Does framerate and resolution truly matter to you when buying console games?

I think you're looking at that in a bit of a strange way. That was created because the difference is so blatantly obvious to people like me, we just can't believe people when they claim they can't see the difference. It's a tool to show how distinct the difference is between 30 and 60, and it works.

@mb said:

The difference is really obvious in these tests because they're producing the ideal circumstances to show the most pronounced differences. And I believe you when you say that it's blatantly obvious to you, even outside of these tests, but I think that's a learned skill. And honestly maybe its a skill that some people are better off not having. If you can't tell the difference then you can't be upset about it.

60 fps can really help gameplay a bit, but it's not needed.

No, I think developers should do whatever they can to get their game to look as best as possible in regards to in engine assets, shaders, polygons, and art style. Resolution sizes and frame-rates are impossible to maintain under the limitations of console hardware which can be agreeable as pretty damned disappointing.

Gameplay and framerate are directly intertwined, the higher the framerate the more responsive the game.

I mean yes it does, but I can't answer the poll.

Why? Because I don't mind a games fps as long as it's consistent and not dipping under 30, prefer 60 though. The p's are less important.

@bones8677: This.

Framerate is a gameplay requisite, not a graphics one. I'm fortunate to have a PC capable of giving me a minimum of 60 on just about everything that needs it and If I can't reach it I'll turn down graphical eye candy until I can.

You don't have to *play* a movie...

Yeah it does matter but it is not a deciding factor. I would prefer for a game to be 1080 than 720 but it isn't a deal breaker. Same thing with fps, as long as it isn't a fighting game or something similar where the actual frame data matters and a difference in fps can be huge. The difference is noticeable with both resolution and fps but I don't think games that are lower res or lower fps look bad, they just don't look as good as they could. I also find that with fps in particular it doesn't matter to me until I play the game running at different frame rates, the initial time playing I almost never notice.

I have always been a gameplay first person, I believe it should be first above all other factors of the game. Graphics are fairly high on my list of things I care about in games but even then it is often more of a case of I am more likely to buy a game that looks awesome, rather than be dissuaded from buying a game cause it looks bad.

I have a PC and play most of my games there (at least these days) but if I am buying a console game I really want it to run at a smooth 60 fps or better. Resolution and graphics are important, but frame rate determines how well the game will play technically. If it chugs at 30 fps or below, it's kind of unplayable to a certain point. I can tolerate 30fps if I need to, but given the choice I will always want a faster frame rate, specifically one that is stable. Having a game that has good resolution and looks nice is a great thing, but I will always prefer performance over looks any day.

As far as resolution goes, I prefer 1080p, but anything 720p and higher is acceptable. 1080p is the new TV standard though so at a certain point not too far down the line that is going to be the minimum. With 2k and 4k on the horizon, 720p is going to go away soon and be replaced by 1080p entirely and then we will start seeing 2k and 4k eventually become the new standards to replace 1080p. It's only going up from here, folks!

For consoles, I really don't mind less than perfect performance or image quality. I should probably hold developers to higher standards, but having grown up with all the compromises that usually come with consoles, I'm accustomed to games being a bit "off". People want to complain about a game at 900p/30fps? Go play some N64, that'll sort out your perspective! ;)

As for playing games on PC, I'll do whatever I can to get native res and 60fps. I think it's an input thing. Using a controller, I'm fine with "lag", but on a mouse and keyboard it's damn near unplayable to me.

It can do a bit, but it's rarely that big a deal for me. I also think people make a common mistake of just boiling graphical quality down to how good the resolution and framerate is.

None of the poll options really reflect what I what I think, so I'll say that I'm a gameplay man first, but after playing more games at a higher framerate, I have to say I really enjoy playing games at 60fps. That said, it's not mandatory it's there but it's a darn good plus.

The options are a little weird. I don't need my games to be at 60 FPS, but I do want them to be stable. So even a stable 30 FPS is fine by me, maybe even something slightly lower like 28 or something. It really doesn't make much of a difference in experiencing a game. Resolution can kiss my ass though.

So basically, as long as it has a stable, acceptable framerate I don't care if it is 720p or whatever.

Not really... I ended up with an xbone anyway so.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .. I guess I'm shafted, thank you for that weak ass GPU MS.

For console no, unless there are destinct known frame rate issues I do not concider it.

Obviously for PC games the specs are always something to look into but Im happy to play a game on lowish setting @30 FPS if I must.

Its all about the mechanics for me.

Gameplay over graphics isn't a very good way to look at the issue. They go hand-in-hand and are relative to the designer's vision for the game and the genre. It is such a fine balance that reducing it to this over that isn't very helpful when trying to make a decision. If the graphics end up hampering the gameplay such as stuttering, low FPS, or simply being uninteresting then the balance is off. It goes the other way too, a gorgeous sandbox isn't fun.

I think the people trying to defend 30fps or a low resolution based on "gameplay over graphics" are actually doing themselves a disservice. Ask yourself, why are we having to reduce the resolution or having to run at 30fps? Because they chose to crank up graphical settings. A low resolution or 30fps can hamper the smoothness of the experience and therefore hurt gameplay, while lowering a few graphics settings to increase the smoothness would be beneficial to gameplay. So the people saying "gameplay over graphics" should be for higher resolutions and higher frame rates and against lowering them to make the game look prettier. Hope that makes sense.

Nowadays in reality and specially with major releases it is very rarely for performance issues to affect gameplay... only recent one I can think of is BF4 which was a mess across the board. I've been playing Horizon 2 a racing game at 30 fps no problem whatsoever game is fun, has plenty of content, open word, and interesting progression-mechanics so ultimately 30fps doesn't matter to me.

For some people 1080p - 60 fps is supposedly super important, I respect that... It does bugs me a bit that since the beginning of this generation P counting has dominated the videogame talk in a lot of communities (giantbomb is kind of a exception which is cool), Every couple of days you'll see some sort of outrage because resolution. I think this is sending the wrong message to publishers: "Hey lets make a flashy game at 1080p 60fps" that is what sells... visuals over substance that is kind of sad.

But that is my point. To run at 1080p/60fps you have to reduce graphical fidelity. For the sake of smoothness and gameplay, I'd rather turn down some of the graphical settings to achieve higher frame rate. So for people arguing for gameplay, arguing against higher frame rate and crisper resolution is actually doing them a disservice. They should be against wavy grass, higher poly counts, and such instead of being against higher resolution and frame rate.

Obviously, it depends on the game, but I found some people arguing against fps in the name of "gameplay vs graphics" to be somewhat backward in their logic because it is the high fidelity graphics that eat into the smoothness. In the case of ACU, they needed to reduce the fps for AI, which is something I can get behind since that directly affects the gameplay.

Not at all. In fact, I tend not to notice framerate unless its unreliable. Give me stable framerate locked on 30 fps, and I will take it over a game that occasionally reaches 60 fps any day...

On a similar note, I do not care if the game is 1080 or 720. I would need I bigger TV than the one I have (or being seated much closer) to notice the difference.

I just need a stable 30 frames per second. I'm not picky. Now if it's something like Arkham or Assassin's Creed that involves tons of NPCs on screen and the frame rate drops in large crowds, that's annoying. I'd also like 720p at the minimum. Which isn't much of a problem these days.

I like the ecosystem of consoles better tbh. I never play with mods on PC games and while yes PC games are the graphics tour de force I just like being able to know that my PS4 will play anything that says "PS4" on the box. That being said that doesn't mean I don't care about the 1080/60 thing because I do and I think at this point its silly for developers to not be hitting at least 1080 on all games.

Famerates are really fucking important if you play fighting games.

No unless for some reason it's really important (fighting games, online shooters, possibly racing/rhythm games); I'd much rather have the best looking game ever at 30 FPS than the one at 60 FPS because ultimately the 30 FPS game will always look better in terms of art assets.

60 FPS made a big impression on me when I decided to get a dreamcast. The games looked cleaner and faster than anything I had seen on the PS1 or N64. And I knew the DC was a better machine when I saw how blurry, jaggy and slow the games seemed when the PS2 launched.

The reason movies look smooth is because of 1.) natural motion blur from the fixed shutter speed of the camera 2.) interpolation that is done by most monitors (that usually run at 60 hz). Try to play 24 fps video on a 30 or 60 hz monitor with poor interpolation and the video will be noticeably jittery/not smooth. Games are different since we are not looking at them passively through the lens of a camera after the fact but we are looking at games directly through our own eyes at that moment. Hence games running at 30 fps (unless you artificially introduce some sort of motion blur, which btw is what a lot of console games do) just don't look nearly as smooth as compared to say 60 fps. This is why for instance why PC games (which generally do not have this artificial motion blur) just don't look and feel smooth at 30 fps (even if your monitor is only 30hz). In fact for me, I can usually tell the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps in most games, so the idea that all you need is 30 fps is ludicrous IMO.

As long as it runs well and looks nice. I don't care if something is 900p and 30 fps vs 1080p and 60 fps as long as the game plays as nice at the lower one.

I find it curious that people are for regression. I found the PS3's GTA5 to be quite choppy at 30fps. Even taking away the visuals, the input response seems more floaty than a game that runs at a higher refresh. Again, a low FPS affects not only the visuals, but the responsiveness of the controls. As for comparing games to movies, that is a very poor argument. Watch a movie during a slow pan, like at the beginning of the Hobbit, you can't make out any details at all. Its a blurry mess on the big screen. Modern TVs use interpolation to help make it seem smoother.

I'd love to show some of you guys Crysis 3 on PC locked at 30fps, then at 60fps, and then at 144fps/hz. It is night and day, the biggest being the responsiveness of the controls. FWIW, I may be spoiled because I run 144hz on my PC and going to 30fps on consoles is like running through molasses. Sometimes ignorance is bliss with these types of things (I don't mean that in a bad way.)

It's not the be all end all. But if I can get the game for the same price on either console and one has a higher resolution/framerate than the other, then all other things being equal, I'm gonna pick the version with the higher numbers. In the case that one has a higher resolution but lower framerate, I'm picking the one with the higher framerate every time.

I have both a PS4 and a high end gaming PC. I usually read reviews and find out where the optimal experience is (usually PC unless the port sucks). I prefer gameplay over graphics, but if I can have both I certainly will.

I game on pc normally at 1440p but honestly framerate is key 720p is fine as long as framerate is smooth. 60 fps really makes a difference but only when its a solid consistent 60 fps is it constantly jumps from 30 to 60 id lock it at 30fps

It was saints row 3 that made me switch from xbox 360 to pc it looked fine on the xbox but it ran like shit but that was only having seen it run on a pc there was no going back for me

A low res game can be lifted up by a nice art style and design. Not much you can do to compensate for a poor frame rate.

@l1ghtn1n: I haven't picked it up yet, but glad to know such a feature is in there. I'll certainly give that a go when I eventually grab the remastered version!

Resolution not at all. If I have a choice between 30 and 60 fps though, I'll go with 60 fps. Same on the PC. If I find myself not being able to play games at 60 with no dips I reduce graphical settings and if needed resolution until I get there. How something plays is much more important than how it looks and framerate has a huge impact on that in many types of games.

I think it does matter. I am quite happy with 30 FPS at 1080p though. Don't get too greedy and enjoy your games mates.

But it's only a problem when you see the two frame rates side by side. I'm fairly certain anyone could tell the difference in those sort of controlled test environments. If a game is running at a consistent frame rate of either 30 or 60, then your eye acclimates to those speeds and the end result looks relatively smooth regardless. It's only when you switch from one to another that it becomes jarring. For example in Last of Us Remastered Edition, you can choose to play the game at either 60FPS (or there about) or a locked 30; when playing 30 the game looks pretty much as smooth as can be, but once you switch to 60 and then switch back to 30, the lower frame rate suddenly looks like garbage, because your eyes haven't adjusted back to the lower rate. I think consistency is really the key, rather then just big numbers. 60 is a great frame rate, but it isn't always essential. It really depends on the game. Also, everything I've said is mostly with regards to the visual component, rather then taking into consideration the input lag associated with those different FPS.

@liquidprince That is completely subjective. 30 fps does not look "smooth" to me at all, even with all of that motion blur applied.

I have spent most of my 26 years playing on PC at 60 FPS (if not more, back when I had a 75 Hz CRT), so 30 FPS look pretty much like ass to me. And if you have to stretch out the image to fill your display because it's rendering at a lower resolution than native then make that double ass. Lackluster resolution and performance one of the main reasons I mostly refuse to play anything on consoles anymore. I had hopes that this "new generation" would bring consoles to the present day, but, alas, Sony and Microsoft are much more interested in perpetuating the "caring about performance is the cancer that is killing gaming" mentality than actually delivering competent hardware.

What a strange way to look at this matter. It's as if the fault was the player's...

I'm by no means an expert, but from what I have read on the topics of Motion Perception, the eyes of humans start to perceive things as moving smoothly at 12FPS and 24FPS is what is used in most movies because eyes acclimate to the that frame rate and subconsciously remove any frames that disrupt the illusion of smoothness. At 30 FPS the human eye definitely sees things smoothly, and with regards to gaming specifically, the correct application of motion blur helps tremendously. If you are saying that 60FPS and higher is smoother, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but to say that 30FPS is not smooth at all is a little strange. It's all a matter of relativity I suppose.

@liquidprince: How about this...regardless of any of the points you're trying to make, to me, 30 fps is not smooth enough to be enjoyable in games. I'll deal with it if I have to, but thankfully, I almost never do.

That's completely understandable. It's not like I care to try and change your mind or anything. I was just discussing. Out of curiosity, do you find 30FPS to be less enjoyable because of the visual component, or more because of the differences in the controller input lag?

@liquidprince: Normally it's the visual aspect of it. Although most games I have been forced to play at 30 didn't exactly require precise inputs so I'm not sure I have anything to compare it to. I think the last non-handheld game I played at 30 fps (or less) was Dark Souls on the Xbox 360, and input lag wasn't an issue there because of the way the animation priority and queueing works in that game. The frame rate was so distracting I had to force myself to get through the entire game.

I don't mind 30fps, I know I can tell there's a difference between playing games on my PC and playing on my PS4 but it honestly doesn't bother me. I just like the frame rate to be solid. If it's solid 30 and doesn't dip below that or get sluggish then that's fine for me, I'll adjust to the 30fps as opposed to having the game jump up and down from 20 to 60 and everything in between. It's not going to offend me that the game isn't running at 1080p/60fps. I think people who flat out refuse to play games which don't run at those conditions are missing out on some pretty solid games.

Maybe get better frame rate and textures out of my PC.

As someone who's only ever really played games on consoles, 30 frames is a-ok with me. Make the game really pretty and stable at that and I'm all good. But hey, I'm still stuck on the last generation of consoles, so most games coming out now on the new machinery look lovely to me.

No. As long as the art direction is good, the game doesn't run like I'm jogging through maple syrup, and nothing's blurry, I'm fine with it. Most of the games I play are a few years old by the time I first play them, anyways.

Gottcha, yeah.. I agree with that. I rather play Titanfall at 729p 60fps than 1080p 25-30fps like BF4.