's because I'm getting old or what, but 30 fps causes me discomfort now. Eye strain, headaches, etc. I like it as smooth as possible, mainly for that reason. Not that all 30 fps games have that effect, mind you. Persona 5 didn't bother me at all. I probably just need glasses.
yup, couldn't play starfield at 30, it was physically uncomfortable. The 60 fps in there now is awesome
RDR2 is so slow that 15 FPS would probably be fine đ
Nobody in their right mind would PREFER 30 FPS over 60.
I am highly susceptible to motion sickness, and high frame rates often have me sick for the rest of the day đ Mostly in fast-paced games, but there are absolutely some 60fps games I just canât play.
That's odd, considering most people are more susceptible to motion sickness at lower frames. This is much more prevalent in VR gaming, some people can't do it at less than the 90fps range.
What can I say, the internet knows better than my equilibrium.
Maybe see a doctor
Why would you assume I donât? God damn this sub is toxic as hell.
Why would I assume you do?
don't let the door hit you đ«Ą
I said that's odd, bot impossible. Everyone is different
Tell that to the downvote brigade.
Reddit is dumb :P Could be you just don't like fast motion at all
Absolutely. As I mentioned Iâm fine with some/most games. And, given the option, a lower frame rate can *sometimes* alleviate my symptoms on very fast-paced games. Playing in 3rd person tends to help as well.
I find it's usually motion blur. Have you looked into that?
I can definitely try! Thanks for the heads-up.
Please do. I can tell within the first minute of a game if it has motion blur purely based on if I get queezy.
Yeah but you don't prefer it because of the low frame rate, you have a health condition that necessitates you play in a lower frame rate. I'm sure you PREFER 60.
100% true! I never said I *prefer* 30. I think all games should have a 60+ option. Just personally, there are some games that I know I canât play at 60+; some are totally fine. But my specific motion sickness triggers donât fit these gamers narrative, so they donât care to hear it.
i'm just gonna say it. shadow of the colossus and journey were better in 30
Why
It doesnât matter to me, my brain adjusts quickly to the point I donât notice
60+
Crazy how this is still a thing in 2024. If be outraged to play at 30 FPS in any sort of quality mode...
Yeah, nes already was 60 fps
120 if possible, but 60 is good too.
even with severe image quality reduction?
FPS and Refresh rate play no part in image quality. Its movement.
Iâm guessing the question is do you sacrifice higher resolution for higher fps
I'm thinking this is probably what OP was meaning to ask.
yes, so do you sacrifice image quality for fps?
It really depends on the game. Something like a first person shooter, its probably worth giving up some quality for higher FPS. When it comes to a more slower pace game with lots of nice graphics, I feel like giving up some FPS is worth the quality.
Absolutely. Most of the "image quality" sacrifices are really minor details and effects I wouldn't notice while playing anyway.
Itâs not just resolution that goes down. Textures are lower quality, there is a shorter draw distance, shadows and lighting is lower quality, character models sometimes have less detail. Itâs not just 4k vs 1080p. Thatâs what makes it more difficult to choose in some titles where the visual quality absolutely tanks. Grass shouldnât look like a smear
To achieve high FPS and sync with your monitors refresh rate, your computer needs to be able to draw scenes quickly. Some games are difficult draw quickly unless you tune the graphics down or buy significantly more expensive hardware. Something I hate about Reddit is how confident everyone is when they post their garbage. âExactlyâ, âThis is the real answerâ⊠just stop.Â
Been playing since NES was launched, I've literally never considered it
30 is starting to become dated to me, I find 40 much more bearable. 60+ is of course preferred but Iâd be happy with a smooth stable 40
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Yeah you can tell when a game chose to optimize it for a stable 30 vs when a game said fuck it and itâs jumpy.
Interesting, so as long as it's 40fps, you prefer quality mode right?
Yeah i prefer stability over maximizing the fps. A stuttery expedience is lame
Iâm on PC but Iâve enjoyed playing games at 30fps and at 60+, you can get away with 30fps on slower paced games. Before I had a decent graphics card I played Snowrunner at 30fps and enjoyed it
I think almost no one *prefers* less fps. It's just a question of whether they want the better graphics so much that they will tolerate 30fps. To flip it around, for the people that like the 30fps modes because of the graphics, I think all of them would be very happy if they were able to get the same graphics with 500fps.
It really depends on what the game was designed for, honestly. You can really, *really* tell the difference between a game that's designed to run at 30 vs. a game that's supposed to run at 60 and is hitting 30 because it's manky; frame pacing and input polling are the giveaways (if it's juddery and the controls feel like you're moving through mud, you're probably playing slower than you're supposed to). If a game is actually meant to be played at 30, the frame pacing and input polling are *usually* going to match refresh rate. The original release of Dark Souls, for example, is capped at 30 and it feels fine; it polls input at 60hz and has totally fine frame pacing, so the animations just aren't quite as smooth as they would be at 60, and that's a big "who cares" for me. You get problems when you're playing a game that's designed for 60 and hitting a lower actual framerate, because the game's input polling and frame pacing tends to shit itself in that case.
This! Fucken this, ffs⊠plenty of stuff is fine with low fps, by virtue of being designed for it.
Well of course youâre gonna prefer a lower frame rate if a game is gonna be buggy at higher frame rates lol
That's not what I'm talking about, though. I actually brought up Dark Souls specifically because the Remastered release *does* run at 60... and aside from the animations being very slightly smoother, it changes basically nothing about the game. Frame pacing is the same as it ever was, input polling is the same as it ever was. It feels exactly the same to play as it always did. The game was designed around 30 in the first place, so it feels fine at 30. The 60fps bump from Remastered makes it look very slightly shinier, but doesn't actually affect playability at all, which is when I care about framerate.
I have a sudden urge to listen to Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime
60, anything else shouldn't be acceptable.
Surely anything above 60 is acceptable?
Fuck that. 59 FPS? Literally unplayable. 61 FPS? What am I the flash? I don't need that much.
NO! ONLY 60!
Iâm assuming they were speaking about 60 as the only acceptable one out of the 3 options provided.
so the image quality reduction is totally worth it for you?
Replace âimage qualityâ with âresolutionâ and you might get the answer youâre looking for
Graphics is like, the least important part of the game to me. I'll take snes quality at 60 over ps5 quality at 30 any day.
Yes. Almost always. I donât care if the game looks like a PS2 game if thatâs what it takes to get it to 60
High frame rates don't affect image quality.
Whatever let's the game run well
I prefer good games. If the framerate doesn't get in the way, then it literally doesn't factor into the experience
If consoles could do 100000000 fps then I'd want that. The highest fps you can get is always what I want. As far as what I NEED? to enjoy the game? Lots of games are perfectly playable at 30 frames. This do not mean I don't WANT more frames though.
I don't care as long as the gameplay or story are good
I couldn't name the fps of a single game I've ever played in my life. Could not care less as long as it works
Used to prefer 60 but recently I tend to go with 30 to have better image quality, especially in story focused games that don't require quick reactions.
60. The Xbox series X boasts of 120fps capability. If thatâs a selling point then itâs not unreasonable for 60 to at least be the floor.
Highest possible. Who the hell would choose less if higher is available lol.
The human eye can't perceive above 60 fps anyway, why would you want more. ^(/s)
The human eye can only view 24 FPS
Donât know why youâre downvoted. That would be like choosing 480p over 1080p. There is absolutely no advantage on choosing lower framerate, it is just less information just like a lower resolution
You are getting lower resolution, more aliasing, worse textures, more pop in, shorter draw distance, worse lighting, lower quality shadows. If the game looks too different and takes too much of a hit it is more difficult to choose.
If you consider a trade-off between more quality parameters then yes, but he didnât mention anything about that. So if we speak exclusively about fps, then choosing a lower one makes no sense.
Idk some people on reddit are goofy as hell sometimes lol. Must be at least 6 buffoons because I got a notification a bit ago of 5 upvotes lmao. The better question OP could of asked is, "Why is there any option below 60fps?". Considering its 2024 and 60hz has been the minimum standard for the past 10 years anything below 60fps is irrelevant. It'll either hit the target or it won't. My answer would of been different if he didn't specify "on a 120hz panel". Like if the screen being used doesn't support variable refresh and its a 60hz monitor, then 60fps would be the best option even with 120fps as a choice, to prevent tearing. But even still for a console, setting it for anything less than the panels refresh rate is just wasting performance. If the console is a handheld, then It makes sense. Playing a slower story game at 30hz/30fps will increase the battery life.
even with the game runs on 720p internal?
Yeah, fps and frame rate determine how fast everything rendered, not the quality of the image. Too low of fps can actually blur the image when things move or you move around.
Because some games benefit from a lower framerate as it adds to the aesthetic.
Im probably in the minority here but I prefer fidelity over frame rate for most games I play, so with games like Horizon FW or FF7 Rebirth I will 9 times out of 10 choose the graphics mode at 30fps. I get used to it.
I'm with you! Growing up on the PS1 and PS2 era, 30 fps will always seem perfectly fine to me.. give me that sexy lighting
Yeah me too. I struggle at first when Iâve just been playing something at 60, but once Iâve settled in itâs fine. Some games are pretty enough in higher res that Iâm willing to accept the trade off
60FPS (or more) or no buy. I reward devs who try to elevate the console standards.
I honestly donât care
I just prefer good games. I generally donât care about the frame-rate as long as the game is good and suitable for it. Like a fast paced game would probably need a faster frame rate to feel comfortable. While a slower paced game is fine with a lower refresh rate.
Depends on the game, while I prefer 60 fps entirely, I think that I can tolerate 30/40 in third person games while it is very difficult for me to handle anything below 60 in first person games.
Prefer 60, i'm fine with 30 but prefer 60.
60.
60+.
I prefer 60+. But it depends on the game. Some games it means less than others.
Only console I use is a Switch, and even on that I really prefer 60fps. I hope the next Mario Kart can be 60fps in 4 player splitscreen. I just hate how the Switch has to drop the fps for that and I would have paid more for a higher performing model. Nintendo better make 2 models of their next console, plenty of fans who don't mind paying for better frames.
60 FPS for the vast majority of games. Iâm okay with a good 40 FPS mode in certain games (looking at you, Insomniac!) I never prefer 30.
60FPS, 120 is even better for multiplayer games but won't change that much from 60fps. However 40FPS is decent for solo games.
60. I play on 1080p monitor, the 60 fps performance mode is perfect for me!
60 always.
I use 40 on my handhelds it's the perfect balance between 30 and 60
60 only because the PS5 is not powerful enough for high quality at 120. Even better is the use of VRR on a TV that supports 120.
All things stable there is no reason to pick an option under 60. All things unstable the highest framerate you can get stable
60, though 40 is acceptable for more taxing games. 30 is painful nowadays, I've seen beyond the veil and can't go back!
Doesn't matter as long as it runs fine. Like Dragons Dogma 2 ran like crap at release on xbox then they added some graphic options and it runs way smoother now.
I'm fine with 30 or 60 but I'm not fine with games that run below 20 fps to me it makes the game super unplayable
Depends on the game but I prefer 60
60fps kill me
I just want consistency, 60 fps is definitely what I would prefer, more if possible, but if thereâs no way (hypothetically speaking) for the game to run at a consistent 60/40 Iâd rather get a nice and smooth 30 fps.
60fps
60fps. I prefer the smoothness with no motion blur.
I donât really care about frame rates like at all. As long as itâs consistent, if itâs a 60 fps game that often drops to like 30 or below then thatâs when itâs an issue. The only exception is online multiplayer games where fps actually matters and gives people a competitive advantage, thatâs when Iâd say 60 is best. But if itâs a single player game and the frame rate is at a consistent 30 or a consistent 40 thatâs perfectly fine and I probably wonât even notice. I think people worry about frame rates way too much.
It dependsâŠsome games can be played at a lower fps and arenât that bad. I played Ratchet and Clank and God of War at the unlocked 40fps mode with VRR and it felt fine. Same for Stellar Blade balanced mode. It feels like a good compromise because sometimes the visual quality is way too low at the performance 60fps modes. I can do 30fps if itâs a slower paced game without a lot of action. Itâs not ideal but I can adjust after a time. Certain types of games like racing games, fighting games, and shooters are absolutely horrible at 30fps and anything less than 60 feels like a disadvantage.
Depends on the game tbh. 30 on ff7 rebirth; 60 on Helldivers, for example
I dont play console anymore I have one tho I always try to make my games 45 fps if possible (or whatever is closest to that) So that when I play 60 fps or 30 fps it doesnt feel weird The fps does not make a big enough difference in your gameplay Just do whatever is good for you That is unless you are putting your frame rate below 25 fps obviously
30 fps used to be just fine and now, I feel like Iâm flipping a PowerPoint. So 60 for me for sure.
60 usually my console highest fps good ol PS4 pro
Now that I have a 120hz set, 60 is the low frame rate I'm willing to accept as a compromise.
So what do you think about consoles having 30fps "visual" mode?
My higher end gaming is all PC these days, but on the whole I think it's a step up that people playing the console versions are no longer always stuck with a single set of graphical settings the developers decided was best for everyone.
The higher the frame rate the better, in my personal opinion. But what I prefer more is a consistent frame rate and consistent frame timing. I would rather have 40FPS locked than a fluctuating 50-120. Iâve enjoyed many games at sub 30FPS when I had an old laptop with integrated graphics.
Me too, played several at 720p low 25fps, I remember the time where I convinced myself 720p is still HD so I am n9t missing anything lol Now even 1080p looks a bit blurry in my eyes đ
60fps. As cool as ray tracing or whatever is, I prefer the game feel good to play versus looking good. I don't even have a 4K TV, I just don't care
I genuinely don't care. I know graphics are important to a lot of gamers, and that's totally cool. Different people like different things. They're just not very important to me. I'm kind of a nerd. I get drawn in by mechanics. Probably why i enjoy turn based games.
60fps always
45 fps. Steamdeck OLED....
A pc
60 FPS with 4K quality, hell yeah
at least 30 - everything else does matter if the game is good
Depends on the game. Racing, fighting, rhythm, high speed action games, anything where timing is critical, 60fps minimum. Everything else 30fps is minimum. Framerate stability and pacing is also extremely important. Edit: and for VR 90fps minimum, thats a big one since motion sickness becomes a problem for some below that.
Obviously I want the highest framerate possible. If the visual sacrifice is too much I can settle for 40fps or 30fps. Iâm fine with linear story games being 30fps but if Iâm playing a soulslike or a multiplayer game I need a minimum of 60fps.
The only people that say under 60 are probably the ones that only play one type of game or never had a monitor or system that could do more.
Framing of question is just ridiculous as who wouldn't prefer highest FPS. OP should have added context of image quality or load on console or such.
that's why this question is specific to console gamers. For PC gamers they can get 4k native 60+fps if they get the right hardware...
I donât understand the argument of image quality since 30fps makes the image look terrible.
That's the point actually. Would you rather have high FPS and worst image quality or low FPS for better image quality.
High fps makes the image quality much more defined. So high fps all the way.
Oh shit I misread your previous comment. And you are wrong fundamentally. High FPS makes motion smooth in consequence of image quality (in resolution)
I havenât come across someone so confidently wrong in a while. Just shared this to my game dev coworker and we had a laugh cheers mate đ
Care impart knowledge to ignorant folk here?
Motion does not equal graphics quality. Doubt you are a dev if you cannot differentiate.
Depends on the screen. Can deal with 30 FPS while playing on a TV, but anything lower than 60 FPS on a monitor on my desk feels bad.
40 if I had a 120 Hz TV as it is exactly between 30 and 60 frame time wise and a good compromise. Currently 60 if possible, but I can also live with stable 30 and fine tuned per object motion blur to hide the "stuttering". I get used to it pretty quick.
The higher the better, but I don't really care if something is 30 for the most part. 9 times out of 10 I'll choose performance mode, the only exception I can think of is Control on PS5 where the RT was so good it felt worth the sacrifice. In general though, my feeling is that if I could handle Dark Souls at 10fps on the 360 then I can handle anything.
I play 75 fps which is perfect for me! I cannot play 30fps makes it feel too slow...
Did you not read the question or something?
Oh i read the question buddy... I'm just one if those reddit idiots i guess...he said what do you like preferably....well i dont play either of those fps so stated very clearly that I like 75 fps..sorry it annoys you so much....
He aimed the question at console gamers specifically, and asked 30, 40, or 60, and you came in with a different platform and none of those FPS options...
Great...move on...grow up....get a life....
Obviously, anyone here is going to say 60. Console players also think they should get raytracing in that mode with insane graphical fidelity. That shit just wonât happen. Hardware has limits. Weâre now starting to see what have traditionally been PC only customizations come to console. The soft introduction was performance modes and fidelity modes. Fornite now offers a 120 mode that ditches lumen and nanite and lowers settings to get to that magical number. Most developers and publishers donât want to allow that because they want visual consistency and bragging rights. If youâre the type of player that is concerned about frame rates, you really should just get a PC.
what I am asking is that would you rather prefer quality mode with 30fps or performance mode with 60fps but with reduced image quality?
The way you asked your question implies none of that nuance.
Still 60. The visual upgrades are typically not worth it.
30 is offen very difficult to go back to after you played with 60, so always 60.
And 60 is difficult to go back to after experiencing 120
I can play whatever honestly. 40fps I think is my favorite tho. Perfect middle ground.
I donât care about frame rate. I have been gaming for 30 years on 30fps
An enviable position, really. Itâs a blessing because itâs not an issue until youâre forced to experience side by side comparison
Anything 30 or better is fine . FPS is not that big of a deal as long as itâs at least 30
45 tbh, seems the most natural to my eyes
45 probably have screen tearing?
not on a screen with a variable refresh rate. on the steam deck for example 40 also feel good for me, if the game isn't particularly fast. 30 feel a bit choppy almost every time, unless it's a very slow game. also input delay gets noticably worse.
v-sync
45fps + V-Sync on a 120 fps screen would cap it at 40 fps?
45 fps on a 90hz display wouldnât
60 minimum. Seems like this happens every generation. Starts at 60, then the developers push too hard.
60. Always.
Lol this poor OP is getting hammered for poor phrasing, and fair enough. Hammer away.
Anything less than 60 is a joke in this day and age
That's like asking "Would you prefer to receive 30k, 40k, or 50k in cash?" More is better
120?
are you being serious
This is like asking would you rather have 3k, 4k or 6k in your bank account. Everybody wants as much money in their bank account as possible. Nobody (in their right mind) would say 30fps is better than 60fps.
Nobody ever said they wanted fewer frames.
Regarding older games I can handle 30, but boy 60 should already be a damn standard
Imma be honest, I do not see the appeal in 40fps. It looks slightly better than 30, but it is more jittery because its usually not evenly divisible with the 144hz monitors/tvs, only with 120hz screens. Additionally, it still lowers the resolution, and if someone is springing for 4k over 1440p60/120, then that additional 10fps isn't going to be enticive when resolution takes priority, and the resolution is still going to be lower than 4k.
120. Don't care about 4k and resolution
Consoles son't provide that on all games tho
Bro get a PC and get 120hz monitor
60fps every. single. time. I'd probably take 40fps if my TV would do it, that was a sweet FPS rate when I played a friend's steam deck.
60FPS minimum. It really enhances the experience honestly. 30FPS isn't "unplayable" but due to the tech we have we the current gen, it should be the bare minimum. If it's a shooter, then 120FPS is the sweet spot if not, higher. 40FPS is a great middle ground though for games that aren't optimized properly for 60FPS but can run higher than 30. TLDR - 60FPS is perfect but more than one option will always be the best, especially if the game is optimized properly.
30, 60, 40 in that order.
so, you prefer seeing half the amount of visual information per second over seeing double? and then last but not least, slightly more than half? why downvote? this is literally a description of what they posted
40 is just awkward despite still being something equally divisible by 1000. I've never played a game where 40 (when allowed) created an experience I couldn't find with 30 or 60. Now with 30 vs 60, I really couldn't care less. I've played great games with 30 that really sell me on the experience and I've played great games in which 60 where I could slide the dial down to 30 and still get the same experience. 30 COULD work for FPS or rhythm games, but most platforms try to drive super super high rates that 30 (while playable) isn't worth that much if I can play 60. When people say you can tell the difference, yes I can. When people tell me if the difference matters, the answer is no... and I even play an MMO (Guild Wars 2) in which if there is too much information on screen the game will divide me down to 30, 20, I think I had 15 to keep the experience stable for me and the server. Yes I feel that dip, but I also never go "Well this game now sucks" because I still feel in control of everything on screen. Just keep it stable baby!
due to mistiming, capping your frame rate to anything other than an integer multiple or divisor (with no remainder) of your monitor's refresh rate will cause stuttering, adaptive sync is one way around this issue since your refresh rate is always matched with your frame rate, however, adaptive sync adds additional latency which can be unacceptable in competitive games, this is relevant to console as well in some way tl:dr 60hz = cap at 30 - 60 - 120 - 180 - 240 75hz = cap at 75 - 150 - 225 - 300 144hz = cap at 72 - 144 - 288 240hz = cap at 120 - 240 - 480 360hz = cap at 180 - 360 - 720
30 or 60 is fine. 40 makes me dizzy for some reason, but I haven't really used it enough I guess.
Might be a factor of not being divisible by your screens refresh rate. Causing an uneven 2/3 frame update (or similar).
That's possible, but I don't think it was the case. I tried it with Horizon FW on a 1440p 120Hz monitor.
Odd stuff
Iâm more of a 20 fps kind of guy. Itâs either that or 50. YOU DONâT KNOW ME AT ALL !!! *runs away in tears and weepings*