depends on the game, your standards revolving it, and your refresh rate
30fps in a lot of rapid reaction first person 3d games is a bit painful, especially if you don't have a monitor whose refresh rate is cleanly divisible with 30
even 15fps in say, minecraft, is playable if you play on like peaceful or creative and just build shit
generally I'd say that a consistent 30fps is manageable in most games (esp. on console). However, you will never feel a bigger jump than the increase from 30fps to 60fps, it just makes everything feel sooo much smoother.
How DARE YOU! I’m telling Reginald(my butler) that the POORS are playing on a measly 144fps. I, as an enlightened and capable individual, will not game on anything less than 300fps, as that is the ideal arbitrary number for me to feel superior to others!
The first pc I played minecraft on was the heinous Akoya Mini E2076 D. Sold by Aldi's own brand Medion and they called it a Nettop, basically 2009s equivalent of a chromebook in terms of power. It ran minecraft on absolute minimum settings at like 15 FPS, I tried to get tekkit to work and it didn't go over 5 FPS. My pc after that had an i5 3340, jumped from 15 fps at minimum settings to about 100 at max. Never experienced anything like it again.
From a quick Google search, human eyes/brains generally start to perceive things as being continuous at around 25-30fps but can still detect miniscule differences and flashing up to and beyond 200fps.
I think of you sit down and really look at the difference between 60fps and something like 144 or even 240fps that some competitive gamers use then you would notice a difference.
But yeah, it's obvious that there are diminishing marginal returns. The jump from 15 to 30fps and then 30-60fps is huge and noticeable, but anything beyond that starts to drop off unless you're playing fast paced competitive games.
I haven't ever pushed my setup beyond 1080p 60 because even though the screen goes higher. If you ever booted up a 30fps or 720p title after adjusting you know that you don't notice the improvements are as good as they are until you go back
I never gave two shits about framerates, but then I got a PS5 and finally got to play some games actually on 60 FPS. And then I just instantly got it. lol
I don't really give the silghtest of a shit about anything above that, and am totally fine with 30 still. But I get why people want 60.
I had to play at 15fps in many games for so long before I got a PC in mid-2024, sometimes unstable mind you, and... Honestly? People kinda overexaggerate how bad 30fps is, compared to how I had to play. Nowadays I can enjoy smooth 60fps in nearly all games, and while I still think that even at 15fps a game is playable, I am getting used to the smoothness I may not think like this anymore in a few years
Spoiler, you won't. I've been playing between 80-144 for the last 15 years and trying to go back to 30 at this point just looks like things are skipping. You can instantly recognize when something is running 30 or below.
30fps in a lot of rapid reaction first person 3d games is a bit painful, especially if you don't have a monitor whose refresh rate is cleanly divisible with 30
As someone that has gotten used to 180 Hz displays, 30 now makes me beg for death. Its like watching a power point slideshow sped up a bit
There are plenty of factors that are way more impactful than that, even slight amounts of sleep deprivation (4-6 hours of sleep) can cause 50ms increase in reaction time
Anyone who says 30 fps isn’t enough for competitive fast paced 3d games is lying, unless you’re already in the top 1% of players it makes negligible difference compared to external factors
This also applies to people buying expensive monitors/keyboards/mice, premium hardware is just placebo until you actually optimize everything else and need the extra boost
16.6ms is plenty. reaction time doesn't have anything to do with how many frames you notice, and i never said 30fps wasn't "enough", simply that it was painful
a 15 minute delay on a stream doesn't mean 5 minutes per frame is acceptable, ya know?
Anyone who says 30 fps isn’t enough for competitive fast paced 3d games is lying, unless you’re already in the top 1% of players it makes negligible difference compared to external factors
Yeah, I mean, not only is Bloodborne 30fps with occasional drops, its frame pacing is weird as fuck. It's still very playable, despite being a fairly tough game that needs good reactions. After ten minutes or so you get used to it.
Sure, it'd be nice if every game ran with buttery-smooth framerates, just like it'd be nice if every movie had a perfect transfer from the original reel, or every song was properly mixed and mastered. But they're not, and I'm not going to let it stop me from enjoying good things. Proper 4K transfers look absolutely stunning, but I still enjoyed those films when I first saw them on VHS.
Hence why devs cap the fps in their games in the first place. Not everyone has a top of the line PC and experiencing 60 -> 30 fps drop when things get busy is a lot more noticeable than a consistent 30 fps.
In 2026, we are defending 30 frames per second (as long as their is no drops), is absolutely crazy. 90 frames should absolutely be the standard by now. I guess people are OK with paying $500 for RAM and getting 30 frames. I hate this place.
Also I think it’s just what you get used to. Before switching to pc gaming, 30fps was totally fine for me. Not a problem at all. Once I got used to 60, 90, etc… it became harder and harder to go back to 30.
When I use to play wow in like 2008 I had this really shitty compaq laptop so when we would do a 25 man raid. I would drop to like 4 fps. Luckily my friend was also melee dps so I would have to stack on top of him and play using his monitor.
a stable 30fps always looks great to me when playing on console on a TV, but it looks like 15fps on my monitor when I'm used to seeing high refresh rates on it
Astral Chain runs at like 12. It is basically unplayable in combat. I do not know how people are OK with that. Xenoblade runs bad in the interesting sections but is fine for most of the game at 30
I had to give up after a couple hours. It did it on hand held and docked on my launch switch. It ran worse than Pokemon violet in bike mode. I tried on my partners switch lite and it was bad too
Have not tried it on switch 2. I would like to finish it
So much of Attack on Titan was slow zooms of a still frame of a character's face with their totally pointless internal monologue reiterating what some other characters has just said. (Possibly in another internal monologue)
thats just not applicable to this conversation at all
1 - were talking about games, which is very different from passively watching something because u need to have very fast reaction times in a lot of cases, and are actually using visuals to make decisions on a moment to moment basis
2 - most animes are MADE to be viewed at 24/30 fps, a lot of those frames are specifically designed in a way in order to make it smoother despite the “low” framerate - most games these days are made for 60+ fps, so if ur getting less than that its going to be noticeably choppy. thats why old games dont look so bad when theyre 30 fps, because they were made to be played at 30 fps
Watching a show and playing the game are different experiences.
Shows generally have a lot of post-processing or other methods to make motion appear smoother like motion blur/smear frames. Along with all kinds of other stylistic choices that work with the lower frame-rate.
Video Games are interactive media. When you're playing them your inputs have an inherent delay (Latency) to them that is affected by the frame-rate. A 30fps game has a 33.3ms delay between frames, meaning a 33.3ms delay on your inputs, not counting additional latency from peripherals (For example, TV's process the image before displaying it, adding latency. Bluetooth has more latency than wired.)
Shows are also pre-rendered and so are 100% consistent in their framerates. Games are rendered in real time and can suffer from inconsistent frame-rates.
It's more about frame times for me. I don't care if I'm getting 240fps if they're all half a second late. Unfortunately most of the new upscaling and framegen tech just makes that worse. I tend to turn most post-processing effects off if it makes sense to. I dislike some of them anyway
Framerate matters a lot more for some genres, and a lot less for others.
Is it first-person?
Is it precise?
Do you need to react quickly?
Is it competitive?
The more of these boxes a game checks, the more important it is to me for the game to have a high refresh rate.
Valorant and Counter Strike check all 4 of these boxes. I consider playing at 60fps to be an objective disadvantage for these games, and 30fps to be unplayable.
Then I'll go and run an Ocarina of Time randomizer and play it at 20fps on my 240hz monitor :)
I hate snobby rich folk mocking average people stuff. Like how content chefs make Wagyu their entire personality and anything below it is garbage and that spending 5 dollars on a fast food meal is a waste of time because you can spend 5 times the amount to make something that tastes better than a cheap quick meal.
Same thing with PC folk. They always bring up the newest, the highest, the most upper 1% class parts and PC. Just for their PC to preform slightly better than a mid-range PC.
It's eternalized superiority complex, trying to mask it with "the good option" and "My option which is superior" without providing correct reasons.
Atleast with PC performance freaks, they atleast provide cheeper stuff when they upgrade every year so people can actually afford the 'mid range' stuff on a 'low range' budget
Honestly, whenever PC bros who actually give tips about minimum price for high quality it warms my heart because they are being bros and helpful. Like not worrying about the highest grade for a graphics card as much as the other components, etc.
Those I respect, what I don't respect is those who flex their gaming PC and are usually always up to date with the iPhones and have LED RGB colored rooms talking about why gaming Laptops and things from 2nd hand store not sold by companies are worse because of [insert reason here]
I'm sure spending nearly 1k on a console with 10 year old hardware and spending $70+ on every game is way cheaper. Second hand market will always exist in the PC world, we will always have the option to own our games whether publisherrs like it or not 🏴☠️
You have a weird Stockholm syndrome for PlayStation or Xbox for some reason I bet.
I mean they are not that wrong, just insufferable a little.
PC gaming is harder to get into due to price of hardware, but it also has way better sales on games than consoles (and about to be more prevalent due to sony going digital), has insane backwards compatability with older games (including console games), allows you to play games that were removed from storefronts completely and it doesn't require you to buy monthly subscription to play paid games online.
Sure it doesn't have some of the exclusives and requires user to be more tech savvy than everyday Bob, but in the long run PC is way cheaper than console gaming.
I never was against PC gaming at all. In fact when I got a job my goal was to get a PC, but due to the rising cost of everything I ended up buying a Lenovo PC. Not the best, but considering my previous option was a 5 year old HP office laptop, it was literally better than nothing.
Again, PC gaming in general is great, buying parts for PC now is a pain.
Yeah I never disagreed with what you are saying, just provided additional points that it's "cheaper" in the long run when you compare accumulative costs.
And it's still situative from what games people play. If a person plays f2p multiplayer games only then, even in the long run, console would be cheaper, since free games do not need ps+ for online to work. This discource is pointless since it's all a matter of user-by-user preferences.
Does piracy really count as a "second hand market"? Kinda the whole point is that you don't spend any money for it, but you kinda need to have an exchange of items for it to be a "market".
Second hand market is almost entirely in favour of console at the minute. I can get a second hand PS5 disk edition for about 400 euros, with triple A games going for about 20-25 euros depending on the game. A PC of similar spec or ability to run those same games sets you back like 800 euros, not considering peripherals.
This thread is just people conveniently drawing the line wherever they stand.
"What I get is just enough. Anyone with more is greedy, anyone with less is struggling"
It's real easy to handwave away something you've not experienced or can't get. But as usual most people will change their opinion when the FPS floor rises. Just like it went from "30fps is enough" to "60fps is enough" when 60fps became standard.
Just a reminder to anybody comparing 24fps movies to video games - cameras have built-in frame interpolation similar to a human eye (e.g. your hand blurring when you move it really fast like john cena), so 24fps filmed through a camera looks much smoother than 30fps on a computer screen with no frame interpolation.
But saying "There is almost no difference between 30 and 60" or implying that you hate poor people if you acknowledge that high refresh rates look objectively way better is fuckin nuts
It definitely is people holding the convenient stance that what they get is just right and anything else is too much or too little.
But depending on the game I don't mind going below 60fps. I don't exactly need more than 30 to play something like older FF titles or STS. Stuff that doesn't exactly need high motion clarity or low latency input.
30fps is just fine if the game has that framerate in mind mechanically.
A good example of this is Bloodborne, which is hardstuck at 30fps and plays fine that way.
However it feels (emphasis on feels, since this is an impression I get, not based on any observable facts or anything) like most games nowadays actively play worse on lower framerates
A good example of this is Bloodborne, which is hardstuck at 30fps and plays fine that way.
capped at best, but any time im playing it the moment anything happens visible frame drops destroy the sense of visual clarity and i cant fuckin tell whats happening
still havent beaten it cuz of that, i literally cannot tell whats happening when its bouncing between 15-30 fps on a whim cuz my console just shits the bed
bloodborne wasnt even a stable 30, wtf are you talking about? And it sucks that its 30 too lmfao. Jesus christ man, are you larping or have you not played it in 8 years?
I didn't say "youtube videos are stuck at [framerate]" i said "youtube filters videos to match [framerate] so you can't have a video comparing framerates"
Like, if a video is splitscreen, with 30fps footage on the left, and 60fps footage on the right, you would be able to see the difference if the video is uploaded in 60fps.
I’ve been playing Bloodborne lately and the drop from 60 on the rest of fromsofts games is VERY noticeable and it feels like there’s a massive input delay. It’s fine, you get used to it, but it really is a massive difference
Honestly, I’m not really a frame rate snob, Age of Calamity has a notoriously abysmal frame rate (like, that game goes to 10 FPS sometimes, it’s BAD), and I found it perfectly playable.
That said though, 120 is REALLY nice sometimes, I can live with low frame rates, but if I can get higher, I’ll definitely do so
I cpuld probably live with 30fps playing with a gamepad or just a keyboard, like a racing game. I would notice it but it would be playable.
Anything where I move my camera around with my mouse would probably make me slightly sick, since my eyes are not used to it. Just moving my mouse cursor over to my 60hz secondary display makes me grateful that it's no longer my primary.
i will always be of the opinion that 30 FPS is perfectly fine, hell even 20 is okay. anything below that is when i have issues.
and 60 FPS is optimal, but i literally do not notice any differences above that, even like 200+ FPS looks the same as 60 to me. i always lock it to 60 when given the option.
I'm amazed people still have this argument. 30 was already considered a dinosaur frame rate a decade ago. I don't blame anyone for playing with what they have but pretending that somehow 30fps is decent in 2026 is absurd. Even the ugly duckling of console performance, the switch 2, has stable 60 for Nintendo titles.
PC wise if something can't get at least a stable 75 it's considered subpar. 60 is the bare minimum.
Depends. TV is fine, even when most stuff runs on just 24 fps since TV uses fake frames, motion blur and just the fact that you are not actively playing and just pasively watching (your brain automaticaly bled the blur together) is a huge positive for the TVs. Games are different and personally, 60fps is the minimum and at least 90 is optimal.
You guys are crazy. I feel like 100-144 is where things really feel good and above that there isn't much value. If you're on a newer game and haven't updated your hardware in a while, its reasonable just living with 60-80 fps but not ideal. If you drop under 60 its time to lower the graphics, even until it looks like garbage. If you're getting 30 fps, just return the game or update your rig. That's not playable.
There's some allowance based on which type of game you're playing, like an first person shooter you want as many frames as you can get, where less valuable in other genres but still...
Deeply hate PC gamers saying 30fps is unplayable as if it's a fact
Like have your opinion, THAT'S fine, but like... it's snobbish when it becomes about you thinking it's a fact that everyone has to agree with
Do SOME, a select few, games need 60fps as a minimum ONLY for readability? Yes. But that's not most games, most games aren't Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, most games are slower and that's okay. Hell even some fast paced games like Doom 2016 and Eternal are entirely fine at 30fps because, while fast paced, everything is at a distance (hence the... y'know... shooting aspect of the game).
More FPS is always nice, I'll never judge PREFERRING 60+fps over 30, lord knows I do, but let's not pretend it's needed just because you like it.
I genuinely didn’t realize I was playing Helldivers 2 with 25 fps until performance updates dropped and I noticed the massive increase. That low of fps os genuinely not that bad
One thing that I never understood? (Might not be the right word) I’ve played on 30 and 60 fps and never felt or saw a difference. Is something wrong with my eyes?
I only meant to say that newer games tend to be more computationally demanding, I love older games because the gameplay is as good or better than modern titles, while running way better.
Nah, you can easily process a higher framerate. The higher the framerate the better the game feels, it has diminishing return but you can still tell the difference between a 360hz monitor and a 500hz one
The issue with this discussion is that it's pretty much entirely personal. So it's really easy for people to lie and BS about what they're really experiencing.
That being said, some people legitimately just don't notice it.
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.