What is playable FPS? 30? 45? 50? 60?
Personally I'm fine with anything above 45.
>>333153008
im fine with a consistent 30. i cant stand below that or if im getting 60 and it dips.
Whatever Dragon's Dogma runs at on consoles, that's my personal borderline acceptance.
>>333153008
competitive fps/rts? 144+
comfortable casual gaming - 60+
lowest acceptable if game is shit post or completely broken - ~45
>>333153008
30 is playable for most genres. 45+ is probably the sweet spot where most people would be comfortable.
>>333153208
>competitive fps/rts? 144+
autism
>>333153008
if its a single player game a consistent 45 or above is fine
Before the PS4 launch 60fps
After the PS4 launch 30fps with dips
>>333153008
single player 30fps, multiplayer nothing less than 60
>>333153008
a constant framerate above 30
>>333153008
I couldn't give a shit as long as the game is fun
>>333153275
wanna do a showmatch if CS:GO or SC2 right now?
post your id or bnet tag I'm on EU btw.
or you're just a big mouth chicken poorshit?
>>333153416
in*
quick self-fix
To be honest anything that you use a mouse with needs to be at least fucking 60 or you start feeling this mouse drag because not enough frames to input mouse movement into.
I play Dark Souls on PC at 50 locked.
>>333153008
Constant 30 and above. Anyone who says otherwise has a serious case of autism.
>>333153416
>>333153489
>>333153275
no answer? thought so, loser. I rest my case
anyone saying under 60 is an idiot.
It's been proven for over a 100 years that about 24 fps is the point when the human eye can start applying it's own natural "motion blur" and we start seeing things as a whole instead of moving pictures.
Of course, the human eye can see more FPS than that, but 20ish is the threshold for when something stops looking choppy for people if they sit down and get used to it. However, a person who has looked at 60 fps footage for very long will find a sudden change to 30 very noticable, and vise versa. The eye adapts, which is why a lot of console players think 60 fps looks like a soap opera, their eyes just aren't used to it.
However, since video games are interactive, a greater fps allows for greater control, since you're given smaller dead zones and more constant feedback. Meaning "playable FPS" is completely dependent on the game at hand.
20 fps, if it's consistent at least.
>>333153560
>no silky smooth 24 FPS
>>333153623
Wait are consoles still running at 30fps?
>>333153725
Uh yeah dude most games still don't run at 1080p/60FPS.
60 with some dips is okay for a SP game that looks really good
My personal grievance is with shitty games tying their engine to fps
So when your getting high fps the engine breaks down and does retard shit
>>333153008
Depends on the game.
Chess could run at 5 FPS on a 2D background. For action games, anything less than 30 is an eyesore.
Third and first-person games I really do prefer 60 for. Spinning the camera hog-wild can make you vomit if it's too low.
>>333153008
Anything above 10 is playable. Raping people 40 years ago in cs with my 10-20 fps and 200 ping.
>>333153008
Anything blows 60 in the [current year] is unacceptable.
Seriously though, if it's stable enough not to fuck with whatever rhythm I have going on, I really couldn't care less
Obviously the higher the better, but if it's stable it's totally fine.
>>333153761
I don't know man I thought the ps4 would at least have good enough hardware to run on 60.
>>333153927
There are definitely games that run at 60fps, but the majority don't.
>>333153553
psshh nothing personnel, kid
>>333153927
Sadly not, I blame optimization and devs trying to pump out games ASAP. I'm fucking sure it CAN handle 1080p/60 but only if the game runs really well.
>>333153987
Such as? Can it run modern games like.. The division or maybe bf4 at 60?
>>333154076
The new Doom beta runs at 60fps, I think Call of Duty runs at 60fps. I'm going to guess the games you named run at 30fps, but I'm not sure.
>>333154076
Bf4 runs at 60fps but at 720p.
Only a few games are 60/1080p, like MGSV and Wolfenstein: The New Order.
15fps with constant dips because i'm not an entitled little shitbag
>>333154214
900p.
>>333154436
Whats a p?
>>333154475
Pixels. It means the resolution is at least 900 pixels wide.
>>333154491
>>333154491
Whats a pixel?
30+ is playable
60+ is desireable
>>333153796
Those were the times.
>>333153008
A consistent 30 fps is the bare minimum standard necessary in modern gaming as far as I'm concerned. 60 fps is preferred, but if a game is good enough by my standards I will overlook a framerate lower then that.
>>333154491
Ebic
>45
>not knowing how frames work
>>333154784
>Implying you can't have 45 frames per second
Playable: 20 FPS
Acceptable: 30 FPS
Good: 45 FPS
Better: 100% synced to screen's refresh rate, no dips
>>333153008
40+ for me. 30 makes me puke in about an hour. at 40 I can stand several hours with just mild headaches. 60 is needed for unlimited game session though.
>>333155543
>Playable: 20 FPS
>Good: 45 FPS
>>333155632
>>Playable: 20 FPS
>>Good: 45 FPS
>>333155543
>Better: 100% synced to screen's refresh rate, no dips
So, 30 could be "better" than 45?
I was fine with consistent 15fps in the ps1 and n64 days. Im not too picky
>>333153560
15 is perfectly fine
>>333155760
If you want to be a smartass, yeah. But you know what smartasses get.
>>333154784
actually most of the official framerates technically don't work, because you can't divide a digital number into infinite digit after the comma. you always carry a rounded value that makes your framerate uneven no matter what.
it's weird that they didn't actually fix high values at rounded numbers, like 50 fps, or 100 fps.
>>333155725
Playable should be 45. 20 is just a slide show
>>333155836
>But you know what smartasses get.
Rewards!?
2D game can go under 30 but even then they have no reason to not target 60.
I have quite trouble understanding how people who grew up with PS1 and PS2 have issues with 20-30 FPS
>>333153008
I enjoyed TLOU more in 30 FPS. At 60 FPS it made the world less immersive.
>>333155957
they grew up and now understand how stuff works
>>333153796
Are you a blue bear with a fedora?
>>333155957
i remember going from mgs2 to mgs3 was quite jarring, and at the time i had little understanding of framerate.
>>333153008
It depends on the game. In instances where precision and twitch reflexes are key, then I want 45+ frames.
If I'm playing an RPG or Adventure title, then 30+ is generally fine.
I'm honestly more interested in better optimized physics engines for the consoles. The graphics and physics in some of these new console titles actually have me impressed, and it has me excited to see the new engines we'll have in the future.
>>333153008
I'd prefer consistent 30 over 60 that dips to 40 every few seconds.
Consistent > Unstable, it's hard to argue against that.
Playable: 30.
Bare minimum: Unstable 60.
Good: 60.
I don't really care: >60.
>>333153560
you should done 24 fps it looks better than 30 desu
10fps with a poison ivy covered dildo shoved up my ass is perfectly playable.
Depends highly on the game. 30 FPS isn't the bare minimum, but I'm not going to want to play anything lower a lot. DD on PS3 is a good example. Assassins Creed, on the other hand, can get shakey. I find Unity to be completely unplayable at 30 because there's so much input delay you can count it.
I love 144, shame it's not usable in most games.
The problem is that console games COULD run at 60 fps but console gamers literally don't want it too. Halving the framerate to shove in a bit more detail has a major impact on sales
>>333153008
Stability is most important.
If you can't maintain your frame cap, lower your cap.
>>333153008
A solid framerate is what is playable. From what you listed 60fps being ideal but something like DaS is entirely playable at 30fps.
30fps is fine.
>>333154876
Only if you have a TV with a Hz rate that is divisible by 45. If its 60, you can only get 60.
Is it true that the eye can't see more than 30?
>>333153008
sub-20: please don't
20: playable, but only just barely
30: playable, if not good
45: playable
50: good
60: great
over 60: fucking great
>>333157640
Dude, no.
>>333156054
That makes sense. Everything is too smooth at 60. 30 honestly feels more realistic.
>>333157660
Human eyes don't have refresh rates. The difference between 30, 60, 90, and 120 are all noticeable enough for me to tell with no counter.
>>333155543
Playing anything below 30 fps is like looking at a fucking powerpoint.
>>333153008
Stable 30 is perfectly fine. Fluctuating fps is the fucking worst though.
>>333157686
this desu
>>333157660
Things blur at high speed for a reason. The brain doesn't have enough processing power to render things in high detail that happen quickly.
>>333157706
You can also get 30, but that will just be the TV showing every frame twice in the 60hz cycle.
>>333157713
>Everything is too smooth at 60. 30 honestly feels more realistic.
I'd attribute that to the jarring effect of unfamiliarity.
It's not common to you so it feels unnatural.
I used to be the same way. Now the jarring effect is in reverse.
>>333157916
Not at all what I'm talking about. 45 fps is possible, regardless of monitor.
My pc is starting to show its age so i've played a few games at 30 using half refresh vsync and capping it using nvidia inspector. As long as its consistent then its fine. Might try far cry 4 this way because ubisoft can't into optimisation.
>>333153008
Anything from 2004 onward running below 45 fps is fucking trash.Except handhelds because you trade power for mobility. But even then it has to be a stable fps.
>>333157768
Sure, John.
>>333157686
this, /thread
>>333157958
Why are you lying? What's the point when we both know it?
>>333153008
stable/consistent framerate>unstable framerate
>>333158169
>lying
Why do you think that I don't believe what I'm saying?
>>333153008
15-20 years ago anything above 20fps was considered playable
>>333157686
This is it. 30 FPS is playable.. It gives you a cinematic feel especially when you are playing a FPS and things get heavy.
>>333158314
Why do you think a 60hz monitor can do 45fps?
>>333158571
nobody cares about 20 years ago
>>333158653
>Why do you think a 60hz monitor can do 45fps?
Because frames aren't tied to the refresh rate of the monitor, that's why we have v-sync and shit.
>>333158616
>cinematic feel
Getting a cinematic feel is how I usually know the VIDEO GAME Im playing is shit. 30 fps breaks immersion for me.
>>333158616
Cool shitpost
>>333158717
The monitor can only show divisibles of its refresh rate, regardless of what fps the computer is producing.
>>333159014
Not really, but what's your point in this? We were discussing framerates, not refreshrates.
>>333153008
I'm always trying to get it to a somewhat stable 45. Unless it's fast paced, then it's 60 I'm going for.
But in case of emergency, and that it really is on the lowest setting, I can do 25.
>>333153008
Playable FPS: Anything over 20
Preferred FPS Minimum:
First Person, mouse: 120
First Person, keyboard/controller: 30
Third Person, mouse: 60
Third Person, keyboard/controller: 30
Isometric or Top-Down: 60
TBS: 1
How much you need depends on how the game is viewed/played.
>>333159070
The point is that on a 60hz monitor, anything between 30 and 60 is meaningless, because you will only see 30, until the fps reaches or exceeds 60. The monitor is physically incapable of showing a number of frames per second that isn't divisible by its hz number.
>>333153008
anything lower than 200 is shit tier.
>>333159362
>The point is that on a 60hz monitor, anything between 30 and 60 is meaningless
Why didn't you say this then? Weird way to make a point.
>>333153008
Stable, at least 30
>>333159463
I was saying it from the start. You replied with things like "not really".
>>333159362
What the fuck?
>>333159581
>I was saying it from the start.
No you weren't.
>You replied with things like "not really".
No I didn't.
>>333159362
>meaningless
no, you are retard who doesn't understand what FPS does in 3d game other than image refresh rate.
60 is good unless there are a lot of colours, then it gets kinda nauseating.
>>333159362
You're retarded. By your logic playing a game at inconsistent 60fps will zigzag between 30 and 60, which isn't true at all. Have you even played on a monitor before?
With modern games, it's kind of hard to get constant 60 with all ultra, without spending a fortune on top of the line GPU.
Or you could just play on medium..
>>333159708
You're the retard. Consistent 60fps will give consistent 60fps.
>>333159851
He didn't say anything that contradicts that...
>>333159851
Learn how to read.
>>333159608
Yeah you did.
>>333159595
>>333159625
>>333159708
And here come the ad hominum buffoons. Such creative non counter points you guys give.
>>333159982
>Yeah you did.
Where? To the original reply of course, not something that you brought up later.
God has spoken
>>333159982
>Guy says something retarded
>Poeple call him retarded
>AD HOMINEM
You are even more retarded now than before.
>>333153553
>muh autism
>muh i need more than 60fps for my peecee shit throwaway titles
Enough reason right there to commit sudoku, champ
>>333159982
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
Ste up 3 moving objects, one at 30, one at 48 and one at 60fps. If your logic is correct, and a monitor can only support evenly divisible framerates, than two balls should look exactly the same. You are incorrect because it is possible to tell the difference between 30 and 48, and 48 and 60.
>>333154491
Your mom is 900 pixels wide
>>333160053
In every post where you reply to me. I was saying the same thing in every post and weren't catching on.
30 fps is an acceptable minimum.
>>333159708
>playing a game at inconsistent 60fps will zigzag between 30 and 60
That actually happens, though.
>>333160164
Fucking pwned
>>333160248
>In every post where you reply to me.
That's false. I'm not going to point out how for every post of mine, if you want to be sure point out which post.
>I was saying the same thing in every post
No you weren't.
>>333153008
30 is absolute bare minimum for consoles
anything under 50 fps on PC lag like shit unless the game is made to run at 30 fps (shit like naruto ninja storm)
>>333160318
Again, >>333160164
Monitors can support framerates other than 15, 30 and 60. Unless you have some weird-ass vsync in game it won't go from 60 to 30.
>>333153208
>competitive fps/rts? 144+
lmao
I play mostly fighting frames so 60 is fine for me
>>333160318
where?
where does it happen?
>>333160060
>posting a tweet from April Fools' Day
ebin
>>333160387
I know what I was saying. It was the same thing every time. You just didn't get it until the post where you got it.
>>333160561
When you play games?
>>333160624
>I know what I was saying.
Clearly you do not.
>>333160624
>It was the same thing every time.
No, you started by saying "frames" don't work that way, not monitors or refreshrates. They're 3 different things.
anything 60+, I did my time on shit consoles and toaster PCs
anyone with a job that isn't flipping burger has no reason not to have a PC capable of 60fps+ for any title since 1080p is piss easy to get consistent 60fps
1440p is where its at anyway
>>333160713
when I play games I get anywhere betwean 32-300 fps.
mostly 180-300
>>333160739
If you aren't mentally equipped to accept that
"The monitor can only show divisibles of its refresh rate, regardless of what fps the computer is producing."
and
"on a 60hz monitor, anything between 30 and 60 is meaningless, because you will only see 30, until the fps reaches or exceeds 60"
mean the same thing, then there is no point in continuing to repeat myself. You got it in the end, anyway.
>>333160829
Yeah sure you can get a cheap PC and play modern games on all low 60 FPS no problem..
>tfw not high settings
>tfw cannot set high graphics to fit in with the big guys
>>333161007
>"The monitor can only show divisibles of its refresh rate, regardless of what fps the computer is producing."
This isn't what you were saying all the time.
>inb4 I jumped into this stupid conversation mid argument without saying it
Consistent 30 or Consistent 60. I'd rather be locked at 30 and it never drops than have range for 60, and it drop to 24 mid-action.
>>333161007
You are trying to make it sound better to rectify your mistake, but your premiss is still wrong.
nomatter how you write it, no matter what words you will you, you will always be wrong.
>>333155543
This
>>333161114
I was in fact saying the same thing the whole time. There's no point in denying it. You have no supporting evidence for the claim that you yourself made.
>>333161476
>I was in fact saying the same thing the whole time.
Again, you never mentioned refreshrates or monitors in your original post. So you can't have been talking about refreshrates or monitors in comparison to framerates.
>>333161329
Quoting myself word for word is not an attempt to rectify. That would imply a change of tone. I'm just saying what I said from the start.
>>333161587
no you are not quting yourself.
you are adding new meaning to previous statements so they would combine into one meaning, while before they stood on their own.
>>333161587
>Quoting myself word for word
Don't imply that that was your first post word for word.
>>333161561
I mentioned nothing BUT refresh rates and monitors in my original post, actually.
>>333161767
>I mentioned nothing BUT refresh rates and monitors in my original post, actually.
Bullshit. Do you really need me to quote it?
Again, I seriously hope you're not some retard that's going to say "I wasn't that guy, I just jumped into it without knowing what it was about kek".
>>333161767
>anything betwean 30 and 60 is meaningless
>I was talking about refresh rate
so, you are brain dead fuckboy, good to know.
>>333161712
I wasn't implying anything. I was literally quoting myself word for word to show how I was always saying the same thing and you were too slow to get it.
>>333161691
If you see new similarities between two posts when they are side by side, that isn't me casting magic on you. That's you realising I was saying the same thing all along.
>>333161973
Stop tryint to rectify your mistakes, you are fucking wrong on every post you do.
You do not understand, refresh rate and any of it's meanings.
>>333161973
>I was literally quoting myself word for word to show how I was always saying the same thing
In that case you'd be implying that that was your first post. Otherwise it's literally pointless, because the first post was what mattered.
>>333154784
>>333154876
>>333157640
>>333157706
In short:
Refresh fag is an idiot
>>333161849
You've had the same guy replying to all along. I'm surprised you're taking so long to accept that my notion of a 60hz monitor not playing nice with 45fps is anything but just that.
30 is definitely the minimum for me. Games like Bloodborne definitely make me notice the framerate but it's still playable. Anything below that really chugs and starts to bother me.
>>333162180
>You've had the same guy replying to all along.
In that case you're wrong then, because of reasons I've already said.
>>333162180
>I'm surprised you're taking so long to accept that my notion of a 60hz monitor not playing nice with 45fps is anything but just that.
I'm just arguing that that wasn't your original point.
See >>333154784
>>45
>>not knowing how frames work
Literally no mention of refreshrates or monitors (in relation to your post that mentions only framerates).
>>333162108
My first post was saying the same thing as any other post I made afterwards. What is your problem with that?
>>333153008
>What is playable
What's playable? Anything that is or is above 10 fps, granted it's stable.
Stable fps is much more important than high fps.
>>333162180
shit mate, my monitor has 59hz refrash rate and game on 45fps works fine, I guess 59 can be devided to 45.
>>333162380
>My first post was saying the same thing as any other post I made afterwards
It's not, see >>333162316
Framerates are not refreshrates or monitors in relation to framerates.
30 is acceptable, although not great. Below 30 is awful, although some games still manage to be barely playable, like the PS2 version of Shadow of the Colossus or Super Ghouls and Ghosts on SNES. Barely is the keyword though.
60 is great and I wish it was more of a standard. 120 is fucking glorious, although it's obviously unrealistic for most developers to accomplish this.
>>333162316
Yes, it starts simple and you get more information with every follow up post until it dawns on you. What is not to get here?
I grew to love going above 120, but stable 60 is the minimum.
Dark Souls PTDE is literally the only game I can think of with a framerate locked to a multiple of your refresh rate.
By definition even low fps is playable, so yes 30 IS playable. But below 60 is not enjoyable. I mean if the game only dips in one very demanding area of the game below 60 i'm not complaining, but if it's constantly going 55-60 it's already an unenjoyable mess.
30 is trash as it's a stutter fest filled with insane amounts of motion blur completely destroying iq (see uncharted 4 or quantum break for example, good screenshot material but looks and plays like shit in motion).
>>333162570
>Yes, it starts simple
It starts wrong. I was only discussing that. You're just saying you moved the goalposts now.
But, thanks for finally agreeing that you weren't saying the same thing constantly though.
>>333153008
Honestly I can deal with 30 fps. What makes a game unplayable is the stability of that frame rate. Rather play a stable 30 than 60 with regular dips.
And no I'm not advocating for consoles because they're far from stable and rarely achieve 30.
>>333162702
I literally never changed my point.
>>333160537
its true, what are you about?
>>333162756
>I literally never changed my point.
You just admitted that you gave more information about what you were actually discussing as the argument went on, i.e. changed what you said. The first point did not include refreshrates, you changed that later.
Many people loved ocarina of time which ran at 15 or 20 fps so I guess that's the acceptable frame rate
>>333162756
It started as an incorrect statement and were called out on it.
You corrected with context. (moving goalposts)
You're still retarded.
30 and above as long as it's stable, although when I play on my PC I tweak the settings until I get a stable 60. When I play on console I look for at least a stable 30.
>>333162889
The first reply to your own post is where the point gets explained to you. It was the same before then as it was after then. The only difference is the attempt to make it more apparent to you.
>>333163220
>The first reply to your own post is where the point gets explained to you.
No, it's where you add shit to it.
>It was the same before then as it was after then.
It literally isn't.
You fucking said this yourself.
>>333163007
>misinterpreted until things were made crystal clear
>Goalpost moving
It's more like revealing to you where the goalposts actually are, after you started off looking away from the field.
>>333163220
>>333163405
A contextual statement without the conext is an incorrect statement.
Intent is irrelevant. Trying to save face at this point is just digging deeper.
>>333163356
So you're complaint is that I didn't write a thesis in my first post? Okay then. I'll be sure to expound on it next time.
>>333163460
That would depend on interpretation. One would assume that people know what's what around here.
>>333163405
>>misinterpreted
There's nothing to misinterpret about a 6 word post that does not mention the things you claim were misinterpreted. You are just retarded, or moved the goalposts, or probably both.
>>333163517
>So you're complaint
No I'm not.
>So you're complaint is that I didn't write a thesis in my first post?
No, it's that you type something without including the actual point, and then get all autistic when people are discussing something different (the thing you actually typed).
Not to mention it's wrong anyway, but you dropped that already so whatever.
>>333163585
>One would assume that people know what's what around here.
Yeah, you would think people know the difference between framerates and refreshrates.
I find it depends alot on the game in question. Often less intense games and games that aren't fast paced (war of the roses, any point and click, turn based games) tend to be fine around 30 whilst games like skyrim and twitch shooters are digusting and unplayable at anything below 40.
>>333163616
>you would think people know the difference between framerates and refreshrates
Exactly.
>>333163707
Yeah, obviously framerates can get anything between 0 and theoretically infinite regardless of monitor.
![3315407-man-holding-an-old-shovel-in-his-hand[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CuiltMV.jpg "3315407-man-holding-an-old-shovel-in-his-hand[1].jpg")
I play The Division on 50-60, occasionally dipping to 40s when things get really heavy.
I'm okay with this.
30 fps stable is playable.
60 fps stable is good.
100 fps is awesome.
144 fps is best.
This goes for all games, what I would rather have and what is playable is two different things.
>24 and 48 fps come from film
>50, 60 and 120 fps are based off of standard TV/monitor refresh rates
>25 and 30 fps come from half refresh rates
Where did 144Hz/fps come from? Seems like a random number.
>>333165071
6 times 24 fps I guess?
>>333154475
>>333154491
Not sure if you are pretending to be retarded or you actually are, but 'p' stands for progressive scan as opposed to interlaced scan, another popular technique, you can have 1080p or 1080i.
>>333153008
solid 30, solid 60.
you need gsync or freesync for smoothness on variable refresh rates
>>333165071
They're all TV/monitor standards in different areas/ applications, and 144Hz monitors are popular for competitive vidya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Digital_video_and_television_standards
