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.
It used to be 60Hz. Then I played at 144Hz. The change in responsiveness of the mouse converted me
Got spoiled. lol
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
If it’s a fast-paced action game, 60 is a must. If it’s turn-based, or otherwise just slow enough to not matter, I’ll sometimes accept a stable 30 - but only if it’s truly stable, any dips below that are not okay.
Most of the time, 60. But it depends.
Competitive FPS/action games I want 120, story games with FPS 60, anything turn based or slow paced is probably fine at 30 or 40. It also depends on a lot of other factors. On my handheld (steam deck like) I aim for 30 or 40, but my main PC always shoots for 60 or higher.
That and I usually tune my settings so I get a bit more than 60, then lock the framerate to reduce stutter.
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
When I play it’s usually solo games, and I never had an issue with 20fps+ . If performance drops below that, I’m visually ok with 16fps, but usually at that range my system is struggling with game mechanics and that’s the deal breaker for me
I feel like 20 FPS would be OK for me if I had absolutely no ability to get at least a 25. But 15? 16? That’s like very jittery. I remember that happening on Alan wake 2 and it was playable, but to be honest I was kind of annoyed with it.
Anything realtime needs to be at least 60 fps, the closer to my monitor 144Hz the better. Something like a city builder or turn based strategy or non-time-critical relaxed co-op stuff is fine to be 30+.
I’d never want to play any shooter at lower than 60, no RTS, no racing game and so on.
My target is 60, but depending on the game I find framerates down to 20 technically playable (if it’s stable), but I need a bit of time to get used to it.
For framerates above 60, however, I can’t really feel any difference so I usually set a cap at 60 to reduce heat and because the on board sound card is poorly isolated and picks up noise from the gpu.
I too grew up on machines that were mid-low range and was constantly asking more of them than they could handle, so I learned to stomach pretty miserable FPS. In the end though it’s highly context sensitive - the less movement (and in particular camera movement) the game has the lower the frame rate you can get away with.
As a general rule I would say 25 FPS is the absolute lower limit, but around 40 is probably more in line with your “this is fine and I’m going to have a great time” definition. However, for something like a fast paced shooter it’s more like 60 FPS minimum.
Depends on your tv a bit. 30fps is fine on my steam deck, but on my LG OLED the response rate is too damn fast and 30fps looks choppy and terrible.
Ha! I didn’t know response time affected it. TIL
I know this only because I spent way too long trying to figure out why older games look like ass on the LG haha.
😂 Look like ass.
Highly depends on the type of game. For First person shooters, 120+ fps is a must. I skipped the more recent CoDs because I couldn’t get them to run at that target consistently enough on my PC without turning them into blurry DLSS smear.
Racing games, where motion is typically always going in one direction with only smooth direction changes, a lower framerate is fine (like 60 to 80), although the added smoothness from high framerate is obviously still nice.
Slower paced or turn based games I’m fine with going as low as 40 FPS, as long as it’s consistent without drops and frame pacing issues.
