For me, anything 25 FPS or higher is 100% fine and I’ll be enjoying my time. I never play competitive online shooter games ever, though. All single player ones like GOW and the likes. I game on a 60 Hz 4k monitor. GPU is AMD RX 6600 alongside Ryzen 7 5700G and 32GB RAM. My games are set to meduim most of the time at 4k. Demanding titles are on low. Surprisingly, GOW and GOW Ragnarok are both set to ultra and I still get around 40ish FPS.
Depends on the game. If it’s not really demanding on reaction time, and the game is locked framerate I’m fine with 30, like Okami. However if the game is not locked FPS and I still can’t hit 60 FPS at least on my 1440p monitor I’d probably just play something else (because I know I could have better experience is I could run it).
However for shooter and reaction heavy games I always aim to max out my 144 Hz monitor, even 60 FPS can feel sluggish for me
Well, I first played Dragon Age Origins with the framerate fluctuating between 10 and 20 FPS. Wasn’t the most fun I’ve ever had, but ever since 30 - 60 felt like luxury. So yeah, anywhere from 10 to 30 is fine for me, but the more active a game is the closer to 30 minimum with a target of 60
It used to be 60Hz. Then I played at 144Hz. The change in responsiveness of the mouse converted me
Got spoiled. lol
I only recently experienced the luxury of higher frame rates.
I’ll put up with 30. I usually don’t notice it after a while, especially if it’s steady.
60 is preferred, and I always aim for performance if I can.
I don’t have one.
I have a very simple process for dealing with all of this - I never check my framerate in the first place, so I never know what it is.
I just play games If there’s noticeable stuttering or lag then I maybe try to do something about it, and if there’s not, then I just play and don’t worry about it.
That’s actually a good way of doing it. I used to be this way, but I don’t know how and why I started using a team’s built in FPS counter and mangohud. I’m going to stop using it so I don’t have to keep glancing it all the time. Thank you.
It’s not like I notice it more when I have a frame rate counter turned on, I’m just not questioning how bad or how often the drops are when I have it enabled.
I’m old enough that I remember when 28FPS @ 320x200 was considered a target, and my vision isn’t as hot as it used to be. So long as I’m not noticing any obvious issues, I don’t really care enough to check.
25FPS and 480 pixels vertically is enough for me to get sucked in and forget the world around me.
Which is nice cause that way I can play open world RPGs like Kingdom Come on an old laptop.40 is fine, I can go lower depending on how nadlyO want the experience. I grew up relatively poor, I am not going to completely pass up on an experience I am looking forward to over a lower framerate.
I think I’m a bit spoiled with my 144 Hz monitor; anything below maybe 120 FPS starts to bug me. Thankfully my PC is pretty powerful and I don’t really play graphics-heavy games (mostly just Minecraft) so my framerate is usually quite stable.
For me, it highly depends. Turn-based strategy games, I can easily play at a much lower framerate (30 is fine tbh though I always appreciate more). FPS-style games? 60 is a bare minimum, but 100+ is what I would consider to be enjoyable.
In this day and age, anything below 60FPS 1080p is unacceptable. If a new game can’t hit that target on 3 year old hardware, the game is unfinished.
I’m asking YOU and what YOU think is playable and you’d enjoy it , not games.
I think 60FPS is totally fine. 30 is only OK on slower moving games or era-appropriate consoles; Halo on the OG Xbox for example.
I know OP has a point that they weren’t asking your opinion on games, but I really like your stance of demanding performance from the game devs especially on older hardware. There is a culture of "must have newest hardware to run everything maxed " that’s just dumb consumerism.
40-45.
There are a lot of games at 30 I’ve played through just fine, but for FPS games that extra 10-15 is about my minimum unless it’s on console with aim assist. I grew up playing Saints Row 2 at single-digit framerates, but I just can’t do that anymore.
Aaaah, good old saints Row. Love that game
I’m hypersensitive to framerate and have a 170Hz monitor so 60 FPS is minimum for me. But even that’s a bit too low. Yes, I’m a snob.
Nope, you’re not a snob, you just have a different preference, and that’s totally fine.
…back in the CRT era i needed at least a 72Hz refresh rate to not feel any discomfort; that doesn’t exactly correlate with framerates on modern LCD displays but i think it’s a good proxy for the threshold of general perceptiblity…
…are greater framerates smoother?..sure, especially in my peripheral vision, but 72 FPS is generally good-enough beyond which returns start diminishing…
I play a ton of simulation and strategy games (and some that I would hazard to classify as virtual railfanning/model railroading, like Railroads Online and Transport Fever 2) so I crank up the prettiness, download as much custom content as will load and enjoy the scenery at 20-40 FPS
The average frame rate isn’t nearly as important as the stability. I’ll gladly take 30FPS over 60 + frame drops.
