How important is it really?

>>388188958
extremely important for games that require precision imputs, but not that big a deal for something more slow paced

It's nice for porn.
Other than that, no point.

File: 372ae1ffec30f42d2e1de8831bd3f4e0.jpg (120KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 750x750px

Not as important as 144 fps

>>388188958
I don't even notice the difference unless it's noticeably lower than 30, then it just gets choppy.

>>388188958
>60 fps
>not 144
>not 255
Consider ending yourself poorfag.

>>388188958

it's only important for fighters, racers, and platforming games to a lesser extent. beyond that it's just appreciated. people who expect 60 fps in open world games and such are irrational. compromises have to be made.

Important for fast paced shooters. Look how smooth Lawbreakers is. If it was 30fps it would be like like comparing buttery smooth to molasis.

>>388189171
I dont believe you

>>388189193
the human eye cant see past 60 so whats the point

>>388189171
>t. 60 year old, 400lb man with no hair
I guess I'd be the same if I was bald too.

not as important as more than 60 FOV

>>388188958
As long as it doesn't dip below 30 i forget about it. 60fps is obviously better, but after seeing it for too long my brain just ignores it. Like N.Sane trilogy is 30fps aparently? My brain doesn't seem to give a fuck.

>>388189364
144 hz is definitely noticeable. Compared to 60 it feels 1/3 faster even though it's double. I play lots of fast games and I used to have a 60 hz and I finally bought a 144 hz acer and I started wrecking people even harder. Definitely not saying you need much above 144 hz, just that 60 is a disadvantage. Doesn't mean you can't wreck with 60 though.

As someone who plays on a 10 year old computer it's minimum framerates that matter

>>388189263
I know when emulators go lower than 25ish, you start to get choppy audio and visual glitches. Other than that I don't notice any major changes, certainly none that would ruin a game.
There's no way I'd use fps to determine whether to buy a game or not, unless it was low enough to actually cause major issues.

>>388189375
What are you even talking about?

>>388189364
Have you ever sat in front of a 144hz screen? The difference is immediately noticeable unless you're collecting disability.

>>388188958
>How important is it really?
Depends. On consoles? Not THAT important but always nice to have for any game that moves quickly.

For PC and mouse usage ~45 fps is pretty much the minimum for any 3D title to feel responsive.

30 to 60 is very noticeable. So is 60 to 120 but it not necessary. I have a 144 Hz panel. Never going back.

>>388188958
the higher the better since it means a more responsive game. Even if ones eyes suck so hard that they cant even tell the difference between 25, 30, or even 60+ frames its still boils down mostly to it feeling more good to play rather than it being a purely superficial thing to look at.

>>388188958
nice to have but not always necessary

>>388189571
Baldness causes slow reaction times. Male pattern baldness in early twenties shows sign of deterioration within the brain. Being fat and being old are givens in slowing down your wits and reflexes, but most people don't know baldness hurts as well, if not more so.

>>388188958
I honestly never noticed how much of a difference it was until I played Kingdom hearts 2.5. The game has 60 fps gameplay and 30 fps cutscenes.
30 FPS is playable and reasonable, but if I had to choose between a 30 FPS version and a 60 FPS version I'll pick the 60 any day of the week.

>>388188958
60 fps is the standard and any retard that thinks otherwise should be gassed

>>388189678
And to add conclusively, framerate drops are more noticeable on the lower end naturally. So an uncapped framerate fluctuating between 30 and 60 is kind of ass - console or pc doesn't matter. I say locked 30 is almost preferable on consoles than uncapped if it's very unstable.

>>388188958
lcd's finally catching up to tech of the last millennium? a good amount

>>388189805
The standard should be 72 or 75, not 60. 60 is like TotalBiscuits ass cancer. The fact that it didn't kill him shows how obnoxious 60 fps is.

>>388188958
A lot. Without this, people wouldn't be able to shitpost about it.

Very important for any game that demands any sort of precision. Hell, it's not enough for some genres. Modern "games" can get away with 30 fps I guess, but it still feels shit to control.

>>388188958
absolutely necessary for fighting games, character action and anything else that requires precise inputs, otherwise it's preferable to 30 but not necessary IMO, if I have to choose between unstable 60 and perfectly consistent 30 fps I would pick 30 tho

30fps is ok in any game that doesnt require high precision timing like a jrpg
60fps is still preferrable in that situation with it being borderline mandatory otherwise

>>388188958
it's easier on my eyes. A sudden drop in 20fps is noticeable

>>388189137
I can't tell what fps this picture has

>>388188958
The difference between playable and unplayable

File: 5f7.jpg (37KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 680x680px

4k is more important than 144 hz

>>388191384
>not overclocking your 320x240 display to go at 300hz

noob

>>388189364
read before post, dipshit - the tests show a trained human eye will detect a flash of light with frequency of 1/220, so even the 144hz retards sorta have a point, even if i personally think that is overkill (90hz with no tearing is my personal perfect ceiling)

It should be mandatory for fighting and fast-paced action games

>>388189364 (you)
> people actually take this bait

>>388188958
Its more important than graphics.
60vs30 is the difference between playing a game, and half of a game.

>>388192791
>le i was just pretending
doesn't negate the fact of how retarded it sounds - some people might genuinely believe that's true and who will think of them?

>>388191384
How long until 4K 144hz?

>>388188958

Only if something is going for ultra realism.

It really isn't a big deal 90% of the time.

Seriously? 60hz is the MINIMUM a game should run. 90hz plus is when I can no longer notice the frame rate.

I dunno but I'm blowing out my ass at 60hz right now

Vastly overrated but not without merit either. Most devs should prioritize functionality over this but they don't.

Im so skilled that I count frames, if I don't count a minimum of sixty every second I lose my fucking shit and cunt punch my mum.

>>388188958
Important enough that id rather have a graphic downgrade to achieve it.

Once you go 60 fps theres no turning back, 30 fps looks choppy/blurry when you do quick movements as oppose to 60 where its smooth because of the faster frames.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvXuTwtmXOs

People saying its just important for racing and fighting games has no idea.

File: game-feel.png (57KB, 662x415px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 662x415px

>>388188958
>>388189058
It's not that important.

really if a game runs with a response time of 50ms then the input is not noticeable anything higher than 100ms delay is where you really feel input lag, 10 frames per second is the bare minimum for the illusion of motion so so long as you're able to interact comfortably with the game. within a 240ms response time, you'll be able to play anything fine without breaking immersion.

higher is nice so 30's the bare minimum standard, upwards of 60 and it's diminishing returns really. so long as the frames never stutter and break the illusion of motion taking the player out of the game everything is fine, really just preference on your display choice.

File: 1475452530404.jpg (269KB, 1597x1075px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1597x1075px

>>388188958
I don't really see why "60fps" has blown up and become such a big thing. I think things like frame-rate and resolution should never be capped and should always be able to be increased or decreased by the user, dependent on their hardware. Bloodborne for example, I would have loved to have had the option to tone down the visuals so that I could have ran it better, because 30 and sub-30fps wasn't how I would have chosen to play it if given the option. For games like Titanfall 2 and CSGO I always aim to run them at 144fps, yet games like Age of Empires or Worms I'm fine playing at 60fps. I'm trying to think of some games where I'm alright playing at 30fps, which is pretty much every playstation title I play I suppose, thinking back I didn't have any issues playing the Metal Gear games despite their low frame rate. Having such a low frame rate doesn't render the game unplayable, but it certainly does detract from the experience. I can't think of any game which wouldn't benefit from being able to be run at a higher frame-rate.

For those who don't notice the difference between 60 and 30fps, go play Dragon's Dogma or Dark Souls on PS3/XBOX360 then go play the PC version.
For those who don't notice the difference between 144 and 60fps, go play the Titanfall 2 single player on PC at 144fps then go play the console version.

It's really a case of personal preference, some people haven't played at higher frame rates so they don't really know what they're missing, that's understandable. I was like that too before I built my first PC back in 2013.

You can clearly see the difference between 50 fps and 60 fps, if you can't you are just not a true gamer, probably grew up on console where 30 fps is the normal. I could not play games below 60 fps it is just disgrace to gaming.

>>388188958
Literally only matters in competitive multiplayer games.

>>388188958
Framerate and Resolution should remain uncapped and work well regardless. Only exception are games that really rely on frame perfect execution and don't allow variation in which case they should be capped at 60+.
A game at 30 can still go below that which is intolerable and the general experience is always going to feel vaguely worse than playing at a proper framerate like 60+ unless you can pan the camera as fast as you want or just move fast in general, at which point 30 FPS becomes obviously worse.

PC games would run at uncapped framerates in the 90s.

Played Unreal and Quake with 200 fps.
((((((They))))) destroyed gaming forever.

>>388194647
Fuck, they knew 60fps was what they should be aiming for back in the OG playstation/saturn era. It's literally inexcusable that they still haven't made it the absolute standard.

>>388188958
Playing any action game under 60 fps is impossible.
And even casuals hate fighting games at less than 60 fps.

>>388189364
t.never saw a 144hz screen

If it's first person and/or you're playing with a mouse then yes
If it's third person and you have analog sticks then no it doesn't matter as much

>>388188958
Lowest fps for smooth gameplay for anything 3d. The higher - the better.

>>388188958
For some games (action, rhythm, FPS - basically anything that requires quick reaction), extremely important.
For most games, not that important.

Now what's really important is stability of fps. It can be 30, 60, 144, etc, but you will have extremely bad time if it's going to jump all around the place and change constantly, not being same at all times. I'd rather prefer stable 30fps game than 60 fps that occasionally dips to 45-50 on occasions. Or with totally unlocked, goes between 40-80. Because if it's stable then you get used to it and stop noticing it. But when you have dips, then they are apparent, you notice that immediately and it breaks immersion.

stable 144 > stable 60 > stable 30 > unstable 144/225/variable > unstable 60 > unstable 30 > cinematic 24 > 15

>>388196882
also, sorry, I forgot "silky-smooth" before that 15

>>388196743
neither did you because human eyes cant see them
unless you're a dog, they're a waste of money

>>388188958
60 is the best acceptable minimum for response times if I remember. That being said not every game needs it.
The real sin is that developers cannot even reach a stable 30 fps these days.

>>388196195
Yeah let me play Nier or any racing game at 30fps that won't feel like total shit

>>388196195
>Literally only matters in games*

>bought a 144Hz screen
>but don't have money to buy a good enough video card still

>>388196556
You can play D44M at 200+ FPS, if your rig is good enough that is.

>>388188958
If you have to ask, you're don't take gaming seriously. And that's okay, there's nothing wrong with just enjoying stuff casually. People that have been around a long time and want the most from their game, have 60FPS as a priority, even above resolution (to a point). I still play a lot of games at 720p on my laptop just so I can hit 60FPS with ultra graphics settings. And,of course, lowering anti-aliasing/post-processing effects/shadows/etc.

60FPS is always priority #1. Also, fuck those 4k memes running at 30fps. One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

>>388196695
It's because casuals don't give a shit about framerate. Might not even know what it is.

Graphics on the other hand are immediately visible and immediately recognizable; thus why anytime you ever look at a game publications you can find some mouth breather with awful grammar talking about how Destiny 2 looks like a PS2 game or some shit.

It's getting better as they're now trying to push 60fps as a marketing buzz word but we're still not quite there yet.

It's a good baseline because the standard refresh rate across televisions and monitors is 60hz. Higher hz does feel buttery smooth when it is supported, but since console tech like ps4 pro and xbox one x are still so far behind PC we won't see anything past 60 fps for the enthusiast market in consoles.

File: consider.jpg (43KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x451px

>>388188958
Pretty important. It makes the experience a lot smoother and it looks nicer.
The only games where fps doesn't matter is RTS games and turn-based RPG's.

>>388188958
Its great but I believe stability is more important.

Its stupid trying to force your game to hit 60fps when it'll just fluctuate between that and 40

>>388198776
The biggest issue is them cheap smartphone-tier CPU's those consoles have that bottleneck the entire system.

Constant, steady frame rate > muh 60fps

Very important and I would know. 4K is a meme. 144hz is glorious

>>388188958
>60 fps
>in 2017
HAHAHAHHA FAGGOT

>>388199818
False dichotomy you dumb poorfag

>>388200034
Get triple cancer, TB.

>>388200131
>>388199818
>There are people right now who feel smug about playing console games with a steady 30 fps because they imagine that PC gamers have fluctuating 50-60fps framerate
Amazing

>All these delusional consoletards claiming sub 30fps is the way to go.
Your tears are delicious.

>>388200263
>30fps
Please tell me where I said exactly 30fps you nigger.

Protip: You cannot.

>>388188958
Not really "important". It's a standard. A standard that's slowly being overcome by a higher one, that is 144.

>>388190436
depends on your monitors refresh rate you stupid ass noob

>>388200263
>>388200297
>triggered PCMR who have to defend spending thousands to play the same game as everyone else

KEK

>>388189058
Games come to life when you see them with higher framerate. And it stays true when you jump from 60 to 120 or 144.
So your slow paced game that get a huge part from its evironment would benefit from it a lot.

>>388200534
>same game
delusion

>>388200534
>Build PC for 800 bucks
>Games go on sale all the time
>free online
>Piracy
>60+ fps

>Buy console for 400 bucks
>Games always full price
>60 bucks a year for online
>sub 30 fps
>Actually getting cucked this hard

PC requires a larger up front investment but a console gets more expensive as time progresses.

Stable framerate is more important than amount of fps

>>388201254
Said the same, but it's impossible to talk sense in a PCMR thread, especially with someone samefagging.

>>388188958
I had to play the GTA Trilogy at 30fps because unlocking the frame limiter causes physics to go berserk and it was literally fine.

60fps is a stupid meme forced by some lardass brit.

>>388188958
More important than resolution by a mile. 4k at 30FPS will always look, and most importantly, feel worse than 720p at 60 to 144FPS. A good refresh rate in an interactive medium is the real prize.

>>388188958
Fast-paced games? Quite needed, everything else is fine, it's always better but not a priority

>>388188958

I mean, I guess 60 fps is bearable if you are disabled and have a fixed income.

The conversation moved on to 144 awhile ago.
Only consoles are still chasing 60.

Minimum frame rate and adaptive sync are what matters.

>>388188958
Its definitely better than 30fps but it shouldn't decide whether you buy a game or not.
A solid 30fps game is perfectly fine, the issues come when it dips below 30.

>>388188958
Try playing an arena shooter with sub-60 FPS, it's awful.

>>388201391
Wow a wild poorfag, would you guys look at this

388201448
'The conversation moved on'
>literally too expensive for most normal people to be pushing these sorts of things unless they want to invest heavily in a computer.
No (you) for (((you)))

>>388201674
Have fun being a bitch because less than 60 "gives you motion sickness".

>>388201702
Normal people would be happy with 12 fps on their mobile games.
FPS conversations are not for normal people.

>>388188958
I guess if you're "playing" a VN or something then 60 FPS is acceptable, anything else and you should be aiming for at least 120

>>388201254
>>388201345
>having frame drops
pathetic

>>388193857
>upwards of 60 and it's diminishing returns really.

this this this this this

60fps to 144fps is not as good as a jump as 30fps to 60fps, though 144fps gets my cock rock hard

>>388188958
only in competitive online games

Extremely important. I don't play games that aren't 60fps, Unless there's a good reason.

I'd rather games look worse, if it means they play better.

>>388188958
Anything 59 or below makes me domestically abusive.

>>388188958
It's not really important for all games.
It's aesthetically pleasing in most cases, but spending a lot to achieve this is ridiculous. It is not the main quality of any game.

>>388193857
>50 to 100ms is within one cycle of the human perceptual processor
Pseudoscience bullshit. The human eye, and indeed the "perceptual processor", can detect images well beyond 60Hz. Anyone who isn't a complete fucking casual will be able to tell whether a truly responsive game like some competitive FPS is running at a sub-10ms response time or a 50-100ms response time.

It's the most important part of graphics. For every game.
People usually reply "not turn based" or whatever but try playing Civ VI at 15fps. No fun.

>>388204827
Just try playing Civ VI. No fun.

>>388203712
yeah, but it won't break you from immersion.

In the big scheme of things? What does the framerate matter if we're all gonna die eventually.

On a day to day basis? Yes my video games look so much smoother and it is nice. I would like this experience from my handhelds and consoles as much as my PC.

60 is the dream but I can tolerate 45-60

>>388188958
It keeps headache away.

>>388189482
>wreck
>>>/minecraftforums/

>>388204984
I M M E R S I O N

Very, bye!

File: IMG_0878.jpg (202KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1920x1080px

>>388188958
Not really. I went back to go play Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time again and compared it to Chugga's let's play footage.
And yes, I noticed that 30 and 60 have are distinctly different both in regular battling and those flickering boxes, but it wasn't really important. I wouldn't drop playing ML:PiT if it suddenly dropped to 30 fps. It's still a really fun game even without it.
Really, the only reason people spout out the fps memes is because they are just Graphics Whores trying to justify paying $600-$2000 for a gaming PC.

>>388193067
Q1 2018