Minimum fps to consider a game playable??

Im asking these cause in crysis 3 i got 20-25 fps all the time and sometimes its goes up to 27-28 but i consider it playable..it doesnt lag at all!!!but some other games i played on some emulator lag as hell at 20-25fps!!!i think personally that 20fps is minimum for gaming...its always better to over 30 cause of massive frame drops in some games like i experience in witcher 2 for example..witcher 2 isnt playable like crysis 3 with same fps range 20-25 at least for me cause i feel that it lags a bit when i rotate the view...so it seems that the playable minimum is different in every game and that the optimization of game is very important..I consider far cry 3,crysis 3 very optimized games cause they arent such big framedrops..So is there any difference regarding the minimum fps needed for "smooth" play affected by the type of game?like FPS,racing games,MMO,strategy games etc..do you choose better quality to sacrifice fps in game or you rather lower quality and play over 30 or 60fps?i think its a interesting topic to discussion thats why i started this thread

 

That is crazy. In single player I can get away with a minimum of 35 fps in some spots without it ruining my enjoyment of the game. For multiplayer, anything below 50 feels horrible, and I try to keep frame rates above 60. This is all with first person shooters though. I don't care if Starcraft gets bogged down to 10 fps every now and then.

 

Crysis is unusually smooth at sub-30 fps, that's true. Far Cry 3 on the other hand has one of the most horrible 30+ to 29- fps transition I've ever experienced, it is really noticeable... but then again, many people reported the gameplay wasn't feeling smooth even at optimal framerate.
Yes, of course it also depends on games. You can easily play an RTS at under 30 fps. In any MMO there will be a moment where your framerate will drop on whatever hardware you have (mass pvp, sieges, etc) so lagging there is not the worst thing to happen. However, fast paced games, such as action, adventure, racing, shooters should aim for 30+ fps. I usually adjust the settings to make the game look as well as possible, while keeping 30+ fps in most cases. I don't mind the occasional drop and I'm not obsessed over 60 fps gaming (although I did play a few titles like that and it's pretty nice, indeed).

 

I'll be honest, I think it's a matter of what you can get used to.
Back when my machines could barely run games at low/medium, I used to consider 30fps extremely playable and be pretty proud of my machines.
Now, it HAS to be 60fps. If it fluctuates, I see it. If it goes under 50 it ruins the experience for me.
For me, it's also a matter in that it's hard to obtain immersion these days... too many hundreds and thousands of good games played... the experience has to be perfect, or I won't get suspension of disbelief and that's it for my playing the game.

 

The minimum fps to consider a game playable is the minimum fps you need to enjoy the gaming experience. It doesn't matter what others think. If you enjoy the game at a certain frame rate, why bother? There's quite a few people who play at around 30 fps and are fine with it, evne lower. I'm sure below 20, most will start getting annoyed though.

 

Well, Crysis feels smooth because of the motion blur effect, when you turn around fast, if there was no motion blur you would definately feel lag, i believe anything above 45 fps feel fine, but anything below that is just ruining your gaming experience, you may feel a certain game at 30 fps is fine but try to experience that same game on 45-60 fps and you will know the difference.

I prefer lowering graphics because i can really feel the difference below 45 fps, i prefer lower graphics then ruining the gameplay

 

30 fps and above.
This is the target,

 

I love 60, have no problems with 30 and 15-20 is fine, but obviously not optimal. Morrowind fully modded with new graphics and sound and all that jazz and I get slowdowns to 17-20 in big towns, but it's still quite playable. 60 FPS spoils us.

 

30FPS constant is the minimum. I used to play on the 25FPS margin for a long time so I'm fine with atleast 30FPS. I can remember I beat COD4 multiplayer 4 times on a machine that can barely run it at 25-30FPS.

 

I've gotten used to 60+ FPS on shooters and I won't even bother playing unless it's at least 50+.

 

30 fps is minimum but like everybody i preffer 60fps in my games.

 

depends on the game. 60fps is the most ideal.
i wont go anywhere below 30. that keeps everything smooth for gaming on my laptop

 

Depends on the genre.


For multi-player FPS, sim racing and a few other genres I aim for 120Hz on the desktop, and 60Hz on the laptop.

For single-player FPS, arcade racing, RTS, platformer, most sports games and some other stuff, ~30Hz is good enough for me.

For genres without much action, whatever. SimCity was a slideshow on my old laptop.


Do keep in mind that the maximum latency of display is, in many cases, more important than average frame rate.

 

30 fps is good enough for me, but when playing multiplayer fps, 50-60 fps is my minimum. i would sacrifice graphics for better fps.

30 fps is my minimum, but i always try for more than 60.

 

That's pretty much exactly what I do too lol

 

5fps min 25 fps average on a mmoarpg using intel igpu(something 495), it was fun and provide a challenge(dodging projectile at 5-10fps is epic) .

 

Depends on game completely IMHO.

30FPS, even 25 for single player RTS or action type games. 30-40 for single player FPS. 45+ for MP FPS.

 

my 2p / cents

I was playing some simple FPS on my old Linux laptop last weekend. Its specs are awful but the game managed to run 20fps-25fps on low ! it felt totally playable and quite nice. I think the key was that the FPS was fairly consistent and not jumpy with each frame played without odd ball frame times (you can thank really good intel GPU drivers on Linux for that). As the game progressed there was a point where it got too judery and it wasnt good enough to my suprise this was about 19fps !?

I think the key here is screen size. On my 27" PC monitor anything under 55 - 60fps feels like its lagging and i can see more easily the frame draws (no vsync) in fact my monitor plays much nicer at 75 - 80 fps even on a 60hz only monitor as the lowest frame rate never clips below 60. But on a 15" laptop the frame rate doesnt matter (litterally) half as much. I can play most games on a laptop at 30fps and not feel let down.

So yea Screen size is a big factor and also consistency of frame speeds.

 

yeah thats what i talk about..consistency of frame speed ...in crysis it never drops below 20 even in a hard battle with lot of enemies...but in witcher 2 i have sometimes 40 than it drops to 10 or below 10...i remember when i was a kid half life 2 was really good optimized..even on low systems it was running smooth...one of best games these years including gta serial

 

19 = playable but less pleasure.
25 = really playable... if doesn't drop lower 24.

 

Am i the only one who feels it's sluggish and laggy below 40 fps?
Somehow i can feel huge difference between 30 and 60 fps, even if stable, and that smoothness at 60 fps, it won't let me play anything at 30 fps, it just doesn't feel right.

 

I think it all depends on the person on how they feel with the game, I can play from about 20+ but when it comes to somthing like vsync I have to have it on at all
times because I can see the screen tearing no matter what, but others can not see it as much as I do, if it feels ok to you why should it matter what others think.

 

Nope, you are not. I feel the difference too... playing old game F.E.A.R. But what GPU can is what U get

 

I care more about minimum FPS than average. 30FPS min with 45FPS average is preferable to 15FPS min with 60FPS average for me. Games like Civ 5 I can accept down to 20FPS during late game play (where even my desktop beings to struggle).

 

1 BAZAKAJILLION FRAMES PER NANOSECOND!!!

Hmmm, depends on game. I am quite happy with Crysis 3 at 30+ but with Borderlands 2 I really notice if it's less than 60. Some games it's more noticeable than others I think. Really notice the stutter with Total War: Rome II and X:Rebirth because the framerate is so inconsistent (poorly optimised games). Inconsistent framerate is nasty, as that is really distracting. Gotta be consistent if it's gonna be like butter!

I used to play Half Life 2 Episode 2 at 10-15fps (with Half Life 2 at 20-25fps) on the good ol' Intel GMA 4500MHD. I was stronger back then, I played regardless, I'm weaker now, I couldn't stand that anymore. But Half Life 2 was just too good to not play!

I try and aim for 60 but often I'm willing to sacrifice frames for visual goodies to satisfy my ever-hungry eyes.

 

My old ULV-powered laptop ran League of Legends at 25-30fps at the start of the game. But then when too many units or champions were on the screen, the lag was unbearable.

 

There's a line between "can feel the difference" and "can't tolerate". I can feel the difference between 120FPS and 60FPS easily, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying slideshows when the content is fun.

 

Never played Crysis 1, but so far, I haven't tried a game where the experience wasn't improved by disabling motion blur. In my case, it seems to make games feel more laggy than without the blur, even at barely playable frame rates.

 

Min 30 fps for sure, but depends on the game.. dirt 3 at 30 fps will feel sluggish compared to Need for Speed series. I think, The important thing is more consistent fps. Usually, 60 fps with occasional drops even to 58 can be annoying too.

 

I'd say 30fps is the lower limit, but I surely had to make a lot of compromises with the current laptop. Also, it's not the same playing strategy game and the racing one on the same frame rate. Since the NFS series tends to be the crap for years, I wouldn't regret for not being able to run it properly.

 

Depends. Shooters anything under 60FPS is just unplayable for me. Games like Assassins's Creed or RTS games 40FPS is my minimum.