min fps for first person shooters

Associate
Joined
10 May 2009
Posts
808
hey guys

What do you think the minimum needs to be for fps like mw2 and bc2,

custom pc reckon you need min 25, i usually turn up settings until they drop to around this.
 
Depends on the Engine of the game, some are more noticeable with FPS less than 60. I'd say 30-40 but the does not means games are unplayable if the fps drops below this.

For example, if you have a large explosion or loads going on the game slows, i have became accustomed to this so i don't notice it - other people will winge, however.
 
35+ fps, but if your playing online, fps is better then detail, after all, lagg is death lol

Is this why the hardcore play games with every detail turned off? Someone once sent me a screeshot of what thier rtcw enemy territory looked like. Shocking

I image some people play Starcraft 2 with everything on low or off which will probably look like Starcraft 1
 
Is this why the hardcore play games with every detail turned off? Someone once sent me a screeshot of what thier rtcw enemy territory looked like. Shocking

I image some people play Starcraft 2 with everything on low or off which will probably look like Starcraft 1

There used to be games that would let you fire weapons as fast as your framerate in online shooters :o

Personally I enjoy a bit of eyecandy so have everything whacked up as far as it can go before the frames start dipping under 30.

Starcraft will be different as it's an RTS, split second shooting isn't as important.
 
Starcraft will be different as it's an RTS, split second shooting isn't as important.

To me its the other way around. When Starcraft 2 dips below around 35fps its stupidly annoying. My settings default to ultra but this sometimes causes drops it big fights to 25fps on big maps. Lowering settings to high means it works at 60fps most of the time and big battles drop to 40fps. This is 2 vs 2. When 4 vs 4 is available in the full game fps will take a big hit, but everyone will be in the same position
 
as others said, it really depends on the game and the person. If you have a lesser PC you get used to worse frame rates, I could play fine with an avg around 25-30 but my brother would always notice how unsmooth it was. Now that I run most games a lot higher, I need atleast 40+ to not notice the low framerate
 
Is this why the hardcore play games with every detail turned off? Someone once sent me a screeshot of what thier rtcw enemy territory looked like. Shocking

I image some people play Starcraft 2 with everything on low or off which will probably look like Starcraft 1

I'm not a hardcore gamer, just would rather live then think "ohh look how good that grass looks" while I'm in killcam, but at the same time I love having all the eye candy on :D

Starcraft will be different as it's an RTS, split second shooting isn't as important.

+1
 
60+. It's a sensible to have an average of at least 80+ then when your fps take a dive it will still be around the 60 mark.
 
60+ really, 40 is playable but in a fast paced online game you will be at a slight disadvantage, anything under that is going to be holding you back.

Personally I like a consistant 100fps then its always smooth and responsive and you don't have to worry about fps drop.

The reason people run ugly configs is two fold, yes theres the performance side but the main reason is to reduce the amount of visual "noise" there is on the screen so you can pick out the enemy players, items, etc. quickly and effectively without being distracted by busy textures or lighting effects.

Even tho my PC can easily hold the fps cap in MW2 (91 effectively) with all settings maxed and then some - probably get around 200-300 actually. I still run with all settings on low when playing online :D
 
Back
Top Bottom