Your game of choice MUST play at max settings at AT LEAST 60fps. Anyone else understand this logic?

new boy

new boy

new boy

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Posts
3,491
Location
Weston-super-Mare
For example

My first pc (that was MINE) my game of choice was counter-strike 1.6. for this i was using a Pentium D and some awful gfx card and i was getting a solid 99fps. I was happy with this for 3 years

then i grudgingly switched to cs:s (as i had no friends left that played cs 1.6). i couldn't MAX cs:s with the crappy gfx card so i got me a e6600 and a HD4870. this let me play at >100fps with all settings maxed +AA and i was happy for 4 years or whatever.

Now Diablo 3 and CS:GO are almost upon us. I am sure these will be the games i will be playing for the next 3 or 4 years (as i loooooved d2 so much even though it was horribly outdated around the time i got my Pentium D lol). So in preparation i e-auctioned my e6600 system (despite it meeting the recommended requirements) as i know deep down that i will have to lower the AA or texture settings a notch or two in order to keep 60fps.

to me it makes perfect sense to have a system that will play your daily game easily at max, yet people don't understand and think my logic is flawed?

obviously i have a dable at the newer games but I always find i have a game or two I'm obsessed with for years.

PLEASE tell me my fellow OCUK members know where I'm coming from with this.

It's not so much that I need a new system to be able to play my new game of choice, but to me its a sign its time to upgrade...
 
I'm the same, I want to enjoy the games I play at the highest settings appropriate and silky smooth performance - especially if its a game where a high level of skill is required I don't want to be let down by laggy/choppy rendering.

Maybe I'm slightly OCD but if I can't play the games I enjoy when they are looking at and performing at their best I feel I'm not getting the best out of them.
 
I can understand it for single player games, not for online fps games though. Most of the time max the graphics just clutters the screen and puts you at a disadvantage. 60fps for online, yes, max graphics, no. Most of the time low is best.
 
Armadillo said:
I can understand it for single player games, not for online fps games though. Most of the time max the graphics just clutters the screen and puts you at a disadvantage. 60fps for online, yes, max graphics, no. Most of the time low is best.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I play in lowest for most competitive FPS.
 
Armadillo said:
I can understand it for single player games, not for online fps games though. Most of the time max the graphics just clutters the screen and puts you at a disadvantage. 60fps for online, yes, max graphics, no. Most of the time low is best.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Quake3 being a prime example. It's actually gone into a completely minimalist approach.
 
By the looks of things you won't need that much of a demanding system to run D3 and CS:GO at max graphic settings. I'm guessing something like an i3-2100 and GTX 460 would handle both said games no problem.
 
I was just thinking about starting a thread about fps vs. eye candy. Playing BC2 at medium, and get about 140 fps (less when there's loads going on around me). I did try it out on high, but I could really notice the difference when turning fast - I was still getting 80 fps or so, but it looked stuttery in comparison. It still looks great on medium settings anyway...
 
No, cause there's not a big enough difference between high and ultra on most games apart from the lower fps. :p

It doesn't bother me whether I have all AA etc etc and eye candy, as long as it looks decent and runs smooth i'm happy, half the time I just load of the game and let it pick my 'optimal' settings and just leave it and i've never been unhappy.
 
30fps is usually enough for me. I don't know why people bother with 60fps, the human eye can only see about 20fps and most games are smooth enough that 30fps looks smooth.

In saying that, my computer runs most games at 60+fps anyway.
 
I always choose performance over eye candy these days, i really hate mouse lag, it drives me crazy!
 
ThomBassmonkey said:
30fps is usually enough for me. I don't know why people bother with 60fps, the human eye can only see about 20fps
Click to expand...

Iirc, the eye can detect a greater number of frames than around the twenty mark, though like yourself I am not bothered about hitting a specific number, e.g. 60fps.

As long as it's a smooth experience and I can enable pretty much everything at maximum settings, then all is well and good.
 
24fps is movies and tv, of course, so 60fps is overkill. But, you do notice low framerates when moving the camera rapidly which can be annoying, so I can understand the complaint.

CS:GO is still built on source, and D3 wont be THAT demanding... but upgrading your system is always fun anyway :)
 
ThomBassmonkey said:
30fps is usually enough for me. I don't know why people bother with 60fps, the human eye can only see about 20fps and most games are smooth enough that 30fps looks smooth.

In saying that, my computer runs most games at 60+fps anyway.
Click to expand...

worms everwhere and its sunday :p

certain game engines benefit from higher fps like cod series quake and so on.

you should aim for 60 fps really on pc. if you cant tell difference when playing between 60 and 30 uninstall

if i play cod4 for eg if i chose 30 , 60 , 125 , 250 i coud tell all of those quite easily.
 
Ive never checked to see what fps i get in games. All i know is, that i got to have max settings and smooth gameplay. If i dont i get the upgrade itch, and at the moment im saving up for a new graphics card to play bf3 at ultra settings.
 
DampCat said:
24fps is movies and tv, of course, so 60fps is overkill. But, you do notice low framerates when moving the camera rapidly which can be annoying, so I can understand the complaint.

CS:GO is still built on source, and D3 wont be THAT demanding... but upgrading your system is always fun anyway :)
Click to expand...

Films are a completely different thing - there's lots of stuff like blur which hides the low framerate, which would make a fast game unplayable.
 
R.P.L said:
Films are a completely different thing - there's lots of stuff like blur which hides the low framerate, which would make a fast game unplayable.
Click to expand...

Also movies and TV, etc. aren't interactive - for fairly long winded reason the moment you have realtime manipulation of the scene as in a video game you need to double the framerate required for it to be perceived as smooth.
 
I don't really understand the logic because 'max' settings isn't consistent between games. So for example 'medium' settings in one game may look better than 'max' settings in another game, so it is just a label, nothing more.

Crysis is a classic example, great looking game on normal settings, yet everyone got their knickers in a twist because their $2000 system couldn't run it smoothly maxed out. If they've renamed normal settings to "SUPER DOOPER ULTRA HIGH XXX SETTINGS" and disabled everything above that it probably would have got a better reception :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom