When I was younger, I would have killed to have a framerate over 30fps, I think even the best gear could barely do 60, and usually for older games.

Thanks for the link. Interesting comparison - though it's a bit odd that the author seems to want to prove that we can spot a difference between 30 and 60 fps, and then shows two animations which look identical to me. I cannot spot the difference.

Here's a little experiment:

I shrunk my browser window so that it only showed the animation, then I opened two tabs - one with the 30fps animation, and one with the 60fps animation. I arranged them in a way that I couldn't tell which was which (meaning, the text above and the FPS display at the bottom were not visible). Then I closed my eyes, and pressed Ctrl-Tab so quickly and so often that I didn't know any more which tab was in front. Then I opened my eyes and tried to guess whether I was looking at the "fast" 60fps animation, or the "slow" 30 fps animation. I always felt that I was just guessing. And the result - out of 15 trials, I was only 6 times correct - seems to support that.

So it seems that at least for me, the author of that page proved the opposite of what he was aiming for. ;)

30+

I would rather lower textures than have crappy frame rate

It's a case by case basis, it wouldn't surprise me if someone couldn't tell the difference between 15-30. Be happy you're lucky enough not to be able to tell, it'll cost you a lot less to upgrade computer parts if you want a consistent 30. I know people that want 120fps and buy monitors that cost 2x as much for the 120hz refresh rate.

My big issue with framerates is more about trying to eliminate variance. A locked 30fps is acceptable if it never really jumps around. When a game is going from 20-45, or even 30-60, depending on where you look, it drives me INSANE.

Far Cry 2 was the worst.

Mostly depends on the game to be perfectly honest, the only time where I consider anything under 20 FPS (I grew up in the PS1 era, I played a lot of PS1 games with abysmal framerates and handled them well) okay is when I am playing a shmup. The lag is pretty much the euphoric easy moment where I have enough time to dodge the incoming projectiles with ease. Gradius III is a good example of that, there is no way in hell I would be able to survive the bubble stage on both the SNES and arcade versions without lag, it just seems impossible.

I can't stand anything below 55fps; to the extent that I start regretting the purchase. Poorly optimised engines like in Divinity 2 and GTA IV make me want to cry. I have a 560ti so I play The Witcher 2 with all eye candy off @ 1080p. Fluidity over fidelity, always!

For me what clinches it is that the framerate is constant. I can happily play something like duke nukem 3D which only runs at 15FPS, but does so without any slowdown. Actually I'd wager quite a lot of the OG's here run at sub30 framerates.

A passable frame-rate for me is anything above the computer crashing and then i hear people telling me my computer is not powerful enough to 'run' the game.

Because, this is what i don't get, a computer being slow should not mean it 'cannot' run the game, it should run the game but just really badly.

I remember when Total Annihilation came out, and too think of the computers we all had back then.... well it would lag like hell, but nevertheless still playable.

Here's the thing, in consideration of how horrifically slow that game could run, why then can't other games just do that, why they all have to crash and oh dear your computer is too slow to even 'run' the game????

I grew up with game consoles, so I'm used to 30 fps. Below that I find it unacceptable.

Right now, I'm using the Intel HD Graphics 3000 of my processor (an Intel i5-2500K), so I have to limit myself up to 1280x720, anti-aliasing always disabled and to lower the quality of the shadows, to get between 45 to 50 fps or more. My ideal is to always get 60 fps (I can't afford to get a good video card right now... -_-)

I personally notice I distinct difference. However, I tried a different test between 30, 40, 50, and 60. It seems everything 40+ looks the same to me. 30 appears a little jerky, although still perfectly acceptable.

I am willing to turn down settings to get a better framerate if need be. I prefer if I can get it to stay at 40+. I can deal with 30 if it stays at 30 and doesn't keep dipping down into the 20s or worse yet teens like some console games do.

Usually the problem is memory. If you can't load what you need into memory then it won't work. There are always work arounds, but if you are swapping everyting in and out of video memory it makes everything much more complicated and so slow that no one will want to play it anyway.

Having said that there are certainly cases where games have placed pointless artificial limits. Old games often checked memory and got it wrong and stopped the game if you had more memory that the program thought was possible. Also many games in the 90s won't install when you have huge amounts of space, because they think it is not enough.

Closer to your original point I remember being mad about Age of Empires 1. It was a Warcraft 2 clone, and as such *should* run on a 486. In fact it did. The problem was that to 'show off' direct x (and possibly make the game look more demanding/new) they used compressed audio. This was back when you couldn't leave an MP3 playing and run a game. End result was it needed an MMX pentium to run well, unless you turned off sound. Then it would run just fine on any old system.

Makes good sense, thanks. Interestingly enough, even with modern computers of today, Total Anihilation still has the capacity to slow the machine right down.... Especially when you enter the code to activate 10 players and then go and play on an all metal map, just you verses 9 AI allies, LOVE IT!

I have played games like Witcher 2 on 15 frames per second. I can tolerate that as long as I can still find some semblance of control over the gameplay.