What is your tolerance level for graphics/performance?

I find that I can play pretty much most games as long as the gameplay is good. No More Heroes 3 is an example. The open world was so bad it looked like a PS2 game lol. So where do I draw the line? I think choppy frame rate. It disrupts the game too much. I also don’t like super flat textures, it stands out too much.

How about you, SW? What is your tolerance level for graphics/performance?

What I've found is it's hard to go back to 1080p after playing in 4k for a period of time.

I can tolerate 30 fps anything below is a no go. Resolution wise if I'm on my computer it has to be 1080p I can tolerate 720p on my tv when I'm sitting farther away.

I don't usually care all that much tbh. I guess my tolerance ends at something like rune factory 5 on the switch. Unacceptable.

ps1 and ps2 games are painful to play now.

this is why I want all remakes of them lol.

never been a fan of cel shaders games.

I can't tolerate low frame rates as you guys know and stuttering/hitching also drive me nuts. The shader compilation issues of DX12 games in recent years is a big concern. I appreciate good graphics, but they don't have to be the best. As long as a decent effort was put in and the game runs good, I am usually happy. I hate low res blurry games though. Right now I am playing through Prodeus which is a retro style FPS. Not the best graphics, but it plays and feels great. Lots of gory action too. So, I am enjoying it.

I can tolerate ps2 graphics as we've seen in Elden Ring. 30fps is too low, i just can't handle it anymore unless there's no other choice.

I've been playing games for far too long to get bothered too much by it. If course I rather have things looking great and running smooth but if I could play and enjoy games when they didn't looked great and ran like shit there no reason for not doing it now.

I am very tolerant of graphics and performance myself. I can easily enjoy lower res games and games running at 30 fps or even *gasp* lower.

@BassMan: Yep. 🤷‍♂️

1440p at 60 FPS at the very least.

As for visuals, eh, I have a wide spectrum when it comes to that. As long as the art style is consistent and there are like little to no jaggies for the 3d games, I'm fine with it.

Don't have much of a line, I prefer 30fps+

But I like a lot of N64 games and they ran like dog shit

I didn't know dog shit could run 🤔

@SolidGame_basic: oh it can, I have an English bulldog with a sensitive stomach.

Unever framerate is definitely a killer for enjoyment.

My PC could run Gears 3 on Xenia between 30-60 fps. In the end I chose the Xbox One X version at locked 30fps.

As for graphics:

I guess I just don't like muddy or grainy graphics. That is the only thing where I draw the line; excessive motion blur or stuff like chromatic aberration.

I just like a clean look. I can still enjoy SNES or PS1 games as they offer a clean look.

Consistent framerate and aesthetically pleasing graphics.

I'm quite tolerant. As long as it looks nice (doesnt have to be state of the art or anything) and runs well enough, i'm generally happy.

I have little issue going from something like mario on the 3DS to FF7 Remake at 4K.

Things i really hate though:

• Inconsistent framerate. it makes handling feel all over the place. 30 FPS is fine for me for most games (exceptions generally being racing games, fast paced FPS, beat em ups, and VR). As long as it's consistent.
• Screen tearing. If i have to choose between screen tearing and a bit of hitching due to Vsync in i'll take the hitching. Sadly my current panel does not support VRR and i'm loathe to replace a perfectly functioning panel. I'll try to fob it off at some stage :P.
• Post process visual artifacts. Ghosting in DLSS/FSR/Xess (i didnt enable DLSS in F1 2020 due to ghosting). Pixel trails from TAA. no....just no. The Cure is worse than the disease...i'll take the jaggies and leave the performance gain on the table where applicable. As much as i am impressed by what Monolithsoft managed to squeeze out of the switch for XC3...their TAA implementation is painful. I wish i could turn it off. Its the first switch game i have played where i think "i would really prefer to be playing this on something else".

Anything less than 60fps is gross.

I find it difficult to tolerate the lack of a decent graphical settings menu.

I know what I like better than the devs do. Not being able to turn off post-processing effects that obscure or make the image look blurry is going to negatively affect my enjoyment of a game.

Also, yeah sub-60 fps in a modern game is pretty hard for me to overlook and will likely make me drop it.

Long as the game is fun, doesn't really matter to me.

I just want it to be playable. If I'm playing an indie game, I tend to be more forgiving. I don't expect the graphics of an indie game to blow me away, because the budget of an indie game tends to be quite small.

Since I purchased my C2 OLED, graphics aren't the thing I struggle with. It's any display that can't do inky blacks. Honestly, I never thought that an infinite contrast could look so good!

Games running at 30fps are a bit of a turn off, but not totally. I play all sorts of games from all sorts of era's. I'll play at 30 if that's the only option, but not a first person at 30. Just can't go that low on these types of games anymore.

On my PC, either with my Monitor or my OLED, I've locked some games to 40 to get a stable FPS. VRR is great, but you can still feel the drop if one minute you're at 60 or 70 and then next you're at 50 or the mid 40's. VRR doesn't fix that.

@Bond007uk: That is why I target 60fps as the minimum. Anyway, OLED FTW! :)

1080p 60fps should always be the minimum in my mind when playing PC or console.

Portable I'm more lax due to restrictions in size, battery life, heat, and all that but I'm also selectively about what I'll play like that.

If a game is fast paced and about quick reactions/inputs then performance hits become quickly frustrating and off-putting if it is impacting my ability to play the game. Do I care if Civilization VI chugs on my Switch? Nah cause it doesn't matter and it is still completely playable while I'm sitting at my desk at work.

I really haven't played anything that is 4k, or 1440p+... so I only know jank, and I'm fine with it. Like many others, if the game is good, I don't really care. I honestly love digitized photo graphics; like old Mortal Kombats and Diablo 2 items.

I have SEEN games running at higher specs, but it really doesn't matter to me. Sometimes they can look awesome, and sometimes the density of detail can look like a cluttered blur. It's weird that sometimes my eyes won't seem 'wake up', and then sometimes everything is super clear. I think I'm developing Lazy Face Syndrome or something.

I aim for 1440p and 60fps all the time if possible. 60fps is more important than resolution to me. I can't do terrible frame rates anymore

Wow, that is honorable.

I still play old retro games to this day. Even as far back as golden age arcade games like Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Frogger and Donkey Kong which still look okay to me. But that's because they have some decent art design that has helped them age well. On the other hand, I don't like the look of vector games from that era or Atari 2600 games which are way too lo-res for me.

I also find that retro games look way better on a CRT display, or with CRT shaders. They weren't meant to be played with raw square pixels, but on a CRT that displays smooth glowing pixels. That's the way retro games are meant to be played.

In terms of modern graphics, there's very few games that genuinely turn me off from their graphics. The biggest offender is Minecraft... That is one of the fugliest games I've ever seen! And I say this as someone who still plays retro games to this day.

In terms of performance, the bare minimum I'm willing to tolerate is 30 fps. But otherwise, I usually play at 60-120 fps.

Graphics are near the bottom of my gaming priorities, barely edging out story. And within that, some good art direction will always trounce the technical shit for me. Not to say graphics don't matter, I always appreciate a game looking nice, but it's never the deciding factor. Won't skip a great game for bad looks. Won't play a mediocre game for good looks.

Performance is high priority, only second to the combined game design elements. Sub 60 sucks. Captain obvious will say "depends on the genre" yeah no shit its importance can vary, but 60+ is always preferable. Last time I budged for shit performance was BotW. Won't play action, fighting, racing, or platformers at sub 60. Shooters need to be in the 100+ range.

Luckily most stuff I want to play is on PC and Nintendos games usually perform well, rarely an issue.

I play NES games perfectly fine. Its more readability and clarity than just oh man, this ground texture is lit. My life is changed now that I've seen this tree bark.

@ConanTheStoner: looks like Street Fighter 6 will be a combination of good graphics, performance, and gameplay!

@SolidGame_basic:

Yeah, looks sick. I'm legit hyped.

And on the subject of graphics, it's the most stylish the series has been since SF3... I mean, it's not that stylish, but still. So far doesn't seem to have some of the goofier looking shit from SFs 4 and 5.

actually this is a good topic. I feel like graphics have already plateued. Sure the 4090 is 50 or 60% faster than the 3090ti, but why does that matter? So you can run cyber punk at 4k 120fps? The 3090ti can do the exact same thing with a couple of settings dialed down.

Nvidia is in deep trouble this time around, they released a pretty useless card at a ridiculous price point and AMD is about to undercut them with a similar performing lineup at a much cheaper price. Though, the important thing is graphics as a whole has reached a peak and isn't going to get much better from here on. You now have pc fans talking nonsense about ray tracing, path ray tracing and whatever else because resolution itself doesn't matter much beyond 1440p, let alone 4k. Bottom line though, the pc games don't look much better than the console version without those features.

ooff...pc fans getting rekkd again as usual. I'm going to sell my nvidia to some sucker real soon, and wait for the next AMD card to go on sale.

choppy frame rate.

Well if the game is good enough... DS1 remaster level graphics is good enough.

As for frame rate,

well TLOUP1 in 4K@40hz mode is sufficient

You need to stop talking shit. We get it, you are poor and can't afford quality hardware. Last time I checked, graphics still don't look like real life. So, they have not peaked at all. Also, we still have a ways to go before fully simulated worlds that are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.

It's weird, when it comes to 3D games, I can't tolerate PS2 graphics, but I don't mind exploring Sega Saturn and PS1 games. GC and Xbox are fine. Wii is jarring because with a little AA would have gone a long way, but that's solved with a Wii U and an mClassic HDMI dongle.

But there's something about PS2 graphics which is just SHIT. I think it's because all the multiplats were just magnitudes worse on the PS2. GC, Xbox and PC just beat the daylights out of PS2s graphics, that it's just jarring to me.

I think I don't mind the 5th gen out of nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, Dreamcast isn't that great, but the graphics have that Sega Arcade charm.

Tbh, I just find NES games a bit too hard. I really wanted to get into Castlevania on the NES, but it isn't an easy game. And those Mega Man games are brutal. I love retor games and don't mind 8 bit games. Still LOVE 1989 Batman Movie game on Game Boy. And the soundtrack to that is SO GOOD.

lol poor my ass. Why would I waste money on something like this, when I can easily go to craigslist and pick up a geforce 3070 for $300. Yes, the gpu dumping is well under way. Pretty soon, the 3080ti will be selling for bargain bin prices.

Nvidia is really screwed with this 4090. I guess it makes sense now why they had to boost the performance so high above the 3090ti. Otherwise, there is nobody who would spend money on a turd that gives you minimal benefits. Also it makes sense why nvidia would pay off developers to "fake" the performance degradation of consoles.

Also, we have definitely plateud, its been getting worse and worse over the past few years. At this point, I have zero interest in a 4090.

The game just needs clear picture quality and, stable frame rate.

The 360 / PS3 generation aka Vaseline generation is honestly the worst since they are "HD" but, are a blurry mess with aliasing and sub 30fps. Every darn game of that gen should be remade. lmao

Readability is what is key here, not graphics

This game looks perfectly fine to me. Although, readability does become a bit of a hassle when therea are dozens of projectiles on the screen at once.

As for frame rate, it depends on the game. Fighting games and more technical action games should be at least 60 FPS. But a game like Civilization doesnt really need a high FPS.

@Maroxad said:

Readability is what is key here, not graphics

This game looks perfectly fine to me. Although, readability does become a bit of a hassle when therea are dozens of projectiles on the screen at once.

As for frame rate, it depends on the game. Fighting games and more technical action games should be at least 60 FPS. But a game like Civilization doesnt really need a high FPS.

So what you're saying is that 100% of Switch titles are unplayble because they're all blurry af. Glad you finally admit it.

I care very little about graphics. For me PS2 graphics and above are enough....

Kids these days trying to see the sweat drip down a man's forehead.... ya'll crazy

@blaznwiipspman1: If you don't appreciate the advances in technology, that is fine, but stop making false declarations and talking shit. The way that you talk about tech makes you sound like an ungrateful dumbass that can't afford shit and doesn't know what he is talking about. It is painful reading your posts.

This is a great thread for sheep to come by and tell us all how they feel about visuals that look more advanced than what was available in 2007.

He isn't wrong you know.

Game development costs are unsustainable and outside of Sony and Total War: Warhammer 3 no one is really pushing any hardware.

And the general apathy you see towards high end graphics isnt just exclusive to SW. Just look at what games are being streamed on Twitch with high viewer counts. Most of those games could run on a PS3.

Edit: ANd while I am at it. There is already a game that simulates physics and chemistry quite well. It is called Dwarf Fortress. Breath of the Wild has a more arcadey simulation of physics and chemistry. But it still works really well, and doesn't need killer graphics for it.

What an incredibly dumb statement. Not surprising its coming from Maroxad.

Competitive titles are what's most popular on twitch because they're easy to watch and have great longevity for those who stream for living. When you play competitively, all you care about is the highest possible fps, and when you focus on frames, you lower all graphical settings to the lowest possible. So a normal game can look like a Switch title, but it will run at 200fps+, while on a Switch, everything looks and runs like shit. At Nintendo, we enjoy sacrificing everything for portablity. What a smart company btw.