Do you prefer games at 30fps or 60fps?

Games like Papers, Please need to be at 60 fps. I need all the frames I can get when verifying passports and work visas.

60.

Panning scenes are hard to watch if the camera is not moving very slowly. I hope 48 fps catches on.

60 or above. It's just smoother. Some people can't see it for some odd reason, but it's there. The motion is just more fluid.

Here's a good visual reference, and it also answers the question that someone posted about why movies and TV are in 25 or 29.97 http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

60fps with no motion blur is my preferred way, its just so much smoother than sub 60 let alone 30.

Couldnt play LA Noire cos it was capped at 30, my eyes began to hurt cos the image was so choppy.

I obviously would prefer all games to be at 60fps, but that's not a reality.

60fps games consume more processing power compared to 30fps. The same console would run the same game with much better graphics at 30fps. Likewise, the same console would have to tone down graphics a lot to achieve 60fps.

So the better question would be, for which games are you willing to make that concession? Racers, fighting games and first person shooters are probably the ones that suffer most from 30fps. Games that have a lot of fast left to right movement where you would notice the stuttering that most 30fps games have and can become very annoying.

Of course there's a problem with racers and fps too, because gamers often compare graphics of 30fps to 60fps games(which they shouldn't) and developers have to compete on graphics. You already see some of the reactions to games like next gen COD and Titanfall because they chose to go with 60fps. Gamers can notice the difference in graphics much easier between graphics than they can notice the affect on gameplay dute to frame rate at 30fps vs 60fps. Especially pre-launch when the game needs to impress and gain buzz. Especially when most games are compared by pics, gifs and 24fps Youtube videos.

In addition, some developers may have some really ambitious goals for some games, that squeeze every little ounce of power out of respective consoles. These games may simply not be possible at 60fps. If your game requires a particular draw distance with a number of enemies on screen and you just can't get it at 60fps, then they have little choice.

I do like that we are seeing more games at 60 though this generation, but time will tell if gamers pick gameplay over graphics. It would be nice to have certain genres or series running at 60 and gamers start treating them and comparing games accordingly. When that happens I think developers are more likely to do 60fps games.

What. The only time, the ONLY time 30 looks better than 60. Is when a game was explicitly made for 30, and forcing higher makes it look unnatural. Otherwise more fps is gonna make it more fluid and look better.

@bobby_the_great: You probably just aren't used to 60. It took me a little while to get used to it, but once I did I found it hard to go back. It looks funny because you're not used to it.

Also, past me was kinda dumb. There is a big difference between 30 and 60 and 60 is definitely the better framerate. It just makes things so much smoother and more pleasant to look at. 30 can be fine - a rock solid 30, mind, not a roof of 30 that tends to stay at 25 - but it's hardly preferable.

And if you truly don't like 30, well, I'm sorry. There seems to be at least something of a push for 60 in everything, so you'll have to get used to it or stop playing games.

EDIT: Also, how can you not see this? Is there really someone who can't see the difference in all three?

Give me 60 frames any day. I can't possibly imagine why 30 frames would be a better choice when playing games.

I would like 60 frames per second but since I play most of my games on the PC I do not want any caps on framerate.

Love dem sixty frames per second.

I prefer 60 fps, but it isn't usually too big of a deal as long as the framerate is stable.

They lie.

60FPS vs 30FPS is not simply a visual issue,it's also a gameplay issue. 60FPS has far superior response times,therefore it's inherently better. There's no argument against it.

Who would prefer games at 30 over 60 if that's the only difference? It's going to be even more of an issue when dealing with huge draw distances. Who would WANT their game stuttering when moving your camera from left to right, especially now when resolution has increased making that even more noticeable?

But the question is always going to be, do you want better graphics at 30 or less impressive graphics at 60 with smoother motion and more responsive gameplay? And it will always depend on the game. Until we have unlimited power, it's always going to come down to the game and developer discretion.

The only thing that needs to stop is comparing 30fps games to 60fps games in terms of graphics. It's apples and oranges. 30fps games will always be the lookers and the games with the best graphics in a generation. And 60fps games will play smoother and be more responsive. Especially fighting games and some fps(more specifically those made to cater to online multiplayer).

60. This has only recently become a problem for me. Just now I lowered the gfx settings in Tomb Raider from ultra to high in order to keep a solid 60 fps because I was getting 45 fps in some areas. The drops are extremely noticeable to me, to the point where games just feel laggy. And it's not just about the drops, because games capped at 30-ish, like Alice Madness Returns feel completely unplayable until the cap is removed.

I know what you mean. I could probably get 30+ on any game with my rig, but I have to have a stable 60 at this point.

It doesn't matter to me in most games. Fighting games are the only ones where I want 60fps.

60 or gtfo

Having a bit of a low-end PC and a PS3, I've grown accustom to 30fps being the standard. But I'd like to have a decent PC in the future to play games at 60. It just looks much smoother.

I think it's important to have solid frame rates, I would prefer a solid 30 over frame rates that jump between 60 to 25 like my old pc I always locked the frame rates to 30 where I could, but solid 60 can't be beaten its smoother better looking. my new pc sleeping dogs max settings solid 60 is sexy as fuck.

i prefer 60 fps. I'm "ok" with 30 but only if it's a steady 30. Anything below 30 is crap.

Having been a console gamer all my life I honestly can't tell. I notice lag-like stuff when the system gets overrun by something but 95% of the time when someone on the GB staff goes "oh lord this framerate" I have no idea where that's coming from.

Gimme dat 600 fps, Carmack.

I really can´t give a shit.

60fps. The less frames, the worse, in my opinion.

This should be standardized across all platforms.

Maybe make exceptions for games where movement isn't important, like adventure games and some kinds of puzzle games.

Also, consoles should have very strict quality control when it comes to framerate. If your game has a janky framerate, guess what, it's not coming out on consoles period.

120 FPS. 60 FPS is pretty bad. Looks like watching a movie in the theatre at that framerate. I play games that rely on reaction times like competitive RTS and FPS games. Any less than 120 FPS is noticeable.

Of course there should be exceptions. Why would I want a game like The Witcher, Zelda or Fable standard at 60fps that's more about leisure exploration and not necessarily instantly responsive action elements and have them seriously downgraded in the graphics department?

Agree on the other point.

anything over 15 fps doesn't interest me because it's not about grafix

I mentioned this in the comments for a Quick Look. I'm with OP. As someone who works with video a lot, I'm used to seeing movement at 24 or 30fps. Seeing movement at 60fps looks weird and unnatural to me. Because of that, when I play a game running at 60, it bothers me, I was actually a little bummed when Quick Looks started playing at higher frame rates.

I'm with the OP on this one. 30 fps gives the illusion of more realistic motion in the same way that 24 fps film will always look better than 48 or 60 fps. It's not just what we are used to. It looks better because the smooth motions ultimately look cheesy and unrealistic. Same in games. Call of Duty on console or really any fps on a high end PC look like "games" to me. Better for accuracy, but not for cinematic immersion.

60's smoother, and less imput lag.

That said, if you want 60 fps, be prepared to spend more money on a PC, because console resources are limited and can't be wasted on something some people can't even notice.

It depends, for first person games I prefer 60fps or more.. the only 30fps locked game i've played lately was Dead Space 3 on PC, it ran and looked great, can't really see 60fps making it play any better.

I used to not notice. Then, one day I saw my friend's PC running Super Meat Boy, which I had on the 360. The motion just looked so much more fluid and clear. Until I built my PC though, I was fine playing games at 30 fps. I still don't mind it, but I vastly prefer 60 at this point, regardless of game genre.

I can't tell. Even in those examples that were posted I don't see the difference. I can tell the 15 one is choppier, but the other two look the same to me.

Also I'm happy I can't tell the difference. With all the bitching that goes on about games not being 60, I'm glad I can enjoy a game at 30 without feeling it's been tarnished in some way.

bout 7 frames

I obviously prefer it the higher the framerate (and why stop at 60 fps? Many PC games do run in well above 100 fps - it seems quite common for people playing competitive shooters to aim for somewhere around 240 fps), but as long as the framerate is stable and above something like 12-15 fps, I really am not all that bothered by lower framerates in games.

Not many PC monitors with a refresh rate to support that high refresh rate. I've got 120hz though and it's smooooooth sailing in games where I can get the FPS that high, most modern games are way to demanding for that sadly.

On most PC monitors and GPUs you should just get screen tearing rather than "out of range" issues, shouldn't you? For games where input is checked on frame updates there's probably still a noticeable gain in accuracy above 120 fps. I did also see an interesting chart about Quake 3 engine games (including Call of Duty) having direct high framerate benefits, or rather hardware exploits, as you could jump higher and take less fall damage the higher your framerate was.

For example, jump height increased with higher FPS rates, and fall damage decreased with higher FPS rates.

COD4 Jump Height:

63 FPS or lesser- jump only to 39.5 units max (exception are 52 and 55 FPS. Those values can used like analog of 71 FPS)
71 FPS. Character jump to 40 units stably. 40.5 units is impossible for this value. Same results for 76 FPS
83 FPS, 90 FPS and 100 FPS are bad again - 39.5 units max
111 FPS - 40 and 40.5 units are overcame
125 FPS - 41 height unit overcame
142, 166 and 200 FPS - strange fall again. Character overcame 39.5 units max
250 FPS - 42 units line overcame
333 FPS - same is for cod 2, with 333 fps you can jump at 46 units.
500 FPS - bugged value again. Character runs silently and jumping only at 35 units if you stay close and jump. But If u go back and jump, your jump will be about 39 units
1000 FPS - fully similar with 500 fps

COD4 Jump Damage:

Frame rate (Height) - Damage
---------------------------------------------
71 (140) - 4
91 (140) - 8
100 (140) - 6
110 (140) - 4
125 (140) - 2
200 (140) - 6
250 (140) - 1
333 (140) - 0
------------------
71 (200) - 39
91 (200) - 44
100 (200) - 41
110 (200) - 38
125 (200) - 35
200 (200) - 41
250 (200) - 34
333 (200) - 22
----------------------
71 (300) - 96
91 (300) - dead
100 (300) - 98
110 (300) - 94
125 (300) - 91
200 (300) - 98
250 (300) - 88
333 (300) - 72
------------------------
71 (350) - dead
91 (350) - dead
100 (350) - dead
110 (350) - dead
125 (350) - dead
200 (350) - dead
250 (350) - dead
333 (350) - 97http://techreport.com/news/25051/blind-test-suggests-gamers-overwhelmingly-prefer-120hz-refresh-rates?post=744423

120fps is the way forward, plebians

60 and above, always, but as much as I've played twitch shooters and fighting/rhythm games I don't mind the common "barely 30" on current consoles. On PC I care more about stability and raw mouse input than anything.

A higher framerate looks smoother and offers less input latency. For that reason alone, I wish 60 would be a baseline. Even if you can't tell the difference visually (and I daresay it would be difficult not to notice if you've ever seen anything running at a higher framerate), there's no way you can't notice the fidelity of the input. Anything above that is mostly a waste, but if that 60 FPS can be promised, the experience is silky.

It really depends on the game. If the game demands precision then I'll go 60, but otherwise I don't mind less.

All I care about is a consistent frame rate.

I want every frame. 60 of course, fuck 30.

People who say 30 are insane.

You guys and your fucking necroing.... There should be a rule against this.

If it runs smoothly i don't care :)

@nekroskop said:

Eh, it was already necroed once, a month and 20 days ago and that was after more than a year. What's one more time.

@alkusanagi: