Quality or FPS

I was wondering what you would rather have, Quality, or Frames per Second.

 

It's a trade off. I wouldn't want the best quality, but only 1 fps. Or the other way either. Anyways, I voted in favor of fps.

 

Depends on the game. For a slow paced RPG, quality. For a fast paced FPS, the fps. For other games, the highest quality I can get while maintaining 30fps.

 

I agree its a trade-off. We'd all love to be able to have all the eye candy but not to the detriment of fps. I'd find a balance to compromise in both. I suppose that means my answer is fps

 

Both, but frames would definitely win out because without it how can you play? The only recent game in my opinion that manages both would be something like Guild Wars where the graphics are actually alright and surprisingly even runs on integrated. (not saying that integrated should be like a minimum all games should be based on) but just saying that the game looks half decent and is actually playable on integrated graphics when most of the other retail games out there at the moment do not even come close.

 

Depends on the game; in an FPS or action rpg, definitely FPS; but in a slower paced game turning on the eye candy won't really hurt the gameplay.

 

In any given game, I try to strike a balance, but generally leaning towards FPS. Even in slower paced games such as Oblivion, I demand a 30-ish FPS. I may not need 30 FPS when I'm gazing upon Tamriel's pretty-pretty fields, but the whole point of it is for situations where choppiness will adversely affect you. Combat.

Oh and horse riding. *hugs his Little Pretty Pony*

 

I would definitely say (if I had to choose between the extremes) fps. I can't play a still image but I can at least play something that looks bad and hope for a good storyline .

Personally if I can get the mix of fps and quality (like everyone else said) that would be ideal. Having a 'ok looking game' at 30fps is alot better than the two extremes in this case.

 

I will max quality as long as I can get above 30+FPS constantely (in first person shooters or games that need it), but if its an RPG or RTS I can settle for the ~25 FPS range.

I notice that with my card at least taking games from 0x/0x to 4x/8x really doesn't have a huge impact on my FPS but makes the game look a lot better. I think the 15FPS drop I receive is worth it so I vote quality.

 

I'd rather have frames per second. You can make any game look better by just sitting farther away from the screen.

 

since it's games we're talking about here, it's gotta be the fps, considering that 30 fps is the limit of playability, anything below 25 fps is unacceptable will any game unplayable, especially when it comes to fps games.

 

well It seems that everyone that has posted here, have voted for FPS, but i would like to hear some from the people that voted for quality.

 

Someone else posted a thread on this... I'm too lazy to look it up

I take quality until I get to unplayably low FPS. So basically, if I ever get a drop below 25-30FPS, I drop the details a bit until it plays smoothly all the time. It's all a balance... I can turn on full effects in Quake 3, but I can only do medium or so on Quake 4.

 

Lol Pitabread, My thread stays OPEN!

 

Yea I am in the same boat, I like quality but FPS is kinda important. I mean you could turn everything to max (AA, TX, AF, View distance etc) in oblivion with a X1400 and have great quality but like 2FPS, if that. So in the end I love to have quality but I always end up with a compromise between quality and FPS

 

YEAH! What kind of idiot would do that......

 

LOL... I did it for a few seconds just so I could see how good the forest looked at max settings.

 

That is what i was getting at, ive done that quite a few times.

 

Depends on the game really.. But even so, the only game that I had to comprimize the maxx setting was STALKER, and I only had to get rid of the full dynamic shadows

Everything else, like CS:S or Prey etc. I usually run at maximum setting possible, even if I have to throw in extra settings from the CCC, such as TAA+ AAA x6, and the games still run at 60+fps., 40+fps with HDR games.

When I had my old radeon 9000 laptop, I pushed for quality, even if it meant 10fps. except when i played CS:S, then It has to be QUALITY @ 12fps!

 

Maybe the best way to go is both. Some games maybe require better FPS as some action games but in slower ones you maybe won't notice if it's runing at 10 fps.

 

I disagree. Movies run at 24 fps, are they unwatchable? I find 25 fps more than playable. The problem is, when you encounter jerkiness in a game, it's not that your AVERAGE fps is dipping below 30, or 25, it's that your MINIMUM fps is in the single digits. I think the eye tends to notice sudden changes in FPS much more than what the baseline FPS itself is. I've seen some benchmarks run at 20 fps and as long as the FPS stays constant, it still looks smooth.

 

I agree. I have big issues with this in STALKER. Everything will be smooth, and then there will be a big dip in FPS, it is really annoying.

To respond to the OP, on my desktop, I'll take both FPS and quality! On my laptop, I definitely go for FPS, especially since I like to play shooters.

 

Because of a kr@p GPU i go for raw rendering power over visuals like AA, AF and VSync.

 

Im with a lot of you guys on this issue. I would like great quality, but I still want great FPS. So i turn my Graphics up as high as I can, while maintaining 30 or more FPS.