28 Fps?

Are 28 FPS playable in a first person shooter game?

 

It should be fine and playable.

 

For some people it is fine but I couldn't play a first person shooter at 28 fps. The mouse lag would kill it for me.

 

It's a personal preference.

 

Bordering on non-playable, as it is an FPS.

You really want 30-40 at least.

But give it a shot and turn down some settings.

 

Better yet... ask yourself instead, do you find it playable?

If you find it playable, there's no need to seeking other's opinion to change that.

 

Depends on the game engine and the person. Some games run smooth at 25fps, other games need 50+ FPS to seem smooth.

 

FPS, Racing. Those genres have to be 60+ fps, or I'll die trying. I'm fine with RPGs, RTS.

 

28frames? well that is below average imo, if you want fluid frames it should be at least 40 to 60, the higher the better, usually i leave a good amount of frame reserves when they do heavy rendering like explosion/effects etc. but its really up to how you look at it. fluid is better for the eyes imo

 

A more appropriate way to analyze this is to focus on the MINIMUM FPS. If you average 28 FPS and the minimum is 25 and the maximum is 31 (unlikely but possible) then yes 28 should be fine. Before people were maxing Crysis, people said, "25 is really playable probably because of the motion blur and how realistic it looks." Now that people get 40-60, I wonder if that would apply.

Now a game that gets 45 FPS average but has a minimum FPS of 10 and a max of 100 (Metro 2033) then that may actually be much more laggy and unplayable than a game that gets 30 FPS and has a minimum FPS of 23. It's not about average FPS when you are talking 20-50FPS. It's about the minimum and how far the deviations are.

 

for me it's 30+ fps. i don't mind if it dips for a short time (1-2 seconds)....just not the whole time i play!

 

It's gotta be 60+ for FPS games for me. Anything less and the mouse lag is unbearable. Low FPS brings back nightmares I used to have when I gamed on a toshiba satellite with integrated graphics 5-6 years ago :O

 

It also depends on the DPI in your mouse, the speed that you are using your mouse at. To me 28 fps is really laggy, I need 60 fps+ to play a multiplayer fps. For singleplayer it´s not that important.

 

As long as it's smooth, it should be alright.

 

Well I asked this question because I want to play Battlefield 3 really bad. I saw on notebookcheck.net that my laptop can run Battlefield 3 on high settings with 28fps.

 

You don't need high settings for BF3 to be enjoyable. I use low on my laptop and quite honestly, it's hard to tell much difference from high especially when you're in the game. DICE said low is comparable or better than the graphics on consoles. I play at average about 30fps at 1080p on my laptop with low settings and it's very playable.

 

I've max the settings on single player to see the beautiful effects the devs made

Then lowest settings on multiplayer, less effects less distractions lol



Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

 

Actually, in many MP games I think you are at a disadvantage with cranked up detail, bloom, etc. As long as you can max your view distance, turn everything else down. I was having on hell of a hard time in Bad Company 2 until I turned off Bloom, that made a huge difference, I wasn't blinded nearly as much.

 

A minimum of 28 is fine. An average of 28, not so good.

 

having lowest graphic settings is pretty ideal if you are not planning to fight either in the air or far away.

Having a much higher graphic setting in the air make it so much easier to see the soflams, stinger and jav launch point.

 

Actually wouldn't you want mesh as high as possible? Other details don't matter as much imho in BF3.