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

My Ps4 serves as a backup when games on the PC are too big to download. (I'll buy a physical copy) So when that's the case I don't care if it's technically inferior.

Depends on the game, but generally 60 FPS is definitely a + for me. Don't care so much about the resolution as long as it is HD.

I think you can definitely feel a gameplay difference between 30 fps and 60 fps; also 720p looks super cruddy compared to 1080p.

However it's not necessarily a dealbreaker. Though constant fluctuations in fps certainly would be; a locked 30 is better than it going nuts.

God that poll sucks. It's far too reductive. If a game is 1080p/60, that's a pretty significant bonus, but not enough of one to sway my purchase in any meaningful way. If a multiplatform title runs better on a particular console, I'll probably pick up the better performing copy.

1080p is pretty insignificant, but can certainly add to the aesthetic of something. 60fps is a completely different thing; 60fps can make or break certain genres (character action games, fighting games, etc.). If there is a lot of fast-moving action on the screen that requires precise player input, 60fps is a huge boon. A 60fps Ninja Gaiden feels completely different from a 30fps Ninja Gaiden.

Really don't care about resolution. If it looks good and plays well then I'm generally not fussed about how many pixels the game is pushing. Framerate on the other hand is super important as it directly affects the game's playability. I don't demand 60 fps, although it's always nice to have, but I do demand a consistent experience. Framedrops are the worst. They've ruined games for me.

I have an Xbone and a Ps4, so when deciding which version of the game to buy, I'll probably grab it on whichever console runs it best, but only because I have to decide on one.

No it doesn't bother me that much, but if a better version is available to you then why wouldn't you go for the better option?

I'd say it's less that I don't care about resolutions and more that I believe getting super bent-out-of-shape over stuff like this is a gateway to madness. Just play the damn game. Typically I stop paying attention to the detail of graphics after about 20-30 minutes anyway, unless I see something that looks super good/bad.

Also, it's somewhat ridiculous to expect a competitively-priced $400 box to be able to go toe-to-toe with even a gaming PC, especially as the console cycle gets longer. I don't even mean that from a "GLORIOUS PC GAMING MASTER RACE" perspective (I play games primarily on PC and even I think those dudes are circlejerky as all hell). You're just setting up unrealistic expectations for yourself.

Yes and no. I can actually tell the difference between 1080p and lower resolutions. Depending on the game, I may also notice the frame rate. Will a lower frame rate or resolution affect my purchasing decision on a game exclusive to one console? No. Will the differences between two consoles' version of the same game affect which one I buy? Yes.

Hey, I like smooth running game. A like a good looking one. But one of my favourite games is Mass Effect, with all its technical faults. Its texture pop in, uneven framerate. I love the film grain and I doubt it would look better to me in 1080.

It's all about the game. The content. The style. Look at Destiny, the game deliberately runs at 30, doesn't it? And it's better for it. Works well with the gameplay. How about Dark Souls? People have a special shelf in their life for those games despite the less than stellar framerate.

For me, it's simple, it's all about the enjoyment I get playing the game. I will never buy/not buy a game based on resolution and framerate. To be fair, I only own one of the two current gen consoles. So maybe my opinion doesn't hold as much weight.

Unless it runs as slow as a slug and as tiny as one too I honestly don't even notice stuff like that.

It depends.

If the gameplay is fun, I can generally overlook performance issues. 30fps is fine, but if it constantly dips then that's a problem. 60fps locked is amazing when a developer can accomplish it, but if they can't, oh well? Honestly it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't dip that often and actually gets in the way of the game.

I couldn't care less about resolution.

I'll trust you that you can tell, but I've been staring at the videos on http://30vs60.com/projectreality.php for about 10 minutes and I think the left side video and right side video are identical. My brain must really not be able to perceive the difference at all. Unless this site it trolling and it's not actually 30vs60.

You're clearly not in the minority- unless everyone filling out your poll is a liar.

Also you don't need a console to play games on your couch or bed across from a TV, but I can see why you'd prefer that (what with mouses and keyboards and stuff- sometimes you don't want to deal with all that. I get it).

@christaran: I don't believe you. While resolution and frame rate don't matter to me (as long as they're consistent) there is a very clear difference if a video game uses one or the other.

The only thing I would believe from you at this point is that you've never been shown a comparison natively (meaning not compressed- not a video on youtube). The words you say define you as a person who has never actually seen the difference and that's why you think it doesn't exist.

Film is a terrible comparison to video games. It works differently.

If it comes out on the PC and the versions are the same, then PC.

@christaran: Try this.

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

or this

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

Well, since I bought the Xbox One, apparently not. :\

Both are important to me, but the only one that's make or break directly is framerate. I just can't stand 30fps. I'll put up with it for a great game or whatever console exclusive is in the zeitgeist that captures my attention but it takes significant time for me to stop hating the controls of any game running at 30 on a console. I'm used to 144hz.

Resolution I'm fairly sensitive to but the generation is seeing some pretty good AA that is eliminating most of the issues I have with lacking resolution in most current gen games.

But you're talking to someone who thinks 1440p at 144hz is worth nearly $2000 in monitor/video card investments. And who's bothered by the amount of aliasing 8xMSAA leaves at 1080p occasionally. And has thought 1080p was too low for TVs for a while.

No, I don't have a strict rule. I prefer to have a smoother game and if it runs at 30 at sub 1080p, I'll likely buy it on PC if I can. It won't stop me from enjoying an exclusive though.

Frame rate matters to me but it wouldn't necessarily deter me from buying a game that isn't 60FPS, it just makes me wish I had a better PC. Watching Vinny and Alex play Mordor on their PC I was kinda jealous of how butter smooth the game was compared to the PS4 version I've been playing. In the end, gameplay is much more important to me than performance and resolution.

@probablytuna: Yeah, I sort of had a similar reaction when I saw 30 fps footage of the PS4 version. I couldn't believe the difference. Then once when I was playing on my PC, I had a vsync issue and the game went from 60 to 30 and locked there. I found it to be so distracting it made the game unplayable and I had to restart the game to get rid of the problem, it was that big of a difference. I'm sure Mordor is just as fun at 30 fps as it is at 60, but I'm just so sensitive to frame rates that there is no way I can deal with 30 anymore.

its not as simple as its put but i prefer gameplay over framerate and resolution but a shitty framerate can ruin any game. also it does not matter if it run at 60 and looks insanely good if the game is a piece of shit.
thats as simple as i can put it. also in a lot of cases i can settle for 30

I don't own both current gen/next gen consoles but I would most certainly go where the frame rate's at. Which of course is the PC currently, so I buy games there, I guess. Also games tend to be a lot cheaper here on the PC, especially when buying digitally.

It's preferred and certainly plays into my decision when deciding on which platform to buy a game, but honestly if I want to play the contents of a game and it runs at some abysmal framerate I'll still play it, put up with it and enjoy it ala Saints Row 4 on 360. I'm a dirty console gamer through and through. :P

Visually I don't really care about the difference between 30 and 60fps (that's not to say I can't see the difference, there absolutely is), visually once I'm absorbed in a game I don't notice that difference so much - 60fps does make a large difference to the feel of a game and its inputs, though and is extremely preferable.

As far as resolution is concerned, I sit far enough away from my TV that even 720p games still look pretty great, but there's certainly an extra clarity that comes with 1080p that is appreciated.

I totally understand developers targeting different framerates and resolutions depending on what they want to do with their engine and gameplay elements and the sacrifices those things involve.

The consoles are 99% equal, with 1% of variation in GPU power, and that's where the PS4 gets a small resolution boost in some games.

They're the same price, so people will obviously want the stronger console for their dolla.

I don't not buy a game because it isn't running at a high resolution or framerate but if I have a choice I'll get the version that runs better before the version that looks better. If they all run the same I'll get the best looking version. Last generation that meant that I got most third party games for the Xbox 360 if there was no PC version, or the PC if that was an option. I can't think of any time I didn't play a game because of the graphics, and as long as the framerate manages to stay above 20 I'll at least play a game, although late last gen the horrendous performance on some of Sony's exclusives really started to bother me.

Dumb poll. By "graphics" you guys are talking about artstyle and the general quality of the drawings/models/animations/visual design. Preferring gameplay over visual design does not contradict also wanting a better framerate (the latter impacts gameplay in certain games!).

The problem with tests like these is the part where you have no input in these comparisons. In 30Hz you can see your input at 30 Hz (times per second), but at 60 Hz you can see your input at 60Hz.

Part of why films are alright at 24 Hz (far from the only one, also I can see stutter in some scenes) is they are designed for that specification. You can turn faster or slower in a game because you have control. Things happen and you have to react to it; with more information you have a better chance of reacting to it and answering the event you have.

BTW I still feel silly about that thing MB.

If I would layer preferences about framerate and resolution on top of my already niche taste, I might as well quit playing games right now.

I've never understood nor most likely will I ever understand this way of thinking when it comes to games.

Framerate yes, but smooth 30fps is playable unless its a twitch based game. Resolution is overrated honestly, 720p is still fine to me but 1080p is still better amd anything over that is almost overkill

@christaran: Movies and video games aren't the same thing at all. A game's framerate impacts way more on how it plays than how it looks.

I can't play a game that doesn't entertain me. I want an interesting premise at least, to cativate me, and graphics that I find at least acceptable. Didn't doesn't mean 60 fps 1028p, as for example I loved the Binding of Isaac.

I need a reason to do what I do in game, and I want to feel immersed with the graphics. Then it all comes to how good is the gameplay. I play for the experience.

I just want at least a steady 30 frames per second at least and at least 720p resolution. Anything higher is just a bonus in my opinion.

I do have a fairly decent PC but I vastly prefer the (inferior) console versions for most games.

It seems ridiculous that you can't immediately tell the difference.

@mb said:

It sure is weird that multiple people have created visual tests just to prove there's a difference when its supposedly so easy to tell them apart.

Games and movies display the image differently. So it isn't a simple deduction.

As long as it can maintain a steady framerate, not really. While I most certainly appreciate a higher framerate and resolution I also...kinda just don't care. I can't think of a time where those things would have changed my opinion of a game in any meaningful way.

High fps complements the gameplay. So its always disappointing when devs choose to stick to 30fps.

Of course it does. 60fps is the most important thing to me, but being at native 1080 is also important.

The reason I use my PS4 for multiplatform games is just for that very reason.

Not counting, you can clearly see it. 30fps and 50fps or higher is a huge difference. I actually also notice it clearly when a game runs at 40 and drops down to 32 or something like that. The people who say they don't see the difference, those people I find crazy. Are they just expecting to see an entirely different game at some point? It's frame rate. Not a visual thing.

I bought freaking ReVolt on the N64. It ran like crap.

It was almost unplayable and I would not have bought it had I known. Yes, framerates and to a lesser extent resolutions do matter, even on console. If a game runs like poop, people shouldn't buy it.

Ok, in those examples it's blatantly clear. When it's simple objects I can notice it easily, but in the complexity and speed of a video game (or whatever reasons I'm having trouble with it) I still can not perceive it.

I'm certainly not expecting a different game. I know it's about smoothness, and I get it that film as a comparison isn't good, but the 30 vs 60 frame rate comparisons I've been able to find look identical to me. And even if I could find some test where it made it clear to me, in practical application, such as actually playing a game, I still don't think I'd notice it. I've certainly seen games play poorly on my PC, and I can notice very low frame rates, but at some point to me 30 or 60 makes no difference.

Graphics are irrelevant; games running at 60fps are more responsive and generally feel better to play.

@christaran: That just sounds crazy to me. The difference is huge. Playing a game at 30fps is passable, but at 60 it is just such more comfortable to play. Especially games that require timing and precision, I might find barely playable at 30. A Devil May Cry'ish game at 30? No, thank you.

If the game works in 30, go for it. Just make it 1080p when the hardware can handle it. The Xbone has serious issues drawing thick 1080p frames due to esRAM limitation and has to stick to 900p very often, the PS4 has no limits like that, it also has faster and more powerful every-goddamn-thing. If UBI deliver an identical AC:Parity in looks and performance on both platforms they need to burn in several hells.

Destiny does not count. Destiny on purpose was set to run at 30fps on all platforms to provide the same gaming experience. Destiny is also cross-generation. AC:Parity isn't. Bungie, despite Destiny, are decent people.

I would say frame rate and resolution matter in with a long list of things. And, for each game some matter more and some matter not all all. I for a narrative driven action/adventure game, the story matters A LOT. For a side scroller the story might matter very little but that frame rate sure matters.

This is just my personal opinion, but for a shooter, I think resolution matters less than frame rate. Yet frame-rate matters about all else in the long list of things.

Frame Rate > Character movement > Gun feel > Narrative >/= Amount of missions/maps > Resolution >/= All the Rest.

My TV can pump out 1080p. My console (ps4) can pump out 1080p. Why wouldn't I want the best output possible from a game. Gameplay is always paramount but why limit graphic fidelity if you can perform at a higher standard with no problems? It's stupid and limiting my experience.

Diablo 3 is a fine personal example to me. I played RoS on ps3 then got it for ps4. What if they had capped the ps4 RoS at 720? To avoid a unfair perk for ps3 players. It's ridiculous to think about blizzard doing that. As with any "other" company.

I'm a PC gamer, so 1080p60 is standard for me. I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p if I really, really look for it, but it's such a tiny difference that I don't care. If the current consoles stuck to 720p, I wouldn't care at all. Framerate is a different story. I do not want to play a game that runs like Far Cry 3 on consoles. When GTA V comes out on PC, I'll eventually buy it because the PS3 version runs like garbage. I'll happily take 720p60 over 900p30 or whatever.

All of that said, if a console game runs at a consistent, rock-solid 30 frames per second, I won't complain at all. I won't even complain if there are some spots where the framerate drops a little. I only really have a problem when a game struggles to reach 30 and rarely stays there for long - that really ruins any sort of fun that I could be having.

EDIT: Worth noting, it also really depends on the game. Character action games (Devil May Cry, Bayonetta), first person shooters, and racing games benefit most from a high framerate. Something like Skyrim or Minecraft, those don't really have a huge benefit from running at 60, though Minecraft actually does run at 60 on the 360, PS3, and PC. Turn based games like X-Com or a JRPG? Whatever, as long as the menus aren't laggy. Every game does benefit from 60 but it's more important for some than it is for others.

On a console? Resolution doesn't matter to me, but if the game can't do 60 it has to have solid 30.

On my PC it's always 1080/60 unless I'm forced to to tone it down to 1080/30.