I have to agree with arcane cossack. 30fps and above are really what I consider enjoyable. Heck, I don't even buy games for my PS2 that run below 60fps (with exception of Final Fantasy games:) ). Fluid animation is where it's all about, except when slower fps are purposely set for art purposes ;) (which do exist), think of the speed Braid runs on Intel hardware...
And Witch King, 10fps is not enjoyable, and 20fps is not much better. The real issue I find here is that Intel gaming might need to have its parameters adjusted a bit, because if we compare how playable games are on integrated and discreet devices, things change. But of course that while characterizing games this way, it should be explicitely stated that values and descriptions are being based on Intel/ integrated hardware. On 22 Mar, 02:51, arcane cossack <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you really going to have trouble with a game at 30fps? Seriously? > 30fps is completely playable in anything but, say, Quake 3/Painkiller, > as their engines actually reward going faster than 60fps. Getting a > game to 30fps should be the baseline for it running "well". > > On Mar 21, 6:49 pm, lolattheotherguy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > we shouldnt categorize games like that coz its all about opinions. > > Numbers speak for themselves. You name the game, describe your system, > > your settings, and your results in fps. this is what i think. > > if you really want to make categories its still not that easy coz for > > an rts game 20-30 fps might be enough to joke around (will suck in > > competitive multiplayer) but for an fps or 3rd person game it will > > suck. > > > On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Heres my views on the matter: > > > > Unplayable: 0-15FPS and below 640x480 resolution and requires swiftshader > > > Playable: 20FPS+ and at least 640x480 resolution > > > Works: You can get to main menu and in-game, beat the game with no > > > errors/crashes, and fits under the "Playable" catagory. > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok, this is a case where you would have done a huge favor to yourself > > > > by being quiet and not saying that HUGE IT error. There are display > > > > modes other than VGA. Every display adapter can output any resolution, > > > > while limitations only occur on driver level. > > > > > GTA4 is a very bad console port, performing poorly on quite powerful > > > > hardware. > > > > > Is there any game that runs at more than 15fps when going through > > > > Swiftshader? > > > > > And you should state that those game state descriptions are your > > > > personal opinions. > > > > > On 21 Mar, 18:53, Murder132 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thats why only Intel cards support lower resoultion than 640x480. In > > > > > 320x240 both on GTA 4 and Gothic 3, game is unplayable, because text > > > > > is unreadable and Swiftshader logo is extreme big. > > > > > > Unplayable games is games there crashed or have serious issues (even > > > > > Swiftshader logo is sometimes big issue). > > > > > Runable games is games than work, but is too slow for normal playing, > > > > > have graphical glitches, or have awesome short draw distance (Oblivion > > > > > on minimum settings). > > > > > Playable/Accetable game is game than fully works, but have sometimes > > > > > low FPS. > > > > > Smooth game is game than works without glitches or lags > > > > > > Unplayable games is most games played with Swiftshader on Intel Atom > > > > > CPU, fps struggles betwen 0-2:-) > > > > > Runable games is games, than works around 3-10 fps > > > > > Borderline games is around 10-15 fps, less is not very enyoable > > > > > Playable game is around 15-25 fps > > > > > Smooth game is game than works with 25+ fps > > > > > -- > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
