What FPS you consider playable?

what FPS you consider playable?

100+

Steady 30 is borderline playable.
Steady 60 is the standard. It's the expectation.
Steady 140+ is for high-end PCs and enthusiasts.

Depend on the game but usually stable 30fps is enough for rpg and zelda-like games. FPS, racing games and TPS run better at 60fps and over. Generally speaking, if the animation made for a specific framerate and it's stable, the game will play fine.

30 or more, no less. I'm willing to make exceptions if it's for an artistic reason or something, but it better be a damn good reason.

Anything without frame drops and with more than 20fps is completly playable, regarding on what elitist say.

Although I'd consider some fast-paced or precise games need at least 60fps, such as fighting games, racing games and shooters.

Framedrops usually bother me regardless of the original fps. 60 dipping below 60 will bother me as much as 30 droping to 25.

/thread
Finally smoeone making a good post and not the autistic "144fps masterrace XDD" bullshit

30 is fine, anything below that really strains my tolerance

30+ for single player
144+ for multiplayer

30 fps is the minimum playable framerate and seeing the old and busted PS4 struggle to reach it makes me not want to buy this game even though I've waited god knows how many years at this point.

Game looks like shit

how does it run so bad

30 fps is playable for me, but I absolutely can not stand frame drops.

The second things randomly gets choppy my dick explodes backwards out of my ass from sheer annoyance. Anything more than 30 is pure gravy though, and honestly there is no excuse for not having stable 60 fps.

Old engine plus not enough optimisation
Consider this you have great engine used by many optimised to play well on anything but you have memory limit.
Now you're putting more and more shit on the screen and the background and don't have time for more optimisation. And you get this.
Other example is Batman Arkham Knight which was optimised on at least PS4 but on PC it's shit because you used UE3 and put so much shit that it looks next gen but you have to get i7-6700k and 1070 to get somewhat stable 60 fps

Depends on the kind of game. If it's something fast paced and reaction based then I'm going to want at least the refresh rate of my monitor. If it's something like a turn based game then I can live with 30FPS but it wont be enjoyed.

One thing people forget on the topic of framerates is that 144 FPS is cool and all but if you've got a 60hz monitor then it wont mean fuck all to you unless you can perceive the difference in frame latency, which you fucking can't.

what if 60+ fps because good pc

55+ for any game.

This, even if you own a 60hz display

45ish is the minimum

No matter how good your PC is you won't run some unoptimized games at stable 60 fps. The games are not necessarily garbage, but devs are.
These games are
- Any paradox title on max speed (sub 30fps regardless of CPU)
- DF (depends on amount of dwarves)
- Modded Factorio (depends on amount of disturbed enemies by the pollution most)
- Cities Skylines (depends on how big the city is. Bigger cities are guaranteed to drop sub 40 fps even on NASA computers regardless of settings)
- Heavily modded Oblivion/Skyrim (depends on number, conflicts and size of the mods and graphical settings. Some lightly modded versions can have stable 60, some heavily scripted ones with tons of ENB and grass options will dip to 30 regardless of GPU/CPU. Oblivion runs much worse than Skyrim regardless of CPU/GPU being utilized)

There are also tons of garbage games that run like shit, but at least they are not really worth your time.

30-60fps is fine. I personally don't mind if it dips into 15-20 as I always had low-end PCs growing up and have gotten used to it, but once it gets below 10 then generally the game actually does become unplayable.

Depends on what the camera controls are like and how quickly everything moves. Any game with a static or slow moving camera can be 30 and feel fine as long as it's a steady 30 but 60fps should probably be the lower limit for any kind of first person shooter.
Being a capped to a steady framerate is the most important part, even at 144hz if the game starts dipping you'll notice it. For example, capping a game back down to 80 is almost always preferable to playing a game that fluxuates between 80 and 100.

144 > locked 60 > locked 30 > unlocked 30-60 > sub-30

45ish in a non-action game
30 in a game with many static images
60 in anything that requires semi-quick reflexes

anything under 60 is literally unplayable for me

some people go as low as 5 i hear

Speaking from experience i found it really annoying when Metro dropped to 40-45. So FPS MUST be in 60 if not it feels like "Im having a stroke simulator"

Also games in 3rd person like Dark Souls are BORDERLINE playable at 30. Though it ruins fighting games that are also in 3rd person. It will only work in games where the combat is all about mashing a button at random like god of war..

30 also sucks gorilla dick in fps. Just remember how wonky the camera moved around in C&C3 and it affected controlling big fights and compare it to SC2.

TLDR: below 60 is ok in games with shitty reaction times assuming they are in 3rd person

Anything above 60 is Nvidia finding an excuse to sell you shit that you think is better but its more of the same.

60+ is good if your monitor has 120/144hz refresh rate

Does it feel more "real" at any point ? I tried a 144hz monitor at an electronics store and it didnt feel any better than 60. Only improvement was that it was better in terms of color accuracy and clear image compared to my budget LED

either a solid 30 or a solid 60
just unlocking the framerate and having it go apeshit helps absolutely no one
I obviously prefer the latter because I get rock hard at smooth camera movement

can you pause dwarf fortress

It's not about how real it feels. If you play shooters like CS:GO or any reaction time based games then being able to render 144 frames in a second is seriously going to help you. Things feel smoother and more fluid for the most part.

If that display didn't feel any better than your monitor then I doubt they had it setup properly. I've seen that a few times and even seen G-Sync display models that weren't properly setup.

Yes

It really depends.

I've played plenty of games with awful framerates over the years.

Arkham Knight was really designed to run at 30 FPS at PC, which it did just fine, even at 4K on pretty affordable hardware.

30 is sufficient for slow moving games.
for fast paced games where things move across the screen at high speeds i want at least 50, preferably a steady 60.

you are very wrong

The latency difference between 144 Hz and 60Hz is absolutely trivial. 7 ms frametimes versus 16 ms frametimes. Unless you already have top tier reflexes, this isn't going to benefit the average ~250 ms reaction time pleb in any meaningful way.

I've finished games that mostly ran at under 30 fps but just because it's playable does not mean it's not shit. Even a stable 30 feels like shit.

15
played 300 hours of DaS on my shitty laptop at 15 fps

Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 fps

Slow games are playable at 30 fps but 60+ fps will always be the better option no matter what genre.

RPGs are fine at 30. FPS, action, fighting, racing, and platformers need steady 60.

Any framerate is good for me, the important part is that there is no frame-skip and sudden dips, those incosistencies disrupt gameplay.

I play ocarina of time 1 time a year on my old CRT and since we are in PAL it's 17fps and that never bothered me at all.

30 FPS with no drops is tolerable.
60 FPS with minimal movement is desirable.
Sub-30 FPS is not tolerable
Neither is FPS that roams from 30-60.

At least 60, but that's only acceptable if the game is so graphically intense I can't run it any higher or for some reason I'm using a 60hz monitor, 100-120 is ideal

60 with no drops bare minimum for single player

100+ for multiplayer

anyone saying 30 were retarded enough to buy a console

144hz looks better and, contrary to what the other guy is saying, I like it because it does make everything clearer in motion and more "Real" than 60. That said, I regret making the upgrade just because 60 feels shitty now and it's hard to get recent games running at 144. If you're playing at 60hz right now and you're satisfied with that, don't make the switch.

20 stable is fine.
ICO can't do stable for shit, its always some 20-30 or 15 to 24 jitter range.

That much frame stutter as OP's image is very noticable, and detracts from experience

Steady 30 is perfectly playable, anyone that disagrees is an elitist faggot.

Steady 60>steady 30>unsteady 60>Unsteady 30

T h i s

>perfectly
2 words man.
Dark Souls.
If you ignore the drops in Blighttown was it satisfying and perfect? Absolutely no. But it was tolerable.

You want proof? Unlock it to 60 and see for yourself if your pc can handle it. I would be playing it solely on 60 if it wasnt for the shitty console centered coding that breaks the game above the pleb framerate.

It's his opinion, you autist

Honestly, high 10/low 20. But only in situations where I'm using clearly underpowered hardware like a 6 year old laptop or something, not a 3 year old console, then I expect 30 really. Especially on the "professional" hardware.

singleplayer; at least 30
multiplayer; at least 78

I've spent nearly all my life playing games at 15 FPS

>tfw 77
kill me pls

Id give you any spare pc parts because im myself struggling as a poorfag for over 12 years.

Feels bad man.

>motion blur all over the place
should run at 60. enjoy your eye strain.

Rock solid 30 FPS is absolutely fine with steady framepacing is absolutely fine. Dips below 30 are inexcusable, 60 FPS is a treat but not a huge negative if a game doesn't run as such.

120+ if it's a (((competitive))) online shooter, but I haven't played or plan on playing any since TF2 from release in 07 to Mannconomy update.

for pc i will lower all settings until the game runs at least at 60 so i guess 60 is my limit. however, i would settle on 30 fps so long as i was sitting on my couch

depends on the monitor

Depends on the game. 60+ only matters in fast paced games.

Playable? 20
Enjoyable? 60+

I can agree with this

>Playable? 20

Hi

I said playable, not enjoyable. It is possible to play with 20, it just won't be very fun

Depends on the game but in most cases 60FPS. Turn based RPGs are a particular exception like the FFX/X-2 remaster which is locked at 30FPS. In that games case it has no real effect on gameplay.

60 is minimum
120 is where shit starts getting good
I pity the poorfags who play games on a 60hz monitor