Current Events > Frame rate > graphics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Graphics don't mean shit unless I'm getting a steady 60 fps or higher

The human eye can't even see more than 480p anyway

---

Graphics don't matter but let's not pretend that art direction doesn't matter.

---

Honestly, realistic graphics are boring af to me anymore. Cool art and framerate is farrr more important.

Honestly kinda love N64/PS1 graphics in HD with great framerate.
---

I don't understand the point of putting in work and crafting the feel of your game only to have that interrupted by stuttering or choppy framerates.

The sound not matching what you are looking at in the screen can break the immersion even if the graphics are photo realistic.

---

I'm glad more games are offering the 60fps option. I really like the 1080p 60FPS ray tracing option since my TV is 1080p.

---

first thing i do on any game is set it to performance mode

---

I just want stability tbh.

I'd take a solid stable 30fps over a 60fps that keeps noticeably dropping.
I don't give a fig about 4k or Raytracing either, put the resources into stability.

---

The human eye cant see more than 144p 7fps

DravenRainrix posted...

I'd take a solid stable 30fps over a 60fps that keeps noticeably dropping.

A stable game at 30 is shitter than an unstable game at 60 with drops to 30

Ive been playing God of War 1 on the PS2 and it looks fine to me.

---

Theres rare instances where graphics more than make up for 30fps per second. Where you rather be playing GTA III at 120fps despite the outdated gameplay mechanics, lack of physics, and limited NPCs on screen? Or would you like a fleshed out world like GTA V at 30 fps?

With that said, I would love to have a game like RDR2 run at 60 fps on console, but I wouldnt want to sacrifice the graphics. I want both.

---

DravenRainrix posted...

I just want stability tbh.

I'd take a solid stable 30fps over a 60fps that keeps noticeably dropping.
I don't give a fig about 4k or Raytracing either, put the resources into stability.

Unstable frame rates are fine if you have variable refresh rate display support. I'm glad that's finally made its way to console gaming.

---

The human eye cannot see more than 30 frames per second so this is immaterial

---

pinky0926 posted...

The human eye cannot see more than 30 frames per second so this is immaterial

the human eyes cannot perceive the amount of bullshit in this statement

Kloe_Rinz posted...

the human eyes cannot perceive the amount of bullshit in this statement

your message is refreshing at a steady 60fps therefore i cannot read it

---

Agreed TC

---

How about both with no compromises?

---

to what degree. i can get 4k/60 for a lot of stuff on my pc. i'm not gonna go to 1080p/whatever the limit is on a single player game. but i'd rather have 1440p/60 than 4k/30. there's levels.

---

Depends on genre and such. Imma take 30FPS but tons of details for a slower paced 3D game. But if I'm Racing or In some high octane real time combat gimmie that 60FPS.

---

120FPS @ 180p

---

ArianaGrandSlam posted...

love the internet

It sounds like you ignored the second half of what I said. Have you ever use a Gsync or Freesync monitor before? Obviously, staying at a stable frame rate is preferable, but a variable refresh rate monitor eliminates the screen tearing associated with unstable frame rates.

stable 60fps > unstable 60fps with VRR > 30fps > unstable 60fps

---