How many FPS do you consider minimum in a game?

[BrokenWing]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 25.

From watching various benchmarking apps (especially the Crysis built-in ones) anything below this is noticeably choppy. You'd want this to be the absolute minimum though, not an average.

I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: ~90.

Just guessing at this but I can definitely spot the difference between a 60Hz refresh on a CRT monitor and a 85Hz refresh. Try this at home: Stare at an object placed just to the side of your monitor and allow your eye to notice the monitor in your peripheral vision. Try it at 60Hz and 85 Hz and see if you notice a difference in flickering.

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: no
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: no
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: yes

[Agent]

Give us the answer then. I am curious to know!

Oh there is no right or wrong answer, so to speak . Every ones eye is individual.
I do however want to try and show how a game at 100FPS can feel a lot smoother than one at 30/60FPS, even if the monitor is limiting the output.

Whether agent comes back with that... who knows.

You're partly spoiling my plan here Steve

[Agent]

Just guessing at this but I can definitely spot the difference between a 60Hz refresh on a CRT monitor and a 85Hz refresh. Try this at home: Stare at an object placed just to the side of your monitor and allow your eye to notice the monitor in your peripheral vision. Try it at 60Hz and 85 Hz and see if you notice a difference in flickering.

Yup, and this was the cause of a lot of head akes with people who used CRTs for prolonged periods.
To make matters worse they were often in offices with fluorescent lighting, which has a natural flicker.

[kalniel]

Flicker with CRT is caused by the phosphors fading to black between scans - which most people can see at 60hz. On an LCD there's no fade, the pixel just changes between colours when needed and stays the same if not.

Some people (benQ) did experiment with an LCD that changes the whole, or part, of the screen black inbetween refreshes, and while movement looked crisper (your brain doesn't bother updating the image information unless there's a significant contrast change) people noticed the flicker just like a 60hz CRT.

[Agent]

On an LCD there's no fade, the pixel just changes between colours when needed and stays the same if not.

Have you ever seen a TFT with a broken backlight?
They are insane! Feels like you're going to have a seizure within a few seconds of looking at it

[Infinite]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 30
I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: 60
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: no
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: yes
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: no

[acrobat]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be:

21fps. It really depends on the game though to be honest. I have played MMORPG's on about 16fps and it's ok because I'm mostly standing still pressing, 1,1,1,1,1,2,3. But in a fast paced first person shooter, 20 and lower starts to get a bit impossible. I am perfectly happy playing with games at about 25+ though. I kicked many peoples arse in Counterstrike on my little old PC which ran everything at that kind of speed, and I played through the entire Crysis game with that frame rate and it was very enjoyable and smooth enough for me. I would have preferred it to be more, and I could have got that if I lowered a setting, but I was happy to play at about 20-25fps with it looking beautiful.

I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening:

Dunno. Never tested that. If it's over about 25/30 or so, then it's smooth enough for me, and I don't pay attention.

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: yes or no

Yes*

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: yes or no

no

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: yes or no

no


*
Why I said yes to that one, is because at 30fps, it ceases to be an issue to me, and I doubt higher will look any different. I expect if you had a computer that could double that frame rate, then things would feel faster when you whip the mouse around to shoot someone or whatever, but it would be fractions of a second. But (probably wrongly) when I think of FPS, I just think in terms of the "pulses" where the screen clears and draws another screen. When you go down to 5fps in a game, you can clearly see each pulse.. like a slide show. But at about 30, I can't see the pulses any more, so that's why I chose 30. But I suspect the eye can technically see higher, but I chose 30 because it's around there that I stop being able to see the screens draw/clear/re-draw.



P.S.
As for monitors, I remember people arguing with me years ago, about my refresh rate on my screen. I never used to pay attention to my frame rates. I could never care less about the number because I just knew if it was smooth it was smooth, and if it wasn't smooth then it annoyed me and I would lower a setting. What the actual number was, was always inconsequential to me.
But the Hz of a monitor was a big deal. I could clearly see the difference between even 70Hz and 85Hz. And monitors running at 60Hz looked absolutely horrible and using one would give me a headache in no time. So I ran mine at 80Hz all the time, even though I could have used a higher resolution if I didn't mind dropping it to 75Hz or something. Also, although 80Hz looked pretty perfect to me, my friend bought a monitor which was 90Hz and I remember I could tell that that was better than mine.

As for how Hz and FPS are related, I have no idea.

[richieuk]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 30
I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: ~70
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: No
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: No
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: Yes

[manwithnoname]

Yup, and this was the cause of a lot of head akes with people who used CRTs for prolonged periods.
To make matters worse they were often in offices with fluorescent lighting, which has a natural flicker.

I'm an 'old Skool' CRT user at home, If set my refresh rate to 72hz and below I can see the flicker, 75hz it just hurt my eyes and 85hz and above I'm fine.

fluorescent lighting, not just in the office ,drives me nuts - I'm not looking forward to the low energy only change over

[Agent]

My CRT never goes below 85hz. I find I can tell the difference between 85hz and 120hz too, but a lot less than going from 60hz to 85hz.

[Main]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be:

20-25 for single player, 35-40 average for fps multiplayer. I'm not as bothered in single player games as I'm only competing with myself. In multiplayer I like to have enough of a framerate to see people move around rather than judder around like a slideshow.

I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening:

...is probably much higher than what my monitor or graphics card will ever produce.

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS:

no

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS:

no

I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS:

yes

[Emirzan]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 30 (dependant on the type of game)
I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: 60 (ish)
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: No
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: No
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: Yes

[Powderhound]

Why don't we do this scientifically and create some for of demo which alternates between different frame rates and asks the viewer to identify when they change?

[Agent]

Why don't we do this scientifically and create some for of demo which alternates between different frame rates and asks the viewer to identify when they change?

I plan to do something similar

[cptwhite_uk]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 30 depending on game, sometimes 40
I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: 60
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: no
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: yes
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: no

[muddyfox470]

I consider the minimum playable FPS for my games to be: 30
I consider the maximum FPS that I can perceive to be happening: around 60
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 30FPS: no
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be around 60FPS: yes
I consider the 'limit' the eye can see to be higher than 60FPS: no

I've never gone for the most expensive cards purely because of this, no card is "future-proof" so I'd prefer to spend less than £80 on a card that can play all the games I want to - which to be honest aren't the latest games.

The problem is once you are immersed in a game graphics don't matter so much, how many of us played on the sega game gear, snes, ps1 etc. You notice it now, but back then it was perfectly useable [in between all those epileptic fits lol], the same goes now, if i'm running a game at 60fps i can notice the smoothness, the only time i notice the frame rate changing is when i go to a different part of a map or there are more players playing, then you notice the "slow-down" or slight judder