I'm sure this is going to seem like a stupid question to the seasoned shooter veterans around here, but I'm genuinely curious.
For the past several years, my target framerate has been around 45 fps. This usually gave me a good balance between visual quality and responsiveness. (Disclaimer: I don't usually play first person shooters - usually I play RPGs and turn based strategy games.)
Recently, however, I got a nice 30" 1600p monitor and started revisiting some of my older games. I got sucked into Fallout 4 again, but I had to adjust my settings to accomodate the higher resolution. Putting the settings to low (except for texture quality and draw distance), raised my fps to 60 at 1600p. The game doesn't look as good, but free aiming is so much easier - particularly with automatic weapons.
So why? 45 fps isn't *that* much slower than 60 fps, but aiming in the heat of combat is so much easier at 60 fps.
For the past several years, my target framerate has been around 45 fps. This usually gave me a good balance between visual quality and responsiveness. (Disclaimer: I don't usually play first person shooters - usually I play RPGs and turn based strategy games.)
Recently, however, I got a nice 30" 1600p monitor and started revisiting some of my older games. I got sucked into Fallout 4 again, but I had to adjust my settings to accomodate the higher resolution. Putting the settings to low (except for texture quality and draw distance), raised my fps to 60 at 1600p. The game doesn't look as good, but free aiming is so much easier - particularly with automatic weapons.
So why? 45 fps isn't *that* much slower than 60 fps, but aiming in the heat of combat is so much easier at 60 fps.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram