What's more important to you, frame rate or resolution?

Frame rate, no matter what. I don't want to compromise on resolution or image quality either, which is one of the reasons I don't own consoles anymore. I don't want to have to settle for one or the other, or rather, have developers choose for me which is more important.

If the game is fun to play.

I guess it depends on the game, those that require a lot of movement like DOOM I'd rather have a worse resolution to ensure that I'm always running at a high FPS. Other games such as Until Dawn I don't mind the fact that it's a bit frame-y just because of the graphical fidelity and the fact that, overall, the game is a bit slower pace. Even so, I'd still prefer if games ran smoother and sacrificed some of the more computationally expensive graphical bells and whistles.

Original Doom at 60 fps looks great.

I didn't realize how much better 60 looked than 30 until I built my PC. 1080 is just fine as long as it's smooth.

Well, I don't think playing a game with a terrible frame rate is very fun...

Both and neither. I don't need 1080p resolution or 60fps for every game, but trying to play a low resolution game on a high resolution screen does bug the crap out of me (as much as I loved my PS2, it's the number one reason I hardly ever go back to those games now), and depending on the game, a choppy framefrate can be a real problem. Other times I've played and enjoyed games at sub 20-30fps just fine.

Generally those things are relatively low priority when it comes to what I look for in a game though.

I'd rather play a game at 900p 60fps than a game at 1080p 30fps, usually.

Resolution. Give me that crisp picture. Unlike most people, anything over 20 frames works for me!

It depends entirely on what game I'm playing. Some games, I like seeing the graphics pushed up to max and am willing to take an inconsistent framerate (Witcher 3). Others, such as the new DOOM, need to be a solid 60 or I just go crazy. Unsurprisingly, games that have some sense of speed or visual intensity are more dependent on framerate and slower-paced games can be more about looking good.

I'm also pretty rigidly stuck on 1080p being the highest resolution I need and 60 FPS being enough, which helps. While I'm sure 1440 and 4K look fantastic, it's not worth the increased hardware requirements and graphics settings fiddling I would have to do. For now, I'm perfectly content to hit consistent 60 FPS on nearly every game at max settings at 1080p with my current PC.

Frame rate in the sense that I would prefer to have games that run well than have games that look hella good. A part of me (granted, a really crazy part of me) wishes there was a sub-section of gaming that looked the best looking games that came out for the PS2 and Xbox and said, "What if we kept this level of fidelity with regards to the models and environments, and dumped all of our resources into keeping the frame rate above 60 and our art design".

Then again, when I got my 680 GTX a few years ago, I took great pleasure in bumping all of the games I had over the next 2 or so years to Max / Ultra. Right now I'm also running two 1080p monitors, and I'm looking into getting an ultra wide 1440p or whatever monitor. Anything beyond that, like trying to tap into 4K gaming, I have no interest in.

So I guess I really like both and wish I lived in a world where I could always and forever have both. At the end of the day though, if I had to choose, I would prefer to have a pretty good looking game at 45 to 60, than a "great" looking game at 20 to 35.

I love some pretty graphics, but I'm not super picky. As long as performance is stable, I'm happy.

Framerate, but both.

60fps > 1080p > shadows/particle effects/textures/etc.

Frame rate, as long as the resolution is acceptable. Otherwise resolution with questionable frame rate. I dont want to look at the game through a mosaic window. But I have a questionably high tolerance for poor frame rate.

Native resolution and 60fps. I'll drop shadows and SSAO to get there.

As a dirty console gamer I don't really care about resolution, I sit far enough away from my TV that the difference between 1080p and 900 or 720 is negligible. Image quality just isn't that important to me and I always kind of find the way some gripe on it bizarre (more power to them, though). I'd much rather have a consistent and high framerate - that said, again as a filthy console gamer who has grown used to it - I won't stop playing a game if it has a lowish or inconsistent framerate if I'm enjoying the game itself (that's not to say awful framerate can't result in a game not being fun to play).

Both preferably, but if I had to choose one, frame rate. Specifically high frame rate at a high refresh rate. When I upgraded to a 1440p 144Hz monitor, that made far more of a difference than the higher resolution.

Both. Gotta have a great balance of everything.

In compromise, performance is important. Whether it's 60fps, 30fps, etc, I am more picky when it comes to maintenance of the rate.

Bad framerate makes me naseuous, needs to be a fairly steady 30 or better.

I'll say that when a game is first released, I'm often ok with a slightly wonky framerate if the game looks phenomenal or is really engrossing to play. Separate me out from release by a few years, and framerate is what really matters. Perfect Dark on N64 is nigh unplayable today because of its framerate AND looks bad compared to modern games, but F-Zero X, despite looking bad even when it first came out, is way more playable today thanks to that silky smooth framerate.

Fresolution.

(Seriously hopefully both if im dumb enough to blow 600 on a gtx 1080 when they come out. But for now 30fps is fine, i feel like im sacrificing too much fidelity to hit 60fps on my machine, buttery smooth as it is)

Resolution. As a console gamer, every significant graphical upgrade I've experienced in my life has been related to resolution. I've said this elsewhere, but I often find games that run at 60FPS to look "odd" to me, sort of like the difference between a soap opera and film/primetime TV. Metal Gear Solid V is one of the few games I know runs at 60 that I didn't get that feeling from. I tried The Last of Us Remastered at 60 and almost immediately had to move it back to 30.

Ultimately I'd choose frame rate, but that depends on how consistent it is. If a game runs below 60, but it doesn't ever dip or rise sharply, then it's fine. A consistent 45 is better than a 60 that stutters down to 50 frequently. In those cases, I'd choose frame rate in a heartbeat.

I always run games fullscreen, so dropping resolution isn't a good idea for me. I'll drop whatever effects it takes to achieve 60 if need be.

@mike: Yeah, I am not really taking into account image quality, in terms of what games can do visually, just frame rate and resolution. So, as my example, The Witcher 3 highest settings, either with higher frame rates, or higher resolution. Ideally we all want the best of both.

I'd rather have the higher resolution, as long as I have 30 FPS. 60 is a nice bonus, but in no way necessary.

Framerate. I dont know what it is but I no longer get impressed by sweeping vistas or lifelike faces. The visuals in Uncharted 4 for instance had no effect on me. I loved every second of MGS V though. I wish there were more games like Nioh that give you the option to choose between the two.

Frame rate. Been using a 120hz monitor for several years and i can't go back. I will drop whatever graphic options i need to to get at least a steady 100fps. Your question is essentially better frame rate or better graphics, but i believe that the former leads to the latter since the smoothness is pleasing to my eyes that are very sensitive to motion blur.

The choice isn't quite that straightforward.

You also have your anti aliasing, your fancy lighting models, your texture resolution, your complex shadows, your volumetric whatevers...

That said, I'd put resolution in the same camp as the aforementioned frippery.

If the game doesn't run at a decent frame-rate, you dial that shit down.

I care about neither all that much, though I guess as long as it's a stable 30(With minimal dips to high 20's), I'm okay. I guess that would make frame rate slightly more important.

Depends on the game. With CS:GO, if I'm getting below like a constant 200 fps, it's a bad time. But playing Uncharted 4, I'm okay with the occasional frame drops because it's a single player experience.

Frame rate. The real question should be frame rate or graphical fidelity. You should not be dropping below 1080p in this day and age

@boozak: interesting, didnt know it had that option. Ill have to watch some gameplay to see how uglyfied it gets when bumped to 60fps.

Also i wish dark souls 3 was able to run at 60 fps 1080p on my machine even after turning everything to low, but i guess it cant for reasons (fx8350, r9 290 oc'ed)

I can't give a simple answer since it depends on the situation.

Back when I would play games on my 7-year-old 720p TV with my then budget build of a PC, turning games up to 1080 was waste of frames because 1360 x 768 was the TV's native resolution. Playing games in 768 looked pretty clear and sharp on my TV from what I could tell, so that's a case where frame rate was more important with my 750 Ti being able to push 60 with most of the games I played.

Now since I've upgraded to a proper 1080p monitor though with the same GPU, I can't play a game below 1080 because how how blurry things are. So when I want to play Arkham Knight or something with higher GPU recommendations, I rather turn down the various texture and lighting setting rather than playing in full screen glaucoma vision, or in windowed mode as if I'm trying to use OBS with one screen. So that's a case where resolution wins. I'm fine with playing games at 30 if it's a consistent 30 since I never even thought about frame rates since I've played with three generations of consoles before getting into PC gaming just over a year ago. So as long as nothing gets into the low 20's, I'm fine, but I will get a 1070 when I'm able to since I'm getting more accustomed to 60.

And for my third scenario: I just bought a Surface 3. Awesome for media consumption, productivity and light editing and drawing. Totally not made for gaming. But, I like knowing that I have the option to play some very light indie games like Mark of The Ninja and older games like XCOM 1 at 1280 x 800. Sure, playing XCOM on my Surface isn't as ideal as playing it on my desktop since I have to put everything on low just to get around 20-25 frames. But I'm okay with it since ugly and sub 30 XCOM beats the hell out of any Gameloft title in the Windows app store.

Though, while proofreading, I guess I just realized that frame rate wins with me overall. My standard for resolution is relative to the screen I'm playing on while I'm becoming more sensitive toward frame rates.

I'm an old ass man now so give me a high frame rate. Lower frame rates now give me a headache and cause eye strain when 30 or below in heavy actions scenes.

When HD Tvs first came out I went to a bunch of stores to comparison shop. 720p and 1080p were hard to tell apart, Unless you have a huge screen or set close it's generally difficult to tell the difference between relatively small differences in resolution. You may be able to if you look closely, or if watching a direct side by side comparison, but that's pretty much nit picking.

Frame rate is entirely different. While at the higher end it may be tough to tell 60 from 55, something like 30 to 25 is very obvious. I've never had a game be totally unplayable due to resolution problems, but frame rate issues, hell yes.

Get the frame rate right. At least decent (locked 30 is okay) and then worry about the other stuff. I've never stopped playing a game because it lacked a certain lighting effect but I've definitely turned stuff off due to the sluggishness of the frame rate.

Matter of steady frames for me rather than the actual count. Sure, I prefer 60+ but I played through all of DS1 in 30 fps and hardly noticed after the first hour.

Resolution can be worked around with all sorts of AA.

Framerate was one of the major reasons I wanted a gaming PC. I don't mind a solid, steady 30 on a console, but 60+FPS on a 144Hz monitor just looks and feels so good. Games look pretty good regardless of settings these days so I don't care what I have to set it to to play the game.

I'd play everything in 480p if it were like 90fps.

There are a few games where I'll drop the resolution to gain frames but otherwise it's resolution or bust. I can't stand that grainy/blurry look you get when you drop below 1920x1080. Same with games that have resolution scale, I always keep that stuff at 100%.

I will gladly take a 720p game running at a steady 30/60fps with no drops over a 1080p game that's all over the place or sub 30

depends on the game

I don't understand, why do I have to choose?

@sicamore: No, not really, because I was asking in terms of keeping everything on max settings. That is something that isn't adjustable, you can either have a lower frame rate with a high resolution, or vice versa. It's hypothetical, but that was my question. I wasn't asking about turning settings up or down (other than the resolution).

Frame rate. What does resolution matter if the game runs like crap?

Resolution. If I can't make out what's happening on the screen, high framerate is worthless to me.

Between the two, I'd probably take frame rate? I'm definitely not one who demands 60 fps at all times, but I can get annoyed when games can't even maintain a solid 30.

I'm also one of those crazies that would take a locked frame rate over a fluctuating one. I remember playing the original Infamous, which ran at 30 but not locked. When turning the camera around, the frame rate could easily keep switching based on what was on-screen at the time, and it could get real jumpy when you run up to a wall and the frame rate suddenly doubles because there's practically nothing on-screen. It made me real swimmy headed whenever that happened and as a result I was not able to play much of that game.

The one thing I absolutely abhor is screen tearing, as that can make me physically ill extremely easily. Thankfully I've not noticed this in any game I've played lately.

tldr; I'll take a solid frame rate over almost anything, but I don't absolutely need 60 fps either

I usually play games at 4k, but with a lot of effects dialed down to keep the frame rate reasonable. When I start a lot of games I'll do a quick test of 'would I rather have this at 1080p with the settings cranked up, or 4k with them dialed down', and 4k usually wins.

A steady frame rate is unquestionably more important than a high resolution. The only exceptions I can think of would be point and click adventure games or visual novels where stationary visual fidelity might take precedence over performance. The other 99% of games will benefit more from running steadily than they will from looking intricate. I mean, some Super Nintendo and Genesis games still look gorgeous and they run right around 240p.

Let's talk about the real problem here.

Load times.

Every game should run at a resolution of 320x240. That way everything can be 10,000 fps.

Obviously framerate, a bad framerate makes the game unplayable. Like literally.