Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Imho higher fps (100+) are easier on the eyes - when gaming 16 hours straight.
But as bad as too low fps are micro-stutters every now and then, and capping the fps can sometimes solve it - or lead to more consistent fps. I wouldn´t cap lower than 45 though - and if it´s about some setting to keep a certain min fps - i´d also choose 45 - while i´d keep some gap between them when i would set both...
Yes, you've got me. I was thinking of a visual novel with purely reading elements.
of course this is outside of occasionall drops or exceptions where games where made specifically to be playable at a lower framerates like many old consoles games like star fox on the snes.
If it falls below a feature film I'm out.
EDIT: Also, it depends heavily on the genre of game.
Some games would be unplayable at this framerate, though, so it depends ofc.
Battlefield 20-42 fps was cool xD and somehow worked. while 20 fps was already "stucky", 25 fps sorta worked . . .
it was clearly way better to play by constant 25~ fps, rather than to gain any fps drops/lags which is catastrophic within that fps range . . .