Do you prefer games at 30fps or 60fps?

@cheesebob: 120 is for pussies!

I just bought a Benq XL2420TE 144hz monitor. That 144 FPS. 60 frames are for console kiddies. GO BACK TO YOUR ATARI! 144 FPS OR DIE! SO SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTHHHHh

Prefer either one as long as the game runs smooth & not visually scarring then whatever they set the game to it works for me. It's when it starts dipping below 30 then there some problem.

No it doesn't give the illusion of more realistic motion, it gives you what you are comfortable with seeing in that medium. 24fps doesn't look better, it looks like what you are used to in that medium.

The film industry has very carefully selected the types and speeds of shots they can use at 24fps. Fast panning shots never happen. You would vomit and it would look like steamy shit. Films look good because the industry has very carefully gimped the range of motions and speeds they use for shots to account for the poor frame rate.

In a game, where the player has control over the viewpoint and speed at which the view moves (and esp rotation speed), a high frame rate is absolutely critical.

Not to mention input lag - time between making a control input and seeing the results on screen.

In summary, 60 OR GTFO.

http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html

If you don't see a difference, you're an inferior human being.

@believer258: It's not splitting hairs to me. It's a clear difference and I absolutely despise 60 fps—but only on a TV. On a PC, I actually can't tell the difference! Technically, 60 fps should be better, since it's a step closer to the fluidity of reality. However, something about TV technology just doesn't permit 60 FPS in gaming to retain all its qualities. Or maybe it's the came consoles, I don't know. Maybe 4K will eventually change all this, since its higher resolution may better complement higher framerates. But until then, I would appreciate a 30/60 option in console games to avoid that 'cheap videocamera effect' I see in 60 fps.

As someone who spent years with a sub-par gaming PC, frequently getting less than 20FPS, I honestly don't care. As long as it's not annoyingly laggy, I really don't mind

Steady is the only metric that really matters, and it depends on what the game was designed around. I had a ton of fun with Gears of War at 30FPS, and I think after experiencing it that way, my expectations would be thrown off trying to play it on the PC at 60+. Mostly, I just want the highest constant framerate possible - it improves both perception of the game and input latency (something I've been noticing a whole lot more lately).

Can't wait for the end of LCD/whatever future tech offers (/Gsync or whatever AMD names their alternative) limitations to be put to rest so we can move on from the idea of static vertical syncing from CRT technology. Without it, I would prefer a game to optimize for the 60FPS range rather than 30, which is what I hoped this console generation might bring in favor of raw visual complexity (it never really works out that way, does it?).

Of course I enjoy 60 fps, but having also played with a poor PC and then PS3 for a long time, I have no problems with around 30 or lower fps at times. Only when it gets really laggy, like mentioned in the above post.

My original comment in this thread was nearly two years ago. When this thread was bumped some time later, I said this:

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?

Which is a lot closer to my feelings on the matter now. Only for some reason, I said "if you truly don't like 30..." when it seems I should have said "if you truly don't like 60..."

Maybe 4K will eventually change all this, since its higher resolution may better complement higher framerates. But until then, I would appreciate a 30/60 option in console games to avoid that 'cheap videocamera effect' I see in 60 fps.

60FPS at 1280x720 isn't any different from 60FPS at 2560x1600. It's the same framerate, it's just the details that are clearer.

Anyway, my PC is connected to my TV and I can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60. I can also feel the difference, especially in shooters and action games. It's more than just a smooth image, it also has to do with the way a game feels to play. It's just a tiny thing, but games are more responsive when played at 60FPS.

I know what the cheap video camera effect is that you're talking about, but that was never an issue for me in the first place and I quickly got used to it. Video game graphics are rendered in front of you, not recorded by a studio and then forced to play at a framerate they weren't meant to have in the first place. No physical camera exists in a video game. It's a difference worth noting and understanding before complaining about the "cheap camera effect".

I prefer a consistent frame rate. Metal Gear Solid 4 switches between 30 and 60 on a whim, and it's really unsettling.

Why does this thread keep coming back from the dead, I mean it's a fun way to collect silly and/or misinformed statements and opinions but still.

Hmmm, do prefer games better or worse?

Make this a poll and add 120FPS as an option.

Actually, make it the only option.

I'd put high range variable rates with low persistence as the only option :P

Fixed V-sync'd frame rates are so last year.

@bobby_the_great: At the risk of sounding like a snob: Are you just maybe not use to seeing games at 60fps? I remember working at Circuit City before the company went under. It was back when HDTV's were just starting to scratch the surface of 120hz+ refresh rate. I remember looking at certain movies and feeling like something about it was just off. They had Pirates of The Caribbean playing on one of the TVs and it looked like it was shot with a Sony Handycam or something. But after a week or so of the TVs being in the store, I had totally adjusted and actually preferred the higher frame rate. However for video games, I've always preferred 60 over 30fps. Just the way a game feels running locked in at 60fps feels so good to me (I know that's weird, shut up). However I think what is MOST important is consistency of frame rate. A game locked at 30fps is totally acceptable but a game that can only reach 30fps and fluctuates the frame rate frequently is definitely not.

120hz TV's are bollocks, they use frame interpolation in order to create the missing frame data from the 24/30hz source (nothing like 96frames of artificial data) which is why they look like total garbage.

Whatever the FPS, just make sure it's consistent.

I already answered this and my answer is still the same, ALL OF THEM

I like to get around 700-800 fps in Quake.

Dat post 125fps air control.

I max out almost all games at a forced 30fps (via NVidia Inspector) with VSync On (via D3DOverrider), Ambient Occlusion & FXAA forced.

By the end of the month I'll be a OFFICIALLY PC gamer (laptop not desktop) so maybe I'll be able to make a better contribution then.

However when i watch certain shows in varying frame rates it's usually the Higher fps that just look too odd for me, in games I don't notice because i just want to punch the other guy in the face fast enough to care ;)

So personally I'd go with my eyes and play under 60fps.

Honestly, i prefer capped 30fps in mostly some RPG games,. Why? I like the "cinematic" feel given by the holy 30fps. Of course, competitive FPS, sports, and alike must be no less than 60fps.

Heck, i prefer 30fps without slowdowns than 60fps with frame drops here and there.

45fps locked.

there's nothing "cinematic" about 30 fps. it feels like a grimey flipbook with audio dubbed over it

right, because you get to choose when to have 60 or not. way to contradict yourself

"I like it when I'm served stale food.. except when I'm in the mood for non-stale food" like a true bon vivant ladies and gentlemen!

@egg: You can often choose how many hz you want your game to be running at in video options.

125fps u can jump higher in quake 3 engine games or 333 fps but that is for rich people.

Everyone knows you have to overclock your eyes in order to see more than 30 fps anyways, guys.

COD 4 333 FPS or 250 when playing promod.

I much prefer 60fps. My favorite type of games also include action hack & slash games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden en Revengeance. So that explains why to some extent.

I like 60fps better in any game, even something like XCOM where it doesn't serve gameplay. But I'm not an elitist, 30fps can get the job done just fine for most games and I accept it. Anything below 26ish is annoying to me. I've played games at a consistent 24fps before (PC) and it is certainly doable, I just play it constantly thinking I wish it were just a little better than that.

Every time I replay a game I played on console on PC my tolerance for anything below 60 decreases. It really annoys me when games aren't at 60.

60 FPS is optimal, but I can work with 30. It's once the framerate starts dipping into the mid/low-20s that it starts to grate on me.

I'm not too bothered by framerates as long as they are mostly consistent. What I don't like is when a game jumps all over the map in terms of frame rates. If a game is a solid 30, it won't bother me. 60 is preferable, but hey.

Ultimately what matters for me is resolution. I just want fucking razor sharp pixels shredding my eyes up. 4K as a standard can't come soooooner!

The necro-dude did it again. Wonder how many will answer his call? How many did already post an answer to this two years ago, will do so again today? I bet I wrote something in here before. Oh well, let's do it again.

Anyways - 60 is sexy. 30 is good. Unstable framerates are bad regardless. Frame-rate dips can really fuck with piloting helicopters and jets in Battlefield games for example. For the most parts though, I don't care. I grew up on C64. Most of my gaming happens in my imagination. I'm often surprised at how detailed games are these days, when I'm really looking at them, since my brain often boils it all down to vital information anyways.

Predator-vision is singular - tunnel vision. Prey-vision is much more color-graded, if you will. Can you spot Waldo?

60 or death

Ugh. Sign ups need some kind of captcha (but not captcha because captcha sucks ass). Feels like we just have so many single posters that bump months - year old topics.

60fps, no 120frames Is this a joke?

60 is always better than 30 for control fidelity purposes. Visuals can be tweaked to produce desired effect regardless of higher framerate. 30fps has no intrinsic advantage other than resource economy. A 60fps can look any way its developers want it to. I won't dignify any arguments about 30fps having a nicer native look to it.

The only reason games are still made at 30(ish) regularly is developers making a tradeoff between control fidelity and more resource intensive design (more moving stuff, more stuff on screen in general, and yes sometimes higher quality textures). And also certain genres don't require 60 because their gameplay is not about fidelity anyway; puzzle and adventure games for example.

In any case, I always want 60 if it can be done.

edit--- ohfergodsakes i've been baited in to a necro thread. T___T

I can't tell the difference either, nor do I really care either way. The graphics modern games get these days are such that after growing up playing games in the 80's I can't really complain. We've come a long way from moving a yellow blob to eat pills and ghosts.

@ptys Perhaps you have something to say on this matter?

Meh, you can't really win with this stuff. Many forums are hyper serious about using the search function for existing questions and threads. It's not really the mentality here, but on a lot of other forums you get a response of: 'that's already been asked only like a month ago you dick! Use the search function'. It's basically teaching people to dig up old stuff.

Doesn't matter to me either way. If he created a new thread about this I would've been fine with it, but this also works just fine. Don't see a huge problem here unless it happens like every 10 minutes and the forums are overflowing with month old threads.

It boggles my mind that some folks can't see the difference between 30 and 60, but anyway... I'd say 99% of the time, 60fps is the way to go, but there are some very rare exceptions, where I think 30 can actually enhance a game overall. The Souls series is the first example that springs to my mind, but I'm sure there's endless others that could be listed.

On a similar note: Youtube recently announced that 60fps is finally coming. There's a couple of samples flying around like this one, right here.

I didn't embed because I'm not sure it works under those conditions, but it's cool news anyway/

It's interesting how frame rate is suddenly a hot topic since this new generation began. 60fps games have been around for ages.

As for my preference, I always prefer 60fps, but I understand that not all games require it. 30fps is only an issue in action/fighting games, or any kind of game involving speed.

If I could choose, I'd certainly go for 60 fps, but I can handle a stable and locked 30fps with no problems at all.

It's funny that this thread just got bumped. I just picked up Skate 2 for 360 last week last week and after playing for about 15 minutes I thought, "Hmmmm, this doesn't look as good as I remember skate 1 looking." I poked around in the options and found an option to lock the frame rate to 30 fps. I turned it on and it the whole game looked much better. For alot of games I like 60 fps, including the original BioShock. But 30 fps, when done well, doesn't look that bad either.

Minimum 60, Urr day

I can play games at 30 with no problem , and even have preferred it in the past for a more "cinematic" effect. But lately, I've been leaning more and more towards 60 somehow ( I've been playing Ground Zeroes on PS4 and enjoying it at 60 frames) . Although, if a game can not keep the steady 60, I'd prefer a solid 30ish rather than a crazy unlocked fps. I manually lock some games at 35 on my PC when they can't keep up, and found that to be much more pleasing than the round 30...

As long as it's a locked framerate I'd prefer 60 because it makes a game look a lot smoother generally. If I'd have to choose between an unlocked framerate that anywhere between 30 and 60 frames a second or a locked 30 fps framerate I would definitely go with the second option. Games are very much playable at 30fps as long as they don't dip below that number too frequently.

And then the Ubisoft came..

60fps is just lovely. I like being immersed into the game and noticing dips in fps or just low fps is taking me out of it. Its a shame that devs go for 30fps so that they can have more eye candy on screen.