Learning to Let Go of Framerate Anxiety Made Me Love PC Gaming Again

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Is your mindset dominated by framerate and other technicalities? This author is urging you to just let it all go. The argument here is that achieving maximum performance and graphics fidelity is a tough task that could actually prove detrimental to the gaming experience. Just enjoy the game, even if it’s running at a subpar level, he says. Do you agree with any of his points, or is he just a console gamer in disguise?

No matter what level of hardware you own, you’ll never achieve perfection. Accept it. Some games have tiny optimization issues that are never fixed, while others will always stutter no matter how much GPU grunt you throw at them. Can squeezing an extra few frames out of that new shooter be a rewarding meta-game in itself? Occasionally. Yet when the act of overclocking and frame-counting starts to dominate your PC gaming experience, unless you genuinely find that more fun than the games themselves, it’s time to step back. If you’ve suffered with this obsession, take my advice: switch off your framerate counter, forget minor fps fluctuation, and simply enjoy your game running perfectly well a mere 95 percent of the time.
 
I buy the fastest hardware I can afford. I go for the best gaming experience I can possibly have and that's always worked for me. That said, I will take a frame rate hit for higher visual quality if I have to.
 
Good idea but tough to do. My computer is the second-most expensive thing I own and for all of the money I've dumped into it I expect it to work near flawlessly. G-SYNC helped a lot but there are still instances of stutter and FPS dips due to game engine problems.

I like the bit at the end:

Editor's note: since writing this article, Dave has had a relapse and upgraded to a GTX 1080 Ti to achieve his 4K, 90 fps Witcher 3 dreams. Recovery is a long road. Please keep him in your thoughts.
 
Some people get way too caught up in the technical or graphics details, and miss out on games that are good regardless of graphics.

I've played a lot of memorable games without good graphics. I've played a lot of games with amazing graphics that absolutely sucked as games. This is why Nintendo is still relevant after all these years. They get it.
 
I can only see it being a problem if people take a long time tweaking and get mad/aggravated with it. For me, it is fun. I love PC gaming, because I get to decide what works for me.

I hate jagged lines, but am ok with a lower frame rate. I generally start on 4k ultra, and then drop settings until my FPS never drops below 35. This gives a 45 average, along with g-sync, is good enough for me.

I get to decide if I prefer better shadows or AA, AO or tessellation. That's wonderful.
 
I have a different albeit related problem. Often if my current rig can't play a game with full fidelity and smoothness, I'll refuse to play it and wait until I have one that can. Because if I did I'll always be wondering just how much more wonderful the experience would be if I could only check off every single option to the max.
 
While I certainly think you should enjoy playing your games (they *are* games!), if you think that working with configurations or hardware configurations isn't fun, perhaps you should stick to consoles? I don't say that as an insult, but a suggestion that perhaps PC gaming isn't for you if you don't enjoy the process. It's similar to how I wouldn't suggest someone who hates modeling take up a miniatures game that requires you to build and paint your own (or I'd at least suggest they buy one pre-made from eBay). Some hobbies require things that people don't find fun; you can either deal with it or change hobbies.
 
I've been a pc gamer for years but I remember in college when a roommate had an xbox with halo 1 and I couldn't believe how god damn smooth and natural it felt, and played it from start to finish in one afternoon session. There is definitely something to be said to having the ability to write the game straight to 'metal' as the devs term it since you're essentially skipping all the in between from a pc hardware perspective. When I was running crossfire or SLI i definitely had a LOT more FPS anxiety and was more sensitive to what was acceptible. Things have changed tho now that AA is almost free and We have WAYYYYY MORE GPU than we have games to throw at them currently. I'd say it changed about 4 years ago when GPUs overtook 1080p gaming on the cheap. Since then devs are still making 'nice' looking 1080p games with the occasional 4k-ish texture that can use a little more gpu, but we really are spoiled with all the graphics horsepower available for pc games today. The day of Crysis 1 or quake 3 are long gone and we can pretty much play everything released on older hardware at this point comfortably.
 
I'm willing to bet the author went through something like this: OMG I WANNA PLAY THIS NEW GAME!!!!! ...... OMG IT RUNS SOOO SLOW ON MY GTX 750Ti intel HD 2000

then author spent 400 on a gtx 1070, and now he can play said games, framerate anxiety gone.........
 
I generally go for the best graphics/framerate compromise I can get, but only put the effort to find that compromise on games I thoroughly enjoy. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Gaming enjoyability is about three things for me, 15% is tweaking the game for maximum visuals/playability, 60% playing the game and 25% modding the game. So in my view this guy is only enjoying 60% of the game.
 
I never really use FRAPS or any framerate counters, I just play the game and if I notice the frame rate is not to my liking, adjust. I only check framerates when I am benching my equipment to compare it to other known runs, to see if I have any glaring issues.
 
I agree completely. For that matter, the best games tend to have unique art styles that often don't require massive amounts of horsepower. I haven't seen many super high end eye candy games that people tend to play much after the 4-5 hours it takes to finish them. People really should focus more on game play. People pay too much attention to style instead of substance in a lot of things not just games.
 
I can't afford to be a framerate junkie any more. In my younger days it was fun to tell newbs I was getting 200fps on my 9700 Pro....but now that I'm fat and over 30 my brain doesn't operate at that speed any more anyways. Plus taking a gaming PC break and slumming around on consoles for a bit made me appreciate ANYTHING over 30fps.
 
If you have the money and love the hardware for its technical merits in and of itself, I say go for it, why the heck not? I would say, if you are on a budget, get hardware that at least provides some tangible benefits over a console, because if not, what is the point of NOT getting a console?

As for myself, even with my old hardware I´m getting between 40-90 fps on new, demanding titles on highest to almost highest settings, 1080p, depending on each game, and that´s fine. I have no delusions or anxieties of not hitting 120 fps. Anyways I have a 1080p 60Hz monitor, so it would be a moot point. But yeah, I get caught up in the story of an rpg, or really into a car race, and the fps matters less and less, as long as its reasonable. Once I start hitting 30 fps then I´ll upgrade.
 
I thought frame rates were all about bragging rights. Do people really get anxiety over this?
I get the idea that pc gamers are pissed at poor ports and shitty performance in games because of crap testing, but other than that, who cares?
 
I buy the best I can afford/in budget. Set the game to the best settings I can preferring quality, and then just play.

All I ask is the game work right on the first day- and more and more- this is becoming a lot to ask for. Kind of why I have started letting some time lapse between the game coming out and me starting to play it.
 
IQ is much more important to me then an arbitrary FPS number.

With any of the MMO type games I have played any fps 15-20+ so long as the world is not bogging, the UI is not bogging, etc works just fine. Skyrim and that type of game I see the same thing.
 
Lately if I see performance problems in a game:

First I check to make sure I don't have retarded in-game video options turned on, and maybe pick a few things to turn down that I won't miss too much.

If that doesn't fix the issue, then I blame it on on shitty software development.

When I start running into a lot of shitty software development, then I figure it's time to brute force it and upgrade something.

I'm not fixated around 60fps, or any specific number or performance metric. If the game looks good and feels fluid, I'm happy. Good graphics are nice, and I'm willing to pay for some hardware to get pretty good graphics, but good graphics doesn't make an otherwise shitty game magically good.
 
If im not getting at the very least 30 fps with current HW, I sacrifice quality, then resolution.
 
60 synced is fine with me with 90%+ graphics options pushed. (I say 90% because I'm not picky about AA / AO. I typically set them fairly low.) I buy hardware that allows for this, and I remain happy. Right now that equates to 4690K+16GB+GTX1070+SSD. As soon as I start seeing games that require me to drop more settings to stay at 60 frames per second, I'll buy more hardware.

4K and extreme AA/AO settings aren't all that important to me compared to smooth frame rate. In fact, I still play my games at 1080. I'll jump to 4K when I can maintain 60 at the 90%+ settings I like.

Of course the actual game play is the most important factor, but it's nice to not have to worry about getting distracted by stuttering, large rate drops, and other timing-related flaws.
 
I'm a stickler for 60fps and will keep lowering details and tinkering with settings until it's a reality. If I can't make it so, then I'll move on. With a little luck, whatever my next video card purchase is will handle it. If the game is busted and can't ever make that happen, it better be damn special. GTA4 is one of the few where I didn't care and kept going.

60fps is the main reason I play on the PC in the first place. If I didn't care about the framerate, I might as well just rock nothing but consoles.
 
Since I just play competitive online FPS's framerate trumps all. Everything is about getting 144fps for me. For some single player games or other casual experiences I'd be fine dropping to 60, perhaps lower like 45 if the game was just gorgeous and my goal is to just observe beautiful vistas. G-sync and variable refresh monitors have nothing to do with peak performance, so whatever is necessary to get that elusive 144+ is all that matters.
 
I played F1GP2 on my AMDK5PR133 running 10-15FPS
Nowadays I prefer 40-45 as a minimum. I'd like more fps and I can notice the difference even above 100 fps, but I care about graphcs fidelity more. As long as I have at least 40 bottom end. But it also depends on the game. Some games where you don't need quick reaction times I can still live with 15 fps.
 
It's not about what looks the very best or what runs the very fastest, it's about what takes you OUT of the game. If I'm running the game and it's playing fine, then I turn a corner and the whole thing starts stuttering, that takes away from the experience. I would feel the same way if a movie started stuttering while I watched it. It wouldn't matter how good the movie is, that really takes away from it. Having a SMOOTH experience shouldn't be compromised on, however you get there.
 
I have a different albeit related problem. Often if my current rig can't play a game with full fidelity and smoothness, I'll refuse to play it and wait until I have one that can. Because if I did I'll always be wondering just how much more wonderful the experience would be if I could only check off every single option to the max.

Same here.. I just started playing Crysis last night. :p
 
IQ is much more important to me then an arbitrary FPS number.

With any of the MMO type games I have played any fps 15-20+ so long as the world is not bogging, the UI is not bogging, etc works just fine. Skyrim and that type of game I see the same thing.

That doesn't work when you can very easily see the separate frames below 60fps.

The lowest I can stand is about 45-50fps. Below that it gives me a headache and bugs me to no end.

When I watch TV or go to the theatre I have to make sure to relax a lot and let my brain blur the images together or else it is like watching a fast slideshow. Seeing every frame as a separate picture is not enjoyable at all.
 
While I certainly think you should enjoy playing your games (they *are* games!), if you think that working with configurations or hardware configurations isn't fun, perhaps you should stick to consoles? (snip) Some hobbies require things that people don't find fun; you can either deal with it or change hobbies.

...or with age you get more responsibilities and less free time ;) These days I have to limit my OC "research" to only a few hours because wife/children PCs are also waiting in line. I still refuse to fall for the console/pre-built segment but who knows? Priorities my friend, priorities...
 
Speaking only for myself, there was a period of time over 5 years ago where I would get 'FPS obsessed' for a brief intro period on new games. I went through this mainly because I was trying to gauge whether or not my system at the time was worth the money I put into it (it was a less than ideal mid-range set up). After a while, I'd 'settle' on the settings that looked best and gave me over 30fps and left it at that.

These days, with the system in my signature, I've not bothered with any FPS counters, or preoccupied myself with performance, since the GTX 1070 seems to handle everything I throw at it with ease at 1440p.

If it plays fluid to my eyes I don't care what the FPS is and having a 144hz monitor definitely helps with the perceived fluidity.
 
This is the route I went to a couple of years ago, right after I had somehow acquired 3x 780s and decided to shove them all in the same system. I got to the point where I said to myself, "If I can't see the difference, what's the point?"

Gaming has become about gaming again, which is great. As long as my system can push the highest settings (or the settings I feel are necessary) without giving me a nervous tick from the screen tears, I'm pretty happy.
 
I thought frame rates were all about bragging rights. Do people really get anxiety over this?
I get the idea that pc gamers are pissed at poor ports and shitty performance in games because of crap testing, but other than that, who cares?

I ask myself that question about a lot of things...someone said sit Indian style and another person "triggered" and said KRIS KROS APPLE SAUCES DON'T APPROPRIATE THEIR CULCHAIRSSsss!. Do people really get anxiety over this??

Yes, they do. It's sad.

Anyway, adding something to the current conversation; I game on a laptop quite a lot, GTX 970M, have noticed it slowing down with the latest batch of AAA's (around ROTTR/Division) so purchased a Gsync panel. That was night and day for me, in general though I crank up the eye can - no fps counter - until it's unplayable and then mix and match shadows/AA/HBAO until it feels right again.

Most games you can get away with medium shadows, HBAO (not +), 8 AF, High textures and god rays. I always love seeing Nvidias articles, and [H], on how much each setting impacts gameplay. Nvidia's are really nice because they have that slider to compare, well I guess [H] do to now don't they...
 
I'm fine with 4k/30 sustained and Vsynced if I'm gaming with the joypad, which is 80% of my gaming now. Except, however, for when it's time to bust out the FF Wheel. Then, different story, 60fps must be maintained as the wheel you will expect to update and refresh that screen quicker than 30hz. But that's me.
 
That doesn't work when you can very easily see the separate frames below 60fps.

The lowest I can stand is about 45-50fps. Below that it gives me a headache and bugs me to no end.

When I watch TV or go to the theatre I have to make sure to relax a lot and let my brain blur the images together or else it is like watching a fast slideshow. Seeing every frame as a separate picture is not enjoyable at all.

Arbitrary! What! I'm in the same boat, I can tell from 30-45 and if it hits 59 on a 60hz panel it's BLECH. If it's a 144hz panel though and around 120+fps harder to see.
 
I don't have time to play games much these days, with a house, job, and kid on the way. I used to own every console and would upgrade my GPU like clockwork every two years. Now I might play one big AAA game a year, and I don't own any current gen consoles. I play CSGO on casual for 15 minutes here or there, because that's about all I have time for. And CSGO could run at 500+ fps on a potato. I have no idea how adults find the time to get into some of these open world games that go on for dozens or hundreds of hours. I did buy a GTX 1070, but I haven't really used it for anything other than CSGO. Just no time to play games these days. It's getting to where buying expensive gaming hardware just seems like a waste of money. I may have to learn how to live with low framerates in the rare instances when I do get to play. Because right now I feel like I've thrown a lot of money away on a hobby I rarely have time for.
 
Last edited:
I keep the STEAM FPS counter going, for one main reason..........

A hold-over from my windows 98 and before days to see if my PC hard locked or what. lol

--------------

I have no problems enjoying my ATI 290 @1080, most games ultra or almost ultra but a few.

Then again, I am playing INDIE games with shite GFX/awesome story.

DId have W3 and GTA 5 and DS3 mostly ultraed. 30-60 on all (monitor can only do 60 anyway. lol)
 
Back
Top