Anyone else not really care about FPS?

[DevilishlyHandsome49]

Like for me, as long as the game isn't going stop-motion on me, I'm fine with the game. A solid 30 fps can still seem smooth to me. I can spot the difference with 60 fps, but sometimes that seems too smooth. I don't really know how to explain it, but it just feels fake to me. 

It just baffles me when people demonize 30fps and refuse to buy a game purely because of that. 

[LadyRadarEars]

I care less about frames per second and more about latency and lag during multiplayer, and how well its coded.

I don't care how pretty it looks so long as it isn't broken and I can play it with people over the internet without dying horribly.

[Osrik]

Unless the FPS actually is affect my gameplay or is visually stuttering, I really don't care what it is at.

The types of gamers who obsess over these things are getting even more ridiculous recently; some have now decided 60 FPS is crap and 120 FPS is the only acceptable option:

Quote

60fps is bare minimum these days. You want 120 or more fps now if your monitor can support it. 120hz-144hz. My current monitors a 60hz IPS so i get not much benefit from going over 60fps in most games. But games below 60fps usually give me a bad headache. A lot of people who have 120hz or higher monitors say the same thing with 60hz, they can't go back after going 120hz or more.

if you think 30fps is not noticeable your probably a console peasant, or you've never gamed on a decent pc and monitor.

I can notice in an instant if a games locked at 30 fps, and usually its because its a bad console port.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/can-t-see-a-difference-between-30-fps-and-60-fps-31770044/

(warning: be prepared for gratuitous dick waving if you enter this thread...)

[PastryOfApathy]

I care as much as I care about HD vs. SD.

It's definitely noticeable (and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a liar), but I simply don't mind too much for the most part depending on the game.

Like I'm not gonna be a TotalBiscuit-level sperg who refuses to play literally any game that isn't 60 FPS (even if engine limitations make that literally impossible), but as time goes on my expectations will certainly go up.

[Sourdough]

As long as the framerate is constant, I don't mind 30fps or lower. Then again I don't play the kinds of games where high framerates really matter. It's definitely not a dealbreaker for me.

2 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I care as much as I care about HD vs. SD.

Everything is SD without my glasses! Every TV has a 00s size with a 90s resolution

[TrishaCat]

I care about framerate in the sense that if there are constant dips and/or if its changing a lot it'll annoy me, but otherwise I don't mind lower framerates. To a degree. Back when I had a toaster laptop and was running some games at as low as 9FPS it was very VERY noticeable and annoying, rendering games near unplayable. 

That said, if a game is capable of higher framerates without breaking a game then there is absolutely no reason why it should be locked at a certain framerate. Higher = better.

EDIT: On another note, it particularly irks me when I see old JRPGs getting ported to PC and then people demonizing their framerate despite how so many JRPGs have had their framerates tied to gameplay, thus making higher fps versions of such games break the games in some ways. Final Fantasy Type 0's Steam reviews are very full of this nonsense.

[Xaende]

30 fps is fine for casual gaming on a standard monitor. For VR, on the other hand, you'll want at least 60 fps... if not 90+ or 120+. At the end of the day, it's a balancing act between how much I'm willing to spend vs. how much I'm willing to overlook until the prices come down. For $500, I might imagine that 30 fps is 60 fps. Then again, I'm not the most competitive gamer when it comes to fast-twitch reaction times, so I won't notice the difference as much as some other guys.

[Tsuujou]

If it's a fast paced action oriented game, especially multiplayer, I will not play a game at less than 60 FPS. 

If it's a slower, single player game or something casual, 60 is great, but I'll take 40, 30 if I absolutely have to. 

 

1 hour ago, Battlechili said:

 

EDIT: On another note, it particularly irks me when I see old JRPGs getting ported to PC and then people demonizing their framerate despite how so many JRPGs have had their framerates tied to gameplay, thus making higher fps versions of such games break the games in some ways. Final Fantasy Type 0's Steam reviews are very full of this nonsense.

Totalbiscuit's arrogant ass had the audacity to make a Steam curator to brand literally every game locked at 30 on Steam. The Framerate Police. He would go to little indie -strategy games- and put this huge yellow stigmatizing brand on a casual game. Have you ever heard of something so egotistical?

Curators are supposed to be used to categorize specific types of games people want to play. He abused to system to be a fucking Tumblr-esque callout platform. 

[Cingal]

60FPS Or bust.

 

For real though, yeah, I prefer 60FPS (Or above, woo Gsync.), and will generally obtain it where possible.

 

30FPS is okay for some games, but, I think if you're a 3D game with any amount of action, 60FPS is going to be preferable.

[TrishaCat]

31 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

Totalbiscuit's arrogant ass had the audacity to make a Steam curator to brand literally every game locked at 30 on Steam. The Framerate Police. He would go to little indie -strategy games- and put this huge yellow stigmatizing brand on a casual game. Have you ever heard of something so egotistical?

Curators are supposed to be used to categorize specific types of games people want to play. He abused to system to be a fucking Tumblr-esque callout platform. 

I heard and saw that, and while originally I was upset with it, after giving it some time and thought I just figured that informing users of such information when game devs themselves won't isn't such a bad thing. It only exists to benefit users, after all. I was worried about it causing some harm to game sales or demonizing developers for things outside of their control, but if someone truly would opt to not play a game on the notion of it being locked to a framerate, then I guess having such a thing to inform them is good since they wouldn't be purchasing stuff they might otherwise hate.

[Fossa]

My most advanced system is a super-Nintendo, so the FPS probably does not matter. Never tried Steam, but does it have a function where you can play older console/arcade type games with people online?

( also I thought the thread said, 'Does any anyone here not really care about FAPS, at first, but then I got wise)

[Feelwell]

As long as the game is playable. If I bought it for things other than graphics and atmosphere then FPS really doesn't matter.

If it disrupts atmosphere such as horror then yea I care a bit. Otherwise I don't get the insane people who foam at the mouth when you say 60FPS isn't a requirement.

 

Oh and here is a fun fact.

Fallout 4's lock picking is tied to frame rate. This means when you mess with the frame rate you can dick up the lock picking and make it seriously twitchy.

[Tsuujou]

41 minutes ago, Battlechili said:

I heard and saw that, and while originally I was upset with it, after giving it some time and thought I just figured that informing users of such information when game devs themselves won't isn't such a bad thing. It only exists to benefit users, after all. I was worried about it causing some harm to game sales or demonizing developers for things outside of their control, but if someone truly would opt to not play a game on the notion of it being locked to a framerate, then I guess having such a thing to inform them is good since they wouldn't be purchasing stuff they might otherwise hate.

But on games where it's not actually a significant technical issue (which is why I mentioned strategy games among other non intensive titles)? It's not like the games have frame drops or the developers lied about their technical performance. 

It just comes across as a smug bully tactic in regards to the smaller titles to me.

If it were really an issue, I'd leave it to user reviews to highlight that since they're the ones actually playing the games for longer than it takes to make a scathing "review" on YouTube then go paste "30FPS" with no further information on said game's Steam page.

[TrishaCat]

12 minutes ago, XoPachi said:

But on games where it's not actually a significant technical issue (which is why I mentioned strategy games among other non intensive titles)? It's not like the games have frame drops or the developers lied about their technical performance. 

It just comes across as a smug bully tactic in regards to the smaller titles to me.

If it were really an issue, I'd leave it to user reviews to highlight that since they're the ones actually playing the games for longer than it takes to make a scathing "review" on YouTube then go paste "30FPS" with no further information on said game's Steam page.

I mean, even Undertale has that slapped on it and from what I've seen Totalbiscuit really liked that game, and its definitely not the sort of game that needs a high framerate. I think its just meant to be very thorough. If he didn't put it on every game that had such a framerate lock on Steam, he'd be deciding for people whether or not such a framerate lock is a serious issue or not. At some point I imagine that would result in some people arguing over whether or not the framerate of something is an issue in a game, so rather than dealing with that its just placed on everything that is 30FPS and under. The curator says on it that its not meant to pass judgement on whether a game is playable or not, just inform users. I'd be suspicious of such, especially since Totalbiscuit REALLY hates low framerates and sometimes unreasonably berates games for it, but the alternative of only doing it on certain games would create some level of argument between people.

[Vae]

I thought this was a thread about disliking first person shooters (to which I was gonna agree, but that's besides the point).

People throwing a fit about frames per second in games just further cements to me that modern gamers are whiny little bitches.
Get. Off. My. Lawn.

[Zeke]

If I am on a PC, I care about it. Especially on an MMO or MOBA. Console? Not so much. 

[Terminal7]

I hate if it drops below 30, but that's to be expected from a decade old computer. 

For the most part, I don't care about fps. It's the consistency that matters more imo (though, a consistent 10 fps is just plain shitty).

[DrDingo]

I don't wanna be that guy, but having a low framerate puts you at a disadvantage if you're playing against people with a higher framerate.

If you're playing a first person game where you have to swish the camera around, it can't be jittery else it'll be off-putting and you'll miss things

Also, immersion

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, DrDingo said:

I don't wanna be that guy, but having a low framerate puts you at a disadvantage if you're playing against people with a higher framerate.

If you're playing a first person game where you have to swish the camera around, it can't be jittery else it'll be off-putting and you'll miss things

Also, immersion

With my old rig, I was getting 13-20 FPS with all the graphic enhancer mods. I told myself I'd upgrade and mod all the things. 300 mods later 60 FPS and crashes.

[Onnes]

36 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Not always. That would depend upon the world update timing. If the world server only updates 10 times per second, 30 FPS vs 120 FPS won't make much difference. If the world updates 60 times per second (IIRC old Quake was 20 times per second) then yes, you'd be at a huge disadvantage running at 30 FPS vs someone else at 120.

For a real-time game, the tick rate only means how often the game state is updated. The client side simulation, with its various forms of lag compensation, is often able to run at a higher rate than the server. And on the client side, higher FPS typically translates into better continuity of motion and faster possible reaction times, as you can perceive a clean progression from one server->client tick to the next. Usually you want your FPS to remain greater than or equal to your monitor's refresh rate.

[Newt]

Having 30 FPS is never a deal-breaker for me. There are certain types of games (shooters, for example) that I would prefer to run in 60 FPS, but having it run a bit less won't stop me from enjoying it.

[Moogle]

MMOs is where I care most about having good fps, especially if it's open world pvp. My standard isn't too high though since a lot of the time I've played with 15-20, if I'm lucky (& on lowest settings possible) 30. I can only imagine what it's like playing with 60, must be so nice!