AppleSmack
Banned
Anything lower than 30 and your game is turd. Oh and I don't mean average either. If it's under 30 at any point, scrap your game. Especially in the next generation.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
17-22FPS acceptable for ordinary gamers?
- Thread starter Sethos
- Start date
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
To anyone who says that they cannot play anything that's less than 30fps, does that mean that you didn't play TLoU or Demon's Souls?
You want me to put that in the title?
hgarrett54
Banned
Absolutely horrendous. No. Never. I don't think I could stand playing games if it was like that. I need my silky smooth FPS :s
I usually refer to people like gaffers as ethusiasts or hobbyists.
Felix Lighter
Member
I imagine playing at a constant 17-22 fps frame rate would be like controlling a game through a remote desktop connection. Probably doable in certain games but a pretty horrible experience.
I realize I'm not in the majority, but I don't actually mind 20fps. Most of the time I can't notice it's below what it's supposed to be, if I have no point of comparison.
When I saw this
EDIT and I also actually think 30 fps looks better than 60, which reminds me of the weird PixelHD mode (or whatever it's called) on Philips TVs which makes everything look like documentaries.
When I saw this
I initially hadn't scrolled far enough to see the last 2 gifs, and I thought the post was meant to say 'see, 15fps is fine'.15 fps with motionblur
30 fps with motionblur
60 fps with motionblur
EDIT and I also actually think 30 fps looks better than 60, which reminds me of the weird PixelHD mode (or whatever it's called) on Philips TVs which makes everything look like documentaries.
Refreshment.01
Member
Your counter part in the argument is talking BS.
Now:
I do play single player games at 24 fps. It is not a problem once you get used to it. I even went to the extent of fooling a person very sensitive to frame rate, Played myself for a couple of minutes, then passed the control as far as concerned the gaming was happening at 30 fps. Pressed a key to get the fps to 30, he tough for the first few seconds it was 60 XD
Point is, you get used to it rather quickly. Of course there are benefits for higher frame rates depending of the genre and other applications like 3D, etc.
Felix Lighter
Member
I played a game called F19 Stealth Fighter on a PC that had no business running it as a child with what had to be a sub 1 fps frame rate. I look back and I don't know how I did it.
dragonbane
Member
no. 25 FPS is acceptable though for most people.
Sorry, but no.
Anything lower that 25 is bad performance. In PC you can try to arrange it with options, but in console... Developers should aim for 60 and set a lower standard at 30.
Especially if the framerate is unstable. That makes it much more noticeable.
I remember playing Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy on my very old G4 mac (350Mhz processor...) Framerate was so low that after a couple of hours playing my own mind was running at 15 FPS. It was horrible! A strange experience though. Our brain can do amazing things but i don't recommend that one...
Anything lower that 25 is bad performance. In PC you can try to arrange it with options, but in console... Developers should aim for 60 and set a lower standard at 30.
Especially if the framerate is unstable. That makes it much more noticeable.
I remember playing Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy on my very old G4 mac (350Mhz processor...) Framerate was so low that after a couple of hours playing my own mind was running at 15 FPS. It was horrible! A strange experience though. Our brain can do amazing things but i don't recommend that one...
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
You didn't play Demon's Souls or TLoU?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
27-33fps or bust.
Dictator93
Member
Yes, because the frame rate of the those games can be pretty horrible and they do not have clearly superior PC versions.
Not everyone owns a ps3...
ElektroDragon
Banned
It is very easy for the trained eye to tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS.
30FPS is the minimum acceptable for most games, which is why a lot of games aim for that as their target when 60FPS in unreachable.
30FPS is the minimum acceptable for most games, which is why a lot of games aim for that as their target when 60FPS in unreachable.
Hell no, low framerates would make scrolling a chore.
TalesOfWin
Banned
didnt Zelda OoT run sub 20 fps back in the day?
When i played it on N64 i had no issues with it.
edit: of course, I wasnt as picky back then.
When i played it on N64 i had no issues with it.
edit: of course, I wasnt as picky back then.
17 to 22 FPS is playable but unpleasant, and really only acceptable when you're trying to play on a laptop that's not designed for gaming — in which case, you're just happy the game in question runs at all.
It's definitely noticeable compared to 30 FPS or any higher framerate. Even 30 FPS is disappointing when you're on a dedicated gaming rig. 60 FPS or higher or bust.
It's definitely noticeable compared to 30 FPS or any higher framerate. Even 30 FPS is disappointing when you're on a dedicated gaming rig. 60 FPS or higher or bust.
Refreshment.01
Member
24 with deeps. Golden Eye got a lot worse with 30 or so guards on screen XD
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Well, you don't have a PS3 so you couldn't have played those games anyway.
Monty Mole
Member
Both of which are 60fps.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Hmm. Not 17, but 18 is fine.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
All of the CoDs?
It's all about what framerate the game was designed around, Quake 3 feels laggy at 60fps, it was designed for 85. Star Fox on the SNES is still great fun at ~10fps, although I think very few developers could make an action game work at such a low framerate. 20fps is good enough for many kinds of experiences with a talented developer, but usually games developed to be fun at 30 or 60fps will not feel very fun at 20.
I believe so
StarFox SNES is not really playable, it is really hard to hit anything at such a crap framerate.
Depends on the demands of the game. Ocarina of Time was playable-ish at 21-24FPS, but there wasn't a lot in the game that demanded fast reactions, and the framerate was at least consistent.
In a game where you have full control of the camera, as opposed to it being mostly automated in the case of OoT, I would say that 30 is the absolute minimum lest you be overwhelmed by judder.
In a game where you have full control of the camera, as opposed to it being mostly automated in the case of OoT, I would say that 30 is the absolute minimum lest you be overwhelmed by judder.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Do we really need hyperboles?
jacksepticeye
Member
Hell no. The lowest I could ever go is 25 fps and that's ONLY if it's for a very short period of time. Anything consistently below 30 is sickening
Darkroronoa
Member
Sub 30 is fine by me in some cases but when it goes below 20 its really bad on most games but if it never goes below 17-19 i would call "playable".When i had a bad rig with geforce 6200 and latter a 3650 i played many games with that framerate (probably more to the 25fps side but with frequently dips),all where playable,not maximum pleasure but definitely playable.
I played crysis 1 with 20-24fps and felt smooth,if i play it now probably i would say its unplayable but when i played years ago felt not only ok but i could lower the graphics and get 30+ but i was convinced that 20-24 was good for me on this game.
I played company of heroes 1 and felt smooth and when i run fraps it said 17 frames,i was speechless.
I played league of legends with 15-24 frames too with sub 10 on big battles,yeah that was not very playable ;p
But i raided in wow on 12fps (25man raids) and i managed to be top damage on many raid bosses.Depends on the game
Now that i ahve better hardware i try to run games with as much framerate as possible and its hard for me to accept sub 30,its just how you have trained your eyes to see and what are your quality standards.I guess if i start playing on 120hz i would say that 30fps is unplayable or something ;p
I played crysis 1 with 20-24fps and felt smooth,if i play it now probably i would say its unplayable but when i played years ago felt not only ok but i could lower the graphics and get 30+ but i was convinced that 20-24 was good for me on this game.
I played company of heroes 1 and felt smooth and when i run fraps it said 17 frames,i was speechless.
I played league of legends with 15-24 frames too with sub 10 on big battles,yeah that was not very playable ;p
But i raided in wow on 12fps (25man raids) and i managed to be top damage on many raid bosses.Depends on the game
Now that i ahve better hardware i try to run games with as much framerate as possible and its hard for me to accept sub 30,its just how you have trained your eyes to see and what are your quality standards.I guess if i start playing on 120hz i would say that 30fps is unplayable or something ;p
It can be hard to go back to it now but if you take it on its own terms without bringing in any skills you mastered in other games (like the n64 sequel) the gameplay can still click because they designed the game around the framerate. It's certainly more difficult, but it CAN still be appreciated in a way that a game that was designed for 30fps but suffered development issues and shipped at 10 cannot.
Serious Sam 3 on 360 is the only console game I've played with a framerate counter. Which is unfortunate because in splitscreen it has probably the worst framerate I've ever seen. A very quick test of the demo showed the framerate to vary wildly from a high of 25 to a low of 11 with an average of 18. This was done with player 2 stood idle at the start point far away from the action.
But Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on 360 has one section also in splitscreen where the framerate is about 5fps for a few minutes. During the very last level with the helicopter after you. It was literally like a slideshow. I tried it several times both with and without the patch.
But Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on 360 has one section also in splitscreen where the framerate is about 5fps for a few minutes. During the very last level with the helicopter after you. It was literally like a slideshow. I tried it several times both with and without the patch.
Depends op the game, but for the most part it isn't acceptable. I confess I did play Tomb Raider on my 8800GT at 1080p on Ultra... and i tried not to dial back the settings because the game just looked so great at that setting... IT RAN LIKE SHIT!, but I couldn't stomach going back to 720p lol. So I played it like that until I couldn't take it anymore and upgraded my graphics card.
So with that said, tolerance for playing anything under 30fps depends on the person. I was willing to tolerated it because I wanted better image quality and I couldn't afford to upgrade. I think many gamers are like that as well.
If your friend is happy playing at 17-22 fps... plop in a better graphics card into their pc and have them play at 40-60fps. Then have them go back to what they were happy with. They probably won't be so happy with 17-22fps anymore.
So with that said, tolerance for playing anything under 30fps depends on the person. I was willing to tolerated it because I wanted better image quality and I couldn't afford to upgrade. I think many gamers are like that as well.
If your friend is happy playing at 17-22 fps... plop in a better graphics card into their pc and have them play at 40-60fps. Then have them go back to what they were happy with. They probably won't be so happy with 17-22fps anymore.
staticneuron
Member
Low framerates doesn't always mean screen tearing but let me go ahead and drop my opinion and get mocked for it.
Of course when you compare framerate gifs side by side it becomes a no brainer by default but imo, I can tolerate low frame rates and a bit of screen tear as long as it is not painfully obvious.
The other element to this is input lag. If it is a consistant framerate with barely noticeable input lag then it is acceptable. Anything else is simply game breaking for me. Everyone has their own personal limit to what the can stand, I am simply not one of those gamers who can look at a video and instantly guess it's average framerate without a tool.
Of course when you compare framerate gifs side by side it becomes a no brainer by default but imo, I can tolerate low frame rates and a bit of screen tear as long as it is not painfully obvious.
The other element to this is input lag. If it is a consistant framerate with barely noticeable input lag then it is acceptable. Anything else is simply game breaking for me. Everyone has their own personal limit to what the can stand, I am simply not one of those gamers who can look at a video and instantly guess it's average framerate without a tool.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
Anything sub 30 is unplayable.
60 is highly preferred.
60 is highly preferred.
CaptainSlow
Member
I've never been one of those gamers who are picky about 30 vs 60 FPS. It really doesn't matter to me. But 17 FPS? That would make me want to pull my hair out in frustration.
Betta Lines
Member
If the game was locked to 22fps and I could play it on a 44Hz monitor, it would look fine. Not particularly responsive, but solid enough. It would need to be a fairly slow-paced game too.
But fluctuating between 17 and 22fps on a 60Hz monitor? Do not want.
But fluctuating between 17 and 22fps on a 60Hz monitor? Do not want.
MvmntInGrn
Member
I'd like to see some framerate tests for OOT. It never looks like it is running as poorly as it supposedly does. It seems like 30 with slight dips. Maybe a few 15fps moments but very rare. Constantly sub 20 though?
Silent_Bomber
Banned
The majority of mainstream gamers are generally fine with ~25fps, and start to notice choppyness ~20fps, find it has a detrimental affect by ~15fps.
childplease
Banned
Nothing under 60 fps should be acceptable anymore.
It is not hyperbole!
I have played it recently and it is really fucking hard to hit anything with such a shit framerate! (going from it to StarFox 64 is night and day, just for the framerate alone).