60 frames per second or eye-stunning graphics?

Framerate or graphics, 2 things that not always go together hand in hand, because your system is not powerful enough or the game decided to lock the framerate for some reason or they downscaled the textures so they can pump out some extra frames.

What matters more for you? Amazingly looking graphics and textures or a solid running game that doesn't drop below 60 frames per second?

60 FRAMES PLEASE. Unfortunately for me, neither is happening in most games I'm playing right now, lol. Although it makes me real happy to see a game with beautiful graphics, I would much rather be able to run the game smoothly if I gotta choose between the two. I'm playing ESO on low graphics and it's looking pretty rough, but at least I'm getting decent frames, and it's playable.

60 FPS MASTER RACE.

Heck, 30 FPS is good enough for me (except if it's a fighting game, 60 FPS plz).

At the end of the day, I'd opt for performance as opposed to beauty. I'm usually lenient depending on the genre, but it's absolutely frustrating when the frame rate dips considerably and consistently. Drakengard 3 had me sighing whenever I had frames dropping during fights.

A fun tidbit, I had the biggest grin on my face when I first played Dark Souls II on the PC with a smooth and crisp 60 FPS.

framerate>graphics Pretty graphics don't mean shit when you've got a choppy framerate and/or lag.

What a really easy question.

You can work around bad graphics as long as you have a good art style and direction for your game. You CANNOT work around bad framerate.

Yet graphics is always the options devs go for. Ugh.

60 FPS always! What's the point of having good graphics if there's a chance that it'll lag or something? Luckily Nintendo usually has 60 FPS for many of their games and since the graphics for their games aren't bad it's a win-win for a Nintendo only person like me.

Depends on how bad the framerate is. Usually I'd rather have the graphics over the framerate because apparently I don't take too much notice of the framerate unless it's really really bad. I've had people look over my shoulder before and make a remark about how bad the framerate of a game on my computer was compared to their computer, and my reaction was "really?" I honestly would not have noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out (and I think the example I'm thinking of was running around 30 or 40 fps).

Now if you're talking about having a definite god-awful framerate as a sacrifice to having good graphics...then yeah, I'd rather have the framerate instead.

Hasn't been an issue for me at all over the past few years. When I did have a shitty desktop it was always framerate before graphics, but now it's a bit of a toss-up.

For example, on my old desktop I had played Fallout 3 on the lowest settings with an onboard graphics card and it was the worst thing ever. Framerate was alright, but the graphics were terrible. ..But, it was at least playable.

More recently, I was playing Dying Light on my current desktop, and while my specs can handle it on max settings at 60fps, it still lags sometimes or even freezes up for a few seconds.. Too many things happening all at once. It didn't happen often during combat, but when it did it was the worst thing ever, especially at night.
Would lowering the graphics help with that? Probably. Will I? Nope. It's just not enough of a nuisance to warrant lowering the quality.

Just depends on the situation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Framerate, but we've always been bogged down by weak consoles. Consoles are the reason we can't attain the greatness of 60 fps and good graphics at the same time. Since Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft always want to try to show that their puny boxes are capable of great things, they up the graphic level until said boxes start to choke and call it a day because the fanboys will keep buying them anyways. And this hurts multiplatform games released on PC, since PC users are subject to the castrations that are done to games so they can be run on consoles.

Cerberus87 said:

Framerate, but we've always been bogged down by weak consoles. Consoles are the reason we can't attain the greatness of 60 fps and good graphics at the same time. Since Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft always want to try to show that their puny boxes are capable of great things, they up the graphic level until said boxes start to choke and call it a day because the fanboys will keep buying them anyways. And this hurts multiplatform games released on PC, since PC users are subject to the castrations that are done to games so they can be run on consoles.

Click to expand...

Yesss.

At least there's usually "fixes" for a lot of those things with PC gaming; sometimes it takes mods and "unofficial patches", sometimes it's as simple as tweaking the .ini, say like lifting the 30fps cap from Dead Rising 3.

Sgt.Dustmop said:

Yesss.

At least there's usually "fixes" for a lot of those things with PC gaming; sometimes it takes mods and "unofficial patches", sometimes it's as simple as tweaking the .ini, say like lifting the 30fps cap from Dead Rising 3.

Click to expand...

These are what makes PC wonderful.

As long as it's a constant frame rate, I'm okay with 30FPS or something less than 60. 60FPS preferred, yeah. But not everything needs that. As long as it doesn't come at graphical cost

Yeah how is this a argument? Having a game with PS4 level-graphics but a awful frame rate makes it a waste of time is worse than having a game with PS2 level-graphics with even a solid 30fps (although 60fps should really be standard in console games right now).

Boomburst said:

Yeah how is this a argument? Having a game with PS4 level-graphics but a awful frame rate makes it a waste of time is worse than having a game with PS2 level-graphics with even a solid 30fps (although 60fps should really be standard in console games right now).

Click to expand...

If 60 fps was the standard in consoles you'd see a lot less eyecandy in the PS4 and the XONE, and Sony and Microsoft don't really want that. Even the lowest Steam Machine models are comparable to consoles.

Which is why, although everyone hit at Microsoft for trying to turn the XONE into a media center instead of a dedicated console, it was the right move. They can't compete with PC in the graphics front, but they can compete on ease of streaming service implementation, for example, among other things. Netflix isn't exactly easy to integrate to Windows-based media centers. And, with a console, you don't need a Chromecast.

I'd rather have a game that runs at a steady 60FPS with simply average graphics than a game that has a terrible framerate but looks beautiful.

I rather have crappy graphics and still be able to enjoy the gameplay than a game that lags everytime I take a step :)

It depends for me. Most of the time I do prefer framerate over graphics. As long as the framerate doesn't tank a good amount, can stay around 60 to 30 without huge drop spikes, and can consistently stay at or near a certain FPS, that's fine by me. If it doesn't, then I'm going to have a problem. The only exception is if the graphics suffer way to much. If the graphics have to be turned down a lot to the point where it's just very ugly and disgusting everything looks like a blur or a blob or if there is a lot of pop-in, flickering, or a low draw distance then that is a giant no and I am fine with making my FPS suffer a bit in order to make it look decent.

I'd rather have a stable game free of glitches, because high-end graphics are only going to look like obsolete crap once the next generation hits anyway! I've noticed that beautiful graphics and long loading times will often go hand-in-hand as well, and if there is one thing I hate it's waiting to play games. Just as long as it runs smoothly I don't really care what it looks like~