How much do you care about video game performance? Is a 30fps cap fine for you...

1080p and 60ps, anything else is just dick measuring and spending hours min max settings for taking screencaps of the game

If a frame is rendered 0.001% late, cap to 30

performance is more important than graphical fidelity, however convenience is even more important, so I will settle for emulating at 20fps if it means I don't need to rotate my chair back and forth between my tv and desktop.

Stability is my priority. I don't mind a 30fps cap as long as it's actually consistent. I'd go for higher framerate given the option.

You'll think I'm trolling but of my PC goes 1fps below 60 I reactil VERY badly. At best I'll slap myself. At worst, bite my arm until blow is drawn.

>Stability > Graphics > FPS
Stable 30fps are better than unstable 60fps

I don't know who this stupid asshole is but he looks like this and I can't unsee it

Attached: gilbert-huph-the-incredibles-2004-BPMD2G.jpg (1300x632, 93.35K)

bespoke

was that really the best image you could find of this character

have these DFniggers never heard of VRR?

1080p60

He's the Sony representative on Digital Foundry

30fps ans 60fps are both fine, really depends on the game.

I don't enjoy anything else, and I don't like stuttering or lag spikes.

unfirtunately the game far too often dips to 57fps, this is really just nit up to snuff, i'd prefer if they give it a framecap of 30fps with motionblur

Drop my graphics until my 1% lows exceed my monitor's refresh rate like any respectable man.

30 fps is puke inducing after getting used to 60 fps. 60 fps is fine and anything above is overkill for 90% of games.

>Vsync: Triple-buffered
>Maximum: 30FPS
>Motion blur: Per object
>TAA: ON
>DLSS: Quality
>Raytracing: Alex's Optimized Settings

Attached: 1639253921250.jpg (739x415, 185.63K)

>I'm glad this gen 60fps is the standard for consoles
Unlikely. We're seeing the same "delayed generation" thing we saw when 8th gen started, where for several YEARS after that, almost all major games were still releasing as cross-generation multiplats on both 360/PS3 and xbone/PS4. And in the beginning of gen 8, many games were hitting 60fps on xbone/PS4. But it was basically because they were just glorified ports of 360/PS3 games. And eventually 7th gen finally got phased out around 2015 or so, and devs kept trying to squeeze more and more graphical fidelity out of those same 8th gen consoles. And eventually what happened is the same thing that always happens; they sacrifice performance and switch back to targeting 30fps.

And then 9th gen happens and most games on PS5 are just PS4 ports but with slightly better graphics settings and 60fps. And eventually after PS4 gets completely phased out, the PS5 games will slide back to targeting 30fps. And the console cycle will continue

i'm fairly confident most if not all devs will give quality vs performance options for games on ps5. nobody wants to go back to 30fps.

At a reasonable resolution yes and without him smiling, because apparently google likes having high resolution images of him smiling

Oh so he IS a stupid asshole

Games should run at least in 60fps
It really does making the experience that much better

I think I would take 720p w/ 60fps over 1080p w/ 30fps

Nah, I'm certain. This is trend that has gone on for years/decades. Early gen has games with good framerate performance. Late gen has games barely performing at all because they're trying to get better and better graphics out of older and older static hardware. Especially on modern consoles where it's just the same basic PC architecture as anything else, so it's not even like PS2 or PS3 where the architecture was cumbersome and clunky and as devs learned later on how to handle it, they were able to get more out of the EE/Cell

game runs below 60 = turn down settings
game runs above 60 = turn up settings
game runs above 60 at max settings = cap to 60
simple as

There is literally nothing wrong with TAA and a little bit of sharpening makes everything look like normal back again + no jaggies.

they have absolutely no excuse now to not include an 60fps option. any excuse is just lazy devs. people will genuinely take worse or no shadows, worse textures, and no AA over having to go back to 30fps.

How do I stop being so ugly

Just knowing what a framerate is means you have autism. And if you think 30 in unacceptable, you have severe autism.

if you can't feel and see the difference between 30fps and 60fps you're blind or retarded. or both.

kill yourself and when you get reincarnated hope this time you were reborn with attractive parents, if not repeat until you are.

I can tell the difference, it's just not that meaningful most of the time.

There never was an excuse, period. There's no reason back in the PS3 days I couldn't have set the system to 480p and gotten better performance that way. There's no reason why there couldn't have been a 60fps option for all PS4 games.
Yes, it is devs being lazy. But they have no fundamentally changed at all since. They only bother giving options like this when we're in the "cross generation" phase where both old and new consoles are still being supported.

Mark my words, once PS4/xbone get phased out, you're going to see the exact same problems creep up again. When you see something like Last of Us 3 releasing on PS5 in 2025, it's going to be 30fps because Naughty Kike would rather focus on perfectly modeling every sweat gland and pore on Ellie's face

I used to think 30fps was enough and cinematic but playing PS4 games on PS5 at 60fps is a real eye opener.

god of war ragnarok is the last cross gen game for sony iirc. so i guess we'll see then. i don't ever remember early ps4 days being filled with 60fps stuff, ps3 and ps4 both at large had really lackluster performance and framerates.

When games are CPU limited you can't just turn off raytracing and goodlooking shadows and get 60fps.

unless you're playing a movie game the difference is insanely significant and can completely change how well a game plays.

I stopped caring around 4 or 5 years ago, just played whatever the fuck I wanted at a reasonable performance and visual level. Digital Foundry and the subculture they developer with their obsession with frame pacing, shit people never even cared about has ruined a lot of communities

Attached: 1604543916384.jpg (850x1199, 178.88K)

Doesn't really matter what sony's first party studios do, they don't make up the majority of the market. All the heavy-hitting 3rd party multiplat games will continue to be releasing on PS4/xbone for probably years and years. Keep in mind 360/PS3 were still getting major releases long after 8th gen started in 2013. For instance, MGSV releasing on 360/PS3

And also those exclusives tend to slide toward sacrificing performance for visuals earlier on as well. For instance, bloodborne having a terrible framerate whereas the ps4/xbone versions of DaS2 SOTFS being a stable 60fps due to being a suped-up port of a last-gen game.

>DF retro: appreciates a variety of games because of gameplay and appreciate technical limitations facing devs
>DF reviews: unable to comment on gameplay if frame pacing is 1 nanosecond off

Some of the Switch videos are interesting, to see what was compromised to get a port to run.

stop posting this ugly ass goofy ass nigga's face

Reminder

Attached: digitalf.jpg (1169x1374, 273.84K)

60fps at 1080p minimum, will sacrifice quality for performance as necessary
120fps desired but not a dealbreaker
1440p at 144FPS as the eventual future standard to settle on for decades
The past 15+ years of chasing awful visual gimmicks, pushing 4K of all things, and hiding bad quality behind filters only to tank performance has been a travesty. Any game made in the past few years that can't hit at least 60FPS at max settings on the hardware equivalent of a PS5 has no fucking excuse, none of them look remotely good enough nor have anything interesting going on to run so fucking abysmally.

This is and always has been very important. Many games/engines have a lot of game logic bound to the game's framerate for the sake of consistency and making certain things execute on the next frame rendered. Slower and inconsistent framerates cause all sorts of problems in the same way limited processor cycles dramatically fucked with the speed of games in the 80s and 90s.

Legacy ports are generally outsourced in the same way portable/mobile releases are, so have little bearing on the lead platforms outside of the launch windows.

And that "launch window" has been growing larger and larger over the past several gens. It doesn't matter whether the last-gen or next-gen is the lead platform, it's still actually being designed for both, and this leads to the next-gen variant being able to have better framerate because it's still being designed cross-platform and the next-gen console's extra power gets used toward that. This tends to go out the window later in the generation when they stop being cross-platform game releases.

it really depends on the game, I can play original medal of honor at about 20fps and also play shit like ironsight or splitgate at 240, both are enjoyable to me

Would you enjoy those games more/less if you switched their FPS though?

i've been a console gamer my whole life so 20 fps will do

15 fps minimum for single player games
200 fps minimum for online shooters

moh with a higher framerate wouldn't be a big deal, the extra smoothness of the pvp games would be missed but wouldn't be a dealbreaker. imo 60 is fine in general, but higher framerates are always welcome

Lots of my fav games don't have great performance so I guess I don't care that much. It is nice tho

Stable 30fps is fine but if I can have a stable 60fps or higher I'll pick that.
For action games I'll always go for 60fps. Other genres I'll probably pick higher resolution if the choice is super noticeable in sharpness like between 4K and 1080p.

Fucked up

30fps should not even be thing when FSR/DLSS becomes the big crutch.

I'm OK way lower resolution. 1440 upscaled to 4k at 60 is a good standard. 120 is only good on new tvs or monitors and I don't plan on upgrading.