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

Depends on the game ?

Usually I'm a gameplay over graphics guy, but my last two years on PC have spoiled me. I'm playing Drakengard 3 right now on PS3 and I really wish I could play it on PC because that game is jaggy as shit and barley runs at 30. Still really enjoying it though.

In terms of resolution and whatnot I am gameplay over graphics for console games. Framerate can improve (or worsen if it is bad) a gameplay experience though, so that has to be there. Hence why I play what I can on PC.

Story, graphics, then gameplay.

Gameplay > All. The game can look amazing and sound amazing, but if the gameplay is crap, then F it I'm not playing it.

Unless its a fighting game then I dont care too much about resolution or framerate

Good god no.

Not a PC guy. Have always played on consoles, I like playing on a nice tv on a couch, and I'm not even close to interested in constantly updating a PC. I just want to buy one box and know everything I buy for it will just go. ( Baring DriveClub situations obviously )

Steady 30fps and I'm good. I can sometimes put up with an inconsistent framerate (found SRIV on PS3 mostly playable), but even I have my limits. Resolution on the other hand I... eh, whatever.

I just want framerate consistency. 60 is nice to have, but I'm more than fine with 30 as long as it stays there.

Gameplay.

There's occasions where style, story, or (most often) the world makes up for it, and times where performance and fidelity greatly enhances or ruins it, but gameplay. However they balance it.

As long as it isn't 20 fps then i am fine.

Neither are really a big deal for me, as long as the FPS remains consistent most of the time.

It depends on the other options available. If the Xbox One can only push 900p while the PS4 version can push 1080p, then I care enough to avoid the shittier version. Other than that, I have been spoiled by owning a PC that can run any game at 1440p at 60fps.

There is a noticeable difference in the smoothness of motion between running a game on my monitor, that supports 144Hz, and running a game on my TV. This smoothness, that is a result of 120fps without V-Sync, is something that I never noticed until I tried to hook my PC up to my 55" TV in the living room, I have a hard time going back.

If I could get better framerate and textures out of my PC then of course.

I play on console (PS3) and PC, I really don't care about framerate or resolution, it's playable, I won't mind. This is coming from a guy who finished the Jak Trilogy on the Vita, and didn't mind. 100%'d Saints Row IV and didn't mind the framerate or resolution.

1080/60 is great and all, but it isn't mandatory for a great game.

I don't mind 30 fps so long as it's stable, but I definitley notice a big difference when it's at 60. As for resolution, as long as the text is legible (looking at you, Bastion) I really don't care. I played the vast majority of last-gen on a widescreen cathode ray TV, so basically any "HD" resolution looks fantastic to me. I just can't find it in me to quibble over the difference between 720p and 1080p (though, I play games on my laptop in 800x600 to get the framerate at 60, so maybe I'm just a crazy person).

Framerate is fairly important to me. I mean, gameplay is, of course, more important but it cannot be a slideshow. I don't really mind minor dips in framerate just as long as I am on average getting 30+. In saying that, a smooth 60 is fantastic.

Resolution, for me, is less of a matter. Of course, I would like 1080p but if it is 720p, I don't really mind.

Not really. For single player stuff, I've gone with the PS4 so far because it's been the lead platform. I'll take the better visuals where possible, but it's all a bunch of nonsense at some point. For some extra information, I play on two screens, 60 for single player stuff, 24 for multiplayer. The resolution differences make more of a difference on the larger screen obviously.

Got Destiny on PS4 because that's where I knew the most people who were getting it. Won't be buying another shooter on PS4. I can't stand the DS4 for multiplayer games, so even if something like the new COD is 1080 on PS4 and 900 on XB1, i'm getting the Xbox version.

As far as framerate goes, I don't mind 30 as long as it is stable.

So no, I don't really care. Other factors are more important.

I don't get why people say gameplay is more important than framerate since a higher framerate directly improves the gameplay. Resolution also helps, though a bit less. Being able to see stuff better and more often improves the enjoyment of the game already there. I don't see why framerate is considered a graphics thing. That would be like saying more horsepower in a car is there so it looks prettier.

They should knock down things like shadows and textures before they attack the framerate.

If resolution doesn't matter they why aren't we still playing Playstation and Playstation 2 games at 512x224?

I will take 720/60 over 1080/30, but I like it best when I get both. Before getting the resolution fix for Dark Souls I clearly noticed the game looking very hazy.

This poll is faulty, Framerate is tied to gameplay more so than simply graphics. I'm fine with having a 'sub-par' resolution if it means having better framerate. Give me a choice game companies! I'll play your game at 720p if it means 60 fps!

Because video standards and hardware power have changed.

We can play games in higher resolutions because the hardware allows us to. Scaling also plays a huge part.

I think the question was more about the differences in resolutions that we are seeing right now between the consoles. The jump from 480 to 720 is larger than the jump from 720 to 900 or even 720 to 1080.

I'll never go out of my way for resolution or frame rate. It's never mattered for me in my enjoyment of games. It's always a nice bonus when things run smooth, whether it is 30 or 60.

I'm with you. I don't care abut resolution and I barely notice a difference in framerates while in the heat of the moment.

I don't find 30 too bad if I don't have a point of reference for that game. Infamous was mostly fine at 30. I can tell the difference between 30 and 60, but consistency is more important. Having the frame rate bounce around depending on what is being displayed is way more annoying than having it locked at 30.

I do wish console developers would let players decide what is more important to them. If I had to choose between 720/60 and 1080/30, assuming the 720 was scaled properly, I'd probably go with the higher frame rate for any action game. I guess I'd better just stick to PC for games I think need 1080/60.

I have a PC, so no. The only games I buy on console are games only available on console, and with those I don't really have a choice if I actually want to play the game.

PCGAMING WOOOOOO

but really, I only play games on console if they are not on PC, and I do notice the difference. I would certainly prefer everything to look better, but if I want to play the game I will play it however it looks. I recently played the bayonetta 2 demo and very much enjoyed it, I'm super excited for that game, but playing a 720p game on a monitor that I usually play 1440p games on with my PC is VERY noticeable, and somewhat unfortunate.

Not so much, but I have multiple platforms so if a certain version offers a better resolution and frame rate then I'll likely get that version to have best experience possible.

On the other hand, when they're all the same it doesn't matter to me.

Nope. If I'm buying it on a console, it's because it's an exclusive, or I'm buying it to play with my friends that don't play on PC. Every once in a while, I'll buy a console version of a game that I want to kick back and play in my bedroom (anything with a lot of exploration or grinding).

If I want the prettiest/best performing version of a game, I'm playing on PC. I don't play consoles for performance. That's not what they're built for.

For me it really depends on the game I'm playing.

I'm happy to play games like EDF 2025 with really low resolution and a frame-rate that drops into single-figures at point because it doesn't require a lot of accuracy and they make up for it by sheer volume of enemies on screen I can enjoy it.

However, If I'm playing a game that needs a lot of controller inputs fast, such as a fighting game or Metal Gear Rising, I really need at least 60 FPS for it to be acceptable. DmC ran at 30, and I REALLY felt it, as the game felt really sluggish because of it.

I don't own consoles anymore and most likely never will again. However, I still wait for reviews and read about PC games before buying them to make sure the developers didn't do something silly like limit the resolution to 720 or cap the frame rate at 30 for that cinematic feel.

That being said, I'm fortunate enough to have a PC capable of playing games at 120/144fps and/or 1440p. I usually won't even consider buying a game that is artificially capped at 30 because at this point I find low frame rates like that to be so distracting it takes away from the experience.

For me, 1080p/60 is the absolute bare minimum that I'm typically willing to run games at. Anything less than that is just uncivilized.

Gaming on the PC is like driving on the express way in a fast car. You're going 100mph and the moment you hit 50 mph, it feels like you're not moving anymore. With some ENB's, my Skyrim dips into the 40's, and when it does, it feels choppy as heck. Once you get used to a smooth frame rate, 30 feels choppy.

I'd rather turn down settings, like AO, shadows, etc to get a smoother frame rate than to drop resolution. I don't notice it on the TV, but on my monitor, anything that's not native resolution looks crappy.

I really wish console games had the option of graphic setting X = 30fps, graphic setting y = 60fps. On a TV, and with those images getting scaled up to 1080p anyways, I don't feel like sub 1080p is a huge deal. The jump from 480 to 720 is huge. Everything after, not so much; at least on my TV.

Frame rate and latency are huge deals to me. I bought a Mac ten years ago because I couldn't push the asio driver latency in Windows under 16ms whereas on the Mac, I could push it down to 7ms. The added 9ms of time between me hitting a keyboard key and a sound being produced meant the difference between me being able to play an instrument in real time or not.

I wish more games would be tailor made for specific platforms instead of developing for PC and then porting over to consoles.

I feel like if the developers have a target hardware to spec out for, the game will benefit for it in the long run. In my mind the playstation and nintendo exclusive games really show how good an experience can be when it's designed specifically for a single platform.

But hey why make fantastic games when you can develop for everything having one decent lead version and crappy ports and profit 4 times more?

It really depends. Resolution and frame-rate factor in, to varying degrees, based on the merits of the type of a particular game and the genre it belongs to and whether the developers design certain gameplay and visual aspects/make allowances for their game engine with whatever target frame-rate/resolution they have in mind. Some game's feel more appropriate than others would at the same settings.

Blanket rules for this kind of thing will always be contradictory at some point or another when it comes to consoles.

Those aren't good choices to vote from. It depends on the game.

Bottom line though: resolution and framerate ALWAYS matter. The significance of the numbers vary from game to game though.

60fps for action games or no buy. RPGs, dial-a-combo/counter action-adventure 30fps is fine, whatever.

As far as graphics go, I'll take good graphic design and art over pixel counter every time. 720p is fine on my TV at my viewing distance. 1080p looks better but doesn't help as much as having non-garbage art.

The real problem is devs sucking and not targeting the system they are selling the software for. 30fps is a joke when you have a locked-in hardware spec. AAAaaah shit you can't write your AI routines in javascript anymore! Don't come crying to me and begging for money.

Ultimately it's game play over graphics which is why I go back to playing older games but I would hope the game engines by mid generation get better to the point where the resolution can be standard 1080p with a locked frame rate if the developers can't get it consistently high.

I could not care less about 60fps. I can never see a difference between 24 or 60. But 1080p is an absolute must.

So there is no poll option for me to choose.

I don't care how ugly the game is. I want it to play good, and a big part of that "good" feel is a solid framerate. 60 is ideal

With all due respect, you may want to get your eyes checked. :p

Not at all. Good art direction and proper game design will mitigate low resolutions and frame rates more often than not. I recently played through Far Cry 3 on PS3, and while considerably uglier and framier than the PC version, it was completely playable.

Mind, it'd be really nice if everything could run at 1080p, 60fps.

I do not give a shit.

My shitty eyes can't tell the difference. Also my TV basically muddles everything anyway for consoles.

I'm not a PC player, unless it's smaller indie stuff like FTL you can't get on a console, I never really play on the PC. So I'm not missing the higher resolution or framerate because I'm generally never exposed to that area of PC gaming. I also don't generally care all that much, I thought Far Cry 3 on my 360 was fine for instance. I even managed to get through the fourth saints row without being too bothered about the short comings, spots of that game were definitely not pretty on consoles but I was too busy blasting around in co-op being a menace to be annoyed by some of it's technical issues for very long.

Between the two, I'd say I care about frame-rate more, I'm playing through some of my 360 back log, with some of those games being three years older or more and think they look fine to me graphically. Maybe one day I will suddenly be bothered and want my games to push everything at the best of their ability, but for now I'm fine with consoles. I also tend to get a lot of random bad luck technical issues with PC games when I play some of them and really just can't be assed to deal with it when they crop up.

I played Doom 2 in sub 20 FPS to completition on ultraviolence ..... that must tell you something.

I don't really base the purchase off of it, but it is preferrable it's a higher frame rate and resolution. So, I will get the current-gen version that has a better frame rate or higher resolution, but no, I won't disregard a game simply because it's 720p at 30fps as long as it's good (all that being said, I do currently use a 720p TV so... Yeah. I would prefer higher if it's possible, but if not, then oh well).

@frostyryan: I've gotten LASIK done, my eyes are better than 20/20 and I'm a designer by trade that needs a critical eye :p

Movies play at 24fps, I have no issue with them looking smooth, anything above that makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. Whenever I hear someone say "oh that game looks 30fps" or 40 or 50 or 60, those are the people I find crazy. Are they actually counting the frames? Now that's ridiculous.

Gameplay over graphics unless it's a horror game, and even then i might go for gameplay.

I'll just say there is a limit for graphics that needs to be covered. Don't care for it as long as it's good.

It's noticeable. I honestly think you just don't care to notice it or you're...subconsciously refusing to notice it. The difference is absolutely there and obvious if you're a human being with eyes.

Me, personally, can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in a game. telling the difference between 40 and 50 for example, is rather difficult and sort of insane. But calling a 30 or 60 fps game is extremely easy and not crazy at all. Don't have to count the frames to do that. Just look