ARe you a gamer

C

CJL18

Weaksauce
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
94
that has to have 60+FPS at all times or you wont enjoy the game, and if not whats the minimum FPS you could take playing before you couldnt play it anymore.
 
No. Minimum FPS depends on the game. With most strategy games, I can tolerate down to 20 fps and most of the games are still playable. But intense first persoin shooters require more performance. I think 40fps is the sweet spot for FPS games.
 
so lets say you get 25-30fps on Oblivion outdoors..would you be satified with that?
 
Uhm... more than. It's better than I got on my old rig. Oblivion is a very demanding game and you don't need the high fps you do in other games.
 
I don't watch my FPS if the game looks good and runs smooth I'm happy. Haven't found a game I can't run full settings yet.
 
For FPS's below 30 is quite annoying for me. If I hit 20 it's unbearable. Other genres of games is a lot different though, as said. I don't mind 20 then.

CJL18 said:
so lets say you get 25-30fps on Oblivion outdoors..would you be satified with that?
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
I don't even find out how many FPS I'm getting. I don't think I want to know. I don't have high expectations, either. ;)
 
It depends on the game.

I need at least 60-70fps average on first person shooters. Role playing and strategy can be 30fps. Racing I need 40-45fps.
 
CJL18 said:
so lets say you get 25-30fps on Oblivion outdoors..would you be satified with that?
Click to expand...

Very much so. I sit around 25 in Oblivion with no AA, HDR, all settings maxed (no self shadows... eww), and 8xHQAF. I used to get around 20 on my 6800GS with most settings mid-high. I guess it kind of depends what you're used to. If you used to play Oblivion on an 8800GTX, and had to play it on an X1800 or something, you would probably be a little dissatisfied..

I'm not a high FPS lover, I don't really care. As long as the game runs smooth, I'm happy. Usually 25+ in an FPS, anything above 10 for RTS/Strategy games.
 
I like a steady 40 + FPS. Granted, on my PC, BF2 drops a little lower than that in some spots (same in CS:S), but for the most part it's smooth.

I would give up a touch of eye candy for a big performance boost, such as dropping a level of AA.
 
Depends on game. Single player it just has to be playable. Multiplayer yes 60+ is a must have in FPS.
 
It used to be at least 100fps and 100hz with counter-strike. Since then, it's all gone downhill rapidly.
 
GJSNeptune said:
I don't even find out how many FPS I'm getting. I don't think I want to know. I don't have high expectations, either. ;)
Click to expand...

In case you're ever interested...FRAPS is a neat little program. Not only does it give an FPS reading but it allows you to easily take screenshots and record video in games.
 
I have to get atleast 40 FPS, or to where I can notice no delays.

If I can't get that high, I'll lower the settings.

This applies to FPS and (MMO)RPGs.
 
i dont play many fps games, so therefore im not a framerate whore. although it is fun to run the older games and watch them fly.

sim city 2000 + african swallow mode = zoom. someone needs to multithread that game.
 
As long as I can play without serious lag, Im happy. Details don't mean much to me either. Another thing is load times, if it takes longer than 3 minutes to load...no go for me.
 
I get about 25fps in oblivion outdoors and 30-100 indoors. The game plays very smooth at 25 also. And I play with everything maxed 2xaa and bloom (sence they dont have a patch for the x1900 fx cards yet to do hdr and aa)
 
CJL18 said:
that has to have 60+FPS at all times or you wont enjoy the game, and if not whats the minimum FPS you could take playing before you couldnt play it anymore.
Click to expand...

Framerate is irrelevant compared to responsiveness. I've played FPS's before that had high framerates but horrible mouse control, easily comparing that to the ones with lower framerates but decent responsiveness. The latency between your hand and what you see is all that matters.

I've had the chance to play CS with a good onboard video, then also had another machine to compare it to playing it on a DirectX on a TNT2, the one with onboard video, despite the lower fps, was more responsive and easier to play on.


PS: The ones that actually played through the CS Betas would know that around the time, Voodoo was still around and mouselag was significant when comparing between opengl and directx mode. DirectX was lagging by a few frames even tho the framerate was the same.
 
Depends on the game.

Casual FPS play an average of 40-50 for me is fine, competative play on skilled games like UT2004 or CS:S then I expect about 80 average.

Non-FPS games can vary, most RTS games don't need a high frame rate for example.
 
It really all depends on the game... CS 1.6 I need to have at least 60 fps... but other games I could go down to like 14-20 fps and be ok with it.... it really all depends... :p
 
As alot of other people here are stating, it depends on the type of game (or per game for that matter)

for me, I'm not really that picky. Still remember when I played Quake2 on a P166 and getting 10FPS on multiplayer and having a blast, of course now i can afford better gaming equipment so I don't really experience that anymore but I can still guarantee you I'd still be happy with what ever I got.
 
Yeah, I don't think FPS is as important to me as smoothness. If the game is choppy and such for me, I'll be super pissed no matter how incredible the game looks.
 
does a frog have a water tight ass? hell'z yeah. cannot game if its not smooth. will wait till I buy new hardware if it does. must see eye candy! :cool:
 
The human eye cant Tell a difference over 26 FPS anyway so why do people have to worry about having FPS over 30? Just a thought... unless you dont have a constant 30 then thats understandable. if its a max of 30 fps then you will notice it.
 
colbyman said:
The human eye cant Tell a difference over 26 FPS anyway so why do people have to worry about having FPS over 30? Just a thought... unless you dont have a constant 30 then thats understandable. if its a max of 30 fps then you will notice it.
Click to expand...

Wrong, that's a myth. The human eye's perception isn't anything to do with FPS; it's just smooth.

You can easily tell apart 30 fps from 60. 60 is much more smoother.
 
ok, that may be true, but is it really that big of a difference to worry about. i guess its just that the eye cant see the different frames over 26... i think.
 
colbyman said:
ok, that may be true, but is it really that big of a difference to worry about. i guess its just that the eye cant see the different frames over 26... i think.
Click to expand...

UHM... not all of it has to do what with what you see... its how it feels.... If your moving a mouse and it feels like your playing a spead up version of Myth then somethings got to change.

When I'm playing games like CS 1.6, if the FPS drops below 60 you can begin to feel a difference in game play and registration.... Maybe the net_graph 3 is not reading right, but I can surely "see" a difference in CS 1.6 between 40 and 60 FPS.
 
colbyman said:
yeah. but overall gameplay isnt affected as much as people proclaim it to be.
Click to expand...

It really all depends on the game.... Sure maybe games like StarCraft you won't notice as much difference, but games like CS... it can affect shot registration as well as causing you to miss a head shot..... Either your so used to it where it doesnt effect you, or the type of games your playing arn't affecting you as much with lower FPS.
 
colbyman said:
yeah. but overall gameplay isnt affected as much as people proclaim it to be.
Click to expand...

You can't say that. It's affected whenever someone plays something they're not used to. Hence, why they like a certain amount of FPS-- they're used to it.
 
Read this.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

that being said:

avg 60 fps for me is the sweet spot for fast moving games. (which also matches my LCD refresh rate anyways)
in real life(as not beign able to buy the latest and greatest all the time, not real real life lol), I aim for about 40 fps
avg 20 is the bare min for me for games... and I really have to like the game to tolerate that.


avg as in a typical gaming scenario.. For FPS games, this usually means a couple of people n screen while I'm moving and firing around too.

However, its the lowest FPS that i really care about, because usually, those are the most intense moments where you really need the FPS.. It doesn't matter that you get 100 fps staring down an empty hallway, when it chops down to 15 when you got 4 guys firing at you, with a smoke grenade and explosion.

So for any "serious" FPS(or racing sim) game I play, I try to setup things so my MINIMUM is at least 20 fps.. Higher if I'm really serious. lol

When you got a high # of fps for your minimum, its just so much easier to target and move around, because the game movement is so much more "fluid".. Sure, you can "play around it", but any gamer will acknowledge aiming with 20 flat fps is much harder than aiming in the same scenario with 50 fps.

To get that, its usually figuring out your bottlenecks.. Video and RAM(having enough to not page) are the easy ones.. It can be CPU on really heavy fights though..
 
I'm a 40FPS guy ever since upgrading to 2560x1600. Before that I preferred faster but like others have said it's just too expensive with newer games at that resolution.
 
I play most of my games at 1280x960 or 1280x1024 with as much AA and AF as I can get as long as the fps remains smooth and playable. 35+ is my goal, and I always manage that.
 
I'm content with the 17-18fps i get on BF2142. I've learnt to live with the 12fps i get on Oblivion, too. Not really ideal when playing first person shooters, especially when i'm in close combat and it drops down to lower than 15fps- it adds a whole new difficulty to the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top