Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Detail level vs. resolution vs. frame rate

Detail level vs. resolution vs. frame rate   75 votes

  1. 1. Which of the following would you prefer?

    • High detail, 1080p, 60 fps constant
      38
    • Very high detail, 720p, hovers around 50 fps
      7
    • Very high detail, 1080p, hovers around 40 fps
      10
    • Extreme, 1080p, 30 fps
      20

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

33 posts in this topic

Posted

Assume the four poll choices were the only options - which do you prefer?

 

I'd go for the first (High detail, 1080p, 60 fps constant), personally.

 

It's probably because I've always been a PC gamer, so 60 fps is the usual and long-standing holy grail for us, even if many of us have to lower the detail a bit :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Im more about graphics than resolution/fps.  50FPS to me feels very smooth, so I'd rather have a fairly speedy/smooth game lower res (I don't see the difference betwen 1080 and 720) and higher graphics.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't mind small frame rate drops if it allows a genuinely noticeably "prettier" game, but we're talking 60 going to 50+. When your target is 30FPS you really can't be affording drops, sure maybe 28~ here or there, but not dropping lower and frequently. Don't really think those kind of drops on a 30FPS title are really "acceptable" this generation.

 

As for resolution, I'm expecting higher this gen, if The Last of Us can do 720p/30FPS on the PS3, I do not expect 720/30FPS titles on the PS4. It really has to be 1080/30FPS minimum, maybe on some titles 900/60FPS if the title is especially sensitive to frame rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't mind any really.

I care about gameplay. If the game is good, then it can do whatever it wants visually.

 

One thing i do like to have but not a deal breaker is the game to run in my monitor/tv's native resolution. Plus i don't like all these in betweens with consoles. Either 720p or 1080p for a console.

 

I'm an old school gamer. I'm only bothered about playing games.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is kind of an odd poll... As a PC gamer, I always prefer to play at my monitor's optimal resolution (1080p). I also want the highest playable graphics setting which delivers the best frame rates. Depending on the game, you can get away with lower FPS, but I prefer 60+ FPS. Which PC gamer doesn't want the highest resolution with the best graphics setting and 60+ FPS? 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I game on PC, so obviously extreme at 1080p (native resolution) with 60+fps. If I can't get the highest settings at 60+ fps, I just lower/disable the AA settings to achieve that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Framerate being the most important, followed by resolution since non-native resolutions always look like crap on LCD monitors, then start playing with effects sliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello,

I don't mind any really.

I care about gameplay. If the game is good, then it can do whatever it wants visually.

 

One thing i do like to have but not a deal breaker is the game to run in my monitor/tv's native resolution. Plus i don't like all these in betweens with consoles. Either 720p or 1080p for a console.

 

I'm an old school gamer. I'm only bothered about playing games.

QFT. The voters of this poll is why the gaming industry is getting worst and worst... :no:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I care about gameplay. If the game is good, then it can do whatever it wants visually.

 

Gameplay is dependent only on the gameplay design, it doesn't effect graphics.

 

I personally prefer a game with good gameplay and good graphics, you don't have to sacrifice one for the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello,

QFT. The voters of this poll is why the gaming industry is getting worst and worst... :no:

 

I don't think so. People can have a preference over what they prefer.

It is certain people who think it is the most important thing when it comes to games. They're pushing the industry in the wrong direction.

 

It is quite noticeable on this forum. Both Microsoft and Sony forums are terrible for it. Very rare is a post about a game and its gameplay or if it is any good. It is all about what resolution or framerate they run at.

 

Look at the Computer Gaming forum. It isn't as popular but most of the time it is people talking about the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i don't mind lower frame rates as long as the detail is great.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I usually go for the 3rd option.

Very high detail, 1080p, hovers around 40 fps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

QFT. The voters of this poll is why the gaming industry is getting worst and worst... :no:

Yeah! Because it's just impossible to combine the two (good gameplay and good grpahics) :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello,

QFT. The voters of this poll is why the gaming industry is getting worst and worst... :no:

Not at all. The gaming industry is getting worst cause people keep buying CoD and Madden every year instead of new original series.

BTW the gaming industry is not really getting worst. Only the AAA gaming industry is. The indie market is full of extremely good and awesome little gems. These days i would say i play indie games 75% of the time.

I had WAY WAY WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY more fun with Rogue Legacy than any of the AAA titles last year. Enjoyed The Legend of Grimrock a lot too the previous year. Terraria was and still is lot of fun too.

Yeah! Because it's just impossible to combine the two (good gameplay and good grpahics) :rolleyes:

Of course it's not.

But why would big publishers care about gameplay when they can sell the same games over and over and over again every year? Why would they? They have no reason to since CoD keep selling and will continue to sell in the upcoming years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

just a personal preference, but anything over 30fps works for me. I choose resolution first, then change the in-game settings to compensate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello,

I don't think so. People can have a preference over what they prefer.

It is certain people who think it is the most important thing when it comes to games. They're pushing the industry in the wrong direction.

 

It is quite noticeable on this forum. Both Microsoft and Sony forums are terrible for it. Very rare is a post about a game and its gameplay or if it is any good. It is all about what resolution or framerate they run at.

 

Look at the Computer Gaming forum. It isn't as popular but most of the time it is people talking about the games.

Those "certain people" are who Im saying are ruining the industry by just asking for graphics.

Im sorry: I might have explained it incorrectly. The voters of this poll (I didnt and wont vote thats why I said the voters) that vote that they want EXTREMELY high graphics are the ones that are ruining the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Of course it's not.

But why would big publishers care about gameplay when they can sell the same games over and over and over again every year? Why would they? They have no reason to since CoD keep selling and will continue to sell in the upcoming years.

If the game got good gameplay and good graphics, you don't really need a publisher.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1197643-kingdom-come-deliverance/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't think so. People can have a preference over what they prefer.

It is certain people who think it is the most important thing when it comes to games. They're pushing the industry in the wrong direction.

It is quite noticeable on this forum. Both Microsoft and Sony forums are terrible for it. Very rare is a post about a game and its gameplay or if it is any good. It is all about what resolution or framerate they run at.

Look at the Computer Gaming forum. It isn't as popular but most of the time it is people talking about the games.

Because in the PC forum if you have an issue with FPS/resolution 90%* of the time its YOUR problem. You need to go buy new components and then that's it sorted, your computer is the issue, not anything else.

Console gamers cannot do that so the only "resolution" is to let the developers and the platform holders know how they feel. You can't do anything with a console, its a slab that will have the same innards from day 1 to year 8.

Heck with the consoles almost mini PCs we still don't even have graphical sliders/options. Maybe its something devs should consider if there truly is that market who don't care about visuals at all, and would happily lower the res to 720p or texture quality to hit over 30FPS or to match one of the competitors advantages. But then you get the publishers and hardware manufactures so paranoid about comparisons making their games look worse than the competition....

*poorly optimised games aside, aka the ones that run like a dog on a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because in the PC forum if you have an issue with FPS/resolution 90%* of the time its YOUR problem. You need to go buy new components and then that's it sorted, your computer is the issue, not anything else.

Console gamers cannot do that so the only "resolution" is to let the developers and the platform holders know how they feel. You can't do anything with a console, its a slab that will have the same innards from day 1 to year 8.

Heck with the consoles almost mini PCs we still don't even have graphical sliders/options. Maybe its something devs should consider if there truly is that market who don't care about visuals at all, and would happily lower the res to 720p or texture quality to hit over 30FPS or to match one of the competitors advantages. But then you get the publishers and hardware manufactures so paranoid about comparisons making their games look worse than the competition....

*poorly optimised games aside, aka the ones that run like a dog on a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Syrim Id like a Beautiful game Option 3, as i don't need fps. Counterstrike, Bf4 Option 1.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Graphics ######" reporting. Usually maximum high ultra extreme settings unless it's really taxing and distracting (say, motion blur). Always monitor's native resolution. I used to suffer sub-30 fps with old 560 Ti just to have all kinds of uberhigh-res texture mods and DOF in Fallout 3 & NV, for example.

 

To those who say that gameplay is the only proper keystone - it's extremely one-sided, bigoted and for some folks borderline religious zealotry. The key is to enjoy the game. Each of us finds different sort of enjoyment in different sorts of things. Graphics is what works for me. It is important, it provides immersion, it is *art*, you don't have to even notice it.

 

Just consider the term "video game". Be reminded of the "video" part of the term, it's there for an obvious reason - it is the medium. Just as we've gone from cave paintings to Ancient Greece pottery to Rembrandt, we've gone from stylised pixel art to hard-edged polygons to near-photorealistic reconstructions of scenery, objects, bodies and lifelike animations. And I thoroughly admire what/that computers can do in *real-time* these days, while providing me with an ability to participate and perhaps change the course of events.

 

There still needs to be a glue that holds the game together, sets it apart from mere shiny toys or I will avoid it, but I'm just much less demanding on that front.

 

And just to confuse things, one of my favorite games is an old-school turn-based hardcore CRPG with graphics that one could liken to Windows Maze screensaver. There's many aspects of enjoyment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Graphics ######" reporting. Usually maximum high ultra extreme settings unless it's really taxing and distracting (say, motion blur). Always monitor's native resolution. I used to suffer sub-30 fps with old 560 Ti just to have all kinds of uberhigh-res texture mods and DOF in Fallout 3 & NV, for example.

 

To those who say that gameplay is the only proper keystone - it's extremely one-sided, bigoted and for some folks borderline religious zealotry. The key is to enjoy the game. Each of us finds different sort of enjoyment in different sorts of things. Graphics is what works for me. It is important, it provides immersion, it is *art*, you don't have to even notice it.

 

Just consider the term "video game". Be reminded of the "video" part of the term, it's there for an obvious reason - it is the medium. Just as we've gone from cave paintings to Ancient Greece pottery to Rembrandt, we've gone from stylised pixel art to hard-edged polygons to near-photorealistic reconstructions of scenery, objects, bodies and lifelike animations. And I thoroughly admire what/that computers can do in *real-time* these days, while providing me with an ability to participate and perhaps change the course of events.

 

There still needs to be a glue that holds the game together, sets it apart from mere shiny toys or I will avoid it, but I'm just much less demanding on that front.

 

And just to confuse things, one of my favorite games is an old-school turn-based hardcore CRPG with graphics that one could liken to Windows Maze screensaver. There's many aspects of enjoyment.

Yeah 560ti, Less of the old :)  Its hanging in there till MAXWELL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I have a 1440 monitor and usually have to drop it down to 1080. That is barable for me, 720 however on it looks like crap. To be honest anything past 30fps looks smooth enough to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To me anything less than 60fps is unacceptable, as it destroys immersion. I also typically run games at maximum detail, with high anti-aliasing. When I first bought my 1600p display I thought a single GTX680 would be enough but ended up buying a second to hit 60fps. There are a few games where I have to turn down the detail slightly to maintain 60fps but not many. When that changes I'll look to upgrade.

 

Personally I'm waiting to see what resolution the Oculus Rift will be and what sort of specs will be needed for it, as I really want to use that to play Star Citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tbh i want the best gfx possible, extreme gfx and id set my games to get 30-40fps at least when i had a 1GB 6870 (wasnt always possible had to lower sometimes), but bought 280x for when BF4 came out, push everything to the max and get good frame rates 45+ pends on game. BF4 multiplayer is like 70-80 on maximum gfx so thats all good in the hood :D

 

Were PC owners and we want the best gfx and good gameplay, if i wanted rubbish graphics id go buy a console. Although there good at the moe with in a cpl years (star citizen for example) i want to be gaming in 4K, sure ill need sli/xfire and ill be setting aside about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.