Performance or Graphics?

[Hazar]

Which do you prefer? Do you like the game to run as well as possible with high framerates or like it to run looking its best, sacrificing some performance?

this is assuming you have to make a trade-off between the two like you would have to with most new games.

[ktimekiller]

as long as its around 30 fps, im satisfied

[Ennui]

Performance. Graphics have never been a big deal. I like to ooh and ahh as much as the next person; so I'll run a game at max at first to see what it's like, but after that I have no problem sacrificing graphics for performance.

I'm quite the fan of both in tandem, actually, which is half the reason I love Source.

[DEATH eVADER]

touche'

[Xendance]

Performance. On my other PC, that was critical.

[Bulletbrain]

Performance. But they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Take Max Payne 2 for example. Looks great, runs great.

[Hazar]

for me its actually graphics. I want them to look as good as possible, and if that means low framerates (even down in the teens, as long as its steady) is fine with me.

[Cole]

graphics, but if the game doesn't feel smooth i'm gonna lighten up on graphics. However if the graphics don't come off as nice I probably wont play the game. Note, "nice" doesn't mean quality. Starcraft and Diablo 2 have nice graphics. Wc3 has nice graphics. Doom 3 with everything turned off does not have nice graphics.

[AmishSlayer]

I drop my graphics down until I get good load times and great framerates.

I keep my gfx on highest for the first bit of each game just to see what it does look like, and when that wears off I drop it down and get into the gameplay.

[Uriel]

Both, can't stand lag or choppyness, but I do enjoy beautiful graphics.

[The Brick]

Performance gets the major priority in multiplayer for me. But in singleplayer games such as STALKER, the atmosphere makes half the game. So then I go for graphics as long as it's playable and the sound doesn't skip.

[Asuka]

Voted for Graphical Quality but as long as its playable.

[Gunner]

Both, no compromise!

That's why God invented medium settings.

[Cole]

or why Science invented really really fast computers.

[Tyguy]

I also like great audio....any fps is bad unless the weapon sounds feel immersing. AM I ->?

[Gunner]

or why Science invented really really fast computers.

No GOD. Science is Satan's handywork.

[Cole]

I absolutely hate when weapons sound like shit. Ruins the game for me!

[The Brick]

I also like great audio....any fps is bad unless the weapon sounds feel immersing. AM I ->?Yep also loved STALKER for that one.

[Cole]

No GOD. Science is Satan's handywork.
No Science invented really really fast computers.
God invented the high price tag!
Satan ate a bunch of chicken wings at KFC!

[Hazar]

I'm actually more focused on SP with this.... I can see reducing graphics setting to get more performance in MP where it can make quite a bit of difference.

[lePobz]

I'm right in the middle, which is why I love forza motorsport 2 so much. It's sexy when it needs to be, fast when it needs to be, and sometimes its right in the middle. Sexytime!

[Jimmeh]

Yeah usually in multiplayer games I just want it running as smooth as I can. For singleplayer though I tend just bump up as many settings as I can until things start getting unplayable. :p

[Samon]

So long as I can play it without too much fuss, graphical quality. I've never really understood why since I'd never call myself a "graphics whore."

[Gunner]

I'm actually more focused on SP with this.... I can see reducing graphics setting to get more performance in MP where it can make quite a bit of difference.

Problem is, as mp maps get larger and larger... I mean, personally I used to be fine without AA two years ago but nowadays I find myself squinting at targets in the distance with AA on. Model setting has to be high too otherwise I also find myself missing headshots.

No Science invented really really fast computers.
God invented the high price tag!
Satan ate a bunch of chicken wings at KFC!

lol!

[Qonfused]

I'm a graphics whore. So yeah.

[Asus]

Performance gets the major priority in multiplayer for me. But in singleplayer games such as STALKER, the atmosphere makes half the game. So then I go for graphics as long as it's playable and the sound doesn't skip.Pretty much the same here. Pump up the quality, AA and AF settings. Although I might not have as high of a priority for performance in MP. I won't turn down the settings as long as it's 60+ steady. After all, I won't be able to see any more than that from my LCD.

[Mikael Grizzly]

Performance, always.

[bam23]

I set my graphics to low at first, then slowly ramp it up till I find a good mix between the two.

Can't stand a game without anti aliasing though.

[Hazar]

to all you performance whores: what kind of fps do you consider your minimum?

[Jimmeh]

I think minimum fps does vary a lot though depending on a genre. For a fast-paced twitch shooter you'd probably want things silky smooth at all times, whereas in an RTS or something slower-paced you might not be too fussed if the frames drop down into the 20's and 30's (or even lower).

[leib10]

Since my computer sucks, I have to go with performance since it can't handle much eye-candy.

[boglito]

Performance needs to meet a minimum standard (drops down to 20fps is ok for me in any game, but never lower) and after that it is eyecandy all the way. I don't care if I could potentially increase my kpd by 0,1 by turning all options to "fugly".

.bog.

[DEATHMASTER]

both, but of course level it to performace a bit more if I didn't have a choice.

[Loke]

Performance by faaaaar.

[Acepilotf14]

How about, since my computer can play most games to the max with great frame rates, graphical quality... but, technically, I can have both. -wink

[Bad^Hat]

Performance! Always performance. As long as I'm not running it at 800x600 or below at lowest possible settings, I'll always sacrifice graphics so I can get it running smoothly.

[Hazar]

what's "running smoothly" for you guys?

[Cole]

Smooth is so when the eye see's it, and it doesn't look jerky. It flows and feels seamless.

[BHC]

Performance is always more important, what the hell is the point in great visuals in a video game if you can't actually play as intended.

[Hazar]

isn't it intended to look its best?

[BHC]

isn't it intended to look its best?

As soon as you start sacrificing performance (on a broad range of PCs with reasonable specs) you are creating a tech demo, not a game.

[Hazar]

there is a cutoff point for me of course. I won't turn it all the way up to max if I can't play the game. I think my standard for the lowest playable frame rates is lower than most of you guys.

[Asus]

Performance is always more important, what the hell is the point in great visuals in a video game if you can't actually play as intended.Well, I would say there are 2 different types who like Graphics. Those that take the quality of whole experience into account, pumping up the detail settings until the frame rate goes south. And those that don't want to miss an effect, can't stand blurry textures and stair-stepped edges even if it's a bit choppy. And you might mistake someone to be the 2nd one even though it is 'playable' to them.

FYI it's pretty easy to notice frame rate jumps or dips when playing above your 'smooth video' threshold. Like going from 100 to 65 fps or 65 to 100+ in an instant (assuming the CRT's refresh rate or LCD's response time is high enough to show all those frames). That's what V-sync is for. :D

[Cole]

. And you might mistake someone to be the 2nd one even though it is 'playable' to them.
My cousins.... wow. I will look at what there playing and say, "Turn down the settings, thats not that smooth", and the'll reply "What are you talking about, they are very smooth".

[Asus]

My cousins.... wow. I will look at what there playing and say, "Turn down the settings, thats not that smooth", and the'll reply "What are you talking about, they are very smooth".haha
Would be hard for me to watch them play.

[sinkoman]

Graphics really aren't a big factor for me when it comes to the quality of a game, but if you pair graphics with performance, then i'd much rather have some snazzy graphics.

This is assuming that the graphics are immersive. That's the big thing for me.

[Remus]

there is a cutoff point for me of course. I won't turn it all the way up to max if I can't play the game. I think my standard for the lowest playable frame rates is lower than most of you guys.

Yeah I'm like that too. I do make a trade off though, I mean I do like to keep some of the eye-candy there, however I don't push all the settings to the max if the game becomes unplayable. For instance no matter the game I always keep the texture settings to high, I ****ing hate low res textures.

[Jintor]

I seriously need performance. Too many bad experiences with massive lag... on singleplayer games. :(

[Remus]

I seriously need performance. Too many bad experiences with massive lag... on singleplayer games. :(

Haha, I remember playing Far Cry on medium difficulty for the first time on my old computer, most of the time it had a decent frame rate but whenever there were more than 2 enemies, SLIDE SHOW. I have no idea how the hell I managed to finish the game like that especially considering how hard it is even on medium difficulty.

[Xune]

I don't know how anyone can play with frame rates lower than 50, it just kills the game because it looks like a slideshow.

For me the priority runs thus: Gameplay, Performance, Graphics. Operation Flashpoint being the best example I can think of.

[CyberPitz]

I don't understand how people can play a game that is BEAUTIFUL but have it run at 10 fps. That's unplayable to me:(

[StardogChampion]

I don't understand how people can play a game that is BEAUTIFUL but have it run at 10 fps. That's unplayable to me:(
My friend used to run one of the NHL games at 15fps just so it looked nice. He was an arse.

Pitiful how many people have voted for graphics.

[The Brick]

What? Why pitiful? I enjoyed STALKER because of the atmosphere, graphics, sound. All very immersive. Lowering the graphics would be painful to the game, so instead I bought a new videocard. But that's just me.

[Warbie]

I don't understand how people can play a game that is BEAUTIFUL but have it run at 10 fps. That's unplayable to me:(

I find 30 fps verging on unplayable for fps - you simply can't be accurate and quick enough. Take something like Q3. Two equally skilled players meet - one has a constant 30fps, the other 60 - the guy with the higher frame rate is going to win most of the time.

For rts, rpgs etc im happy with around 30ish.

[tehsolace]

For a normal game like hl2 where immersing yourself in its full detail is critical to the gaming experience, I choose the best quality that gives me around 30-40fps.

For games like CS:S I choose performance because
fast fps = better playing = the happier i am because I'm pwning.
Although its quite easy with my video card to get the best quality AND +120fps on CS:S.

[Absinthe]

Performance.

I like eye candy as much as the next guy, but it's worth **** all if I can't play at a decent framerate. I think there needs to be a greater focus on art direction. It's a common example, but WoW is probably one of the prettiest games I've played (IMO) because almost everything about it oozes a vibrant aesthetic. It doesn't even need to be on the highest settings and it still looks good. The best part is that it can all be rendered well on a mid-level system, while its more technically accomplished competition like EQ2 just look dull and plastic despite higher poly counts and all their assorted bells and whistles.

[CrazyHarij]

I still get addicted to Tetris. Performance all the way.

Of course, graphics can really lift up immersive games like Stalker.

[Warbie]

In an ideal world developers would make games to run at a constant (even when all hell is breaking loose) 60fps on a mid specced pc. It doesn't matter how detialed the gfx are, they look (to me anyways) absolutely awful if the frame rate is choppy.

Resistance Fall of Man on the PS3 is an example to us all.

[Hazar]

I agree that games should scale better... but I quite like games that push the envelope and can actually max out a fairly new system.

In a way, it also gives a bit of replay value to them for when you do get a computer that can run them totally maxed out at very smooth rates.

[Qonfused]

Performance.

I like eye candy as much as the next guy, but it's worth **** all if I can't play at a decent framerate. I think there needs to be a greater focus on art direction. It's a common example, but WoW is probably one of the prettiest games I've played (IMO) because almost everything about it oozes a vibrant aesthetic. It doesn't even need to be on the highest settings and it still looks good. The best part is that it can all be rendered well on a mid-level system, while its more technically accomplished competition like EQ2 just look dull and plastic despite higher poly counts and all their assorted bells and whistles.

I agree. Certain people have different needs and wants for frame rates. Anything below 25 in anything other than a FPS is barely playable for me. If it goes below that, sure I'll turn down the settings and see if I can get smoother gameplay. Anything below 40 FPS in a FPS is too low, and I'll turn shit down. Just as diverse as peoples' wants for frame rates are peoples' taste in graphics. I personally find WoW's graphics horrendous yet find EQ2's pleasing to the eye.

[The Monkey]

Performance , as my computer can't handle the good graphics anyhow.

[Wanted Bob]

Graphics for me, as long as the frame rate is in the teens.

Best example for me is Supreme Commander. It is possible for me to play on the high settings, but with a low frame rate. However, I choose to run it like this, simply because I want to see the payoff of half an hour, when a gargantuan robot lumbers in to an enemy base, and wipes the map clean with a massive laser. Low graphics simply wont do for that situation.

[Ren.182]

If I can play with the best graphics then I will. If the framerate drops below say 35 then I will start lowering the graphics until I get about a stable 40 fps. I hate skipping in games, especially since stuttering usually happens when theres a lot of action or whatever, just ruins it.

[AHA-Lambda]

Performance , as my computer can't handle the good graphics anyhow.

Same.

[Hazar]

Graphics for me, as long as the frame rate is in the teens.

Best example for me is Supreme Commander. It is possible for me to play on the high settings, but with a low frame rate. However, I choose to run it like this, simply because I want to see the payoff of half an hour, when a gargantuan robot lumbers in to an enemy base, and wipes the map clean with a massive laser. Low graphics simply wont do for that situation.

haha yes

I think this kind of brings up a good point. FPS games tend to require higher fps to play smoothly than an RTS does.

[Krynn72]

as long as its around 30 fps, im satisfied

Same. Even when Oblivion dropped to 15 fps I was still enjoying it, because it looked damn good.

[Asus]

I would tend to agree that how you play the FPS game would make a difference for how smooth it needs to be too. If you turn up the graphics enough that it stutters and enjoy it you probably are going to be playing slower and looking around more. While if you are intent on getting from place to place the stuttering would get in the way and you are not one to be taking time to smell the daisies...er shaders. D:
The extreme example would be playing UT2004.

[Hazar]

that's probably because ut2k4 is more about killing everything that moves than the atmosphere

[PimpinPenguin]

Graphics for me just as long as they don't go below the teen for to long i don't mind the occasional slow down.

[BHC]

haha yes

I think this kind of brings up a good point. FPS games tend to require higher fps to play smoothly than an RTS does.

oh absolutely, I can play an rts or mmorpg game at a steady 15/20 fps - that's abhorrent for most FPS