Poll: Exceptional Graphics or 60fps, Which is More Important for the NX Generation?

I would like a more European 50 Hz approach

FPS is more important but graphics will get the third party ports which will sell the consoles.

I don't understand the fixation with 60fps. Most of the time you can't even see what's going on there. Smooth movement? Fine, I get it... but at a consistent lower frame rate, I think there's a cinematic quality that's rather appealing. At 60fps, I often feel things look LESS real... and what good is the higher frame rate if the graphics don't look good? Recent Nintendo systems have suffered from weak graphics. It's about time they stepped up their game and delivered some visually impressive software. Immersion begins with a single frame.

Its completely dependent on the game. I want a smooth frame rate as standard, 60fps for fighting, shooting and driving. I just hope NX has a decent port of GTAVI

Graphics not important, only life (fps) are important.

120 fps for me actually

I don't care much about either. Still, if the game runs well (and does not stutter at 10fps) and looks good, that much is enough for me.

Games running properly is a must in 30 or 60fps rather than a good looking game that runs poorly.

@tovare otherwise known as hell

I'd rather developers focus on delivering fun, interesting games that are actually complete and don't require an 18GB day-one patch.

@-SD- ::slow clap::

Having 60 FPS would help set it apart from other games that try to push the graphics. Some developers choose to put definition over FPS. I can't/don't understand that...FPS can help the game-play by creating more realistic physics and/or real-time puzzles.

What is even the point of having higher fps?

I don't care that my game is smooth if it isn't enjoyable to play.
Hell, I don't even care about the graphics, they don't have to be super beautiful if the game is, once again, enjoyable!

I don't want any of theses things. I just want good games. That's all.

I prefer 60 FPS, but all I really care for is that the framerate is consistent. If 60 FPS can't be done without noticeable drops, lock to a framerate that can. Nothing ruins games for me than when the framerate dips like it's 2006 and polygon pop-in. Eliminate those issues and they can do anything they want with the graphics.

Huh. I actually didn't vote on either question because my response isn't an option. I don't think it's an either/or situation that extends equally across every game. In my opinion, it really just depends on the game, period, no caveats or qualifiers. In something like a fighting game or a shooter, frame rate is a higher priority. But in a massive open-world rpg, for example, I want better textures and draw-distance and things like that.

60fps > Higher Graphics for me any day. I will always sacrifice Resolution and/or Graphics on my PC to achieve a constant 60 fps.

What would be ideal would be to have an option for people. If a game on any system can't achieve 1080p and 60fps give people the option to either have higher resolution but at a constant 30fps (for people who rather have better visuals at a lower fps) or have a lower resolution but at a constant 60fps. The only downside to this is when it comes to multiplayer. The game would have to detect if you are running at 30 or 60fps and assign you with people with the same settings.

Smash without 60 fps would be weird...

Depends on the game.

For example, I'd rather have 60fps for games like Smash Bros., Mario Kart (59fps also works ), and Kirby, but I'd rather have 30fps and better graphics for games like Zelda BoTW, Metroid Prime, and Pikmin.

Honestly, I'd prefer ALL games to run at 60fps+. The 'cinematic' quality does nothing for me. If I had a PC rather than PS3 & PS4 I'd have Skyrim/Witcher running at 60+.

The Dreamcast was the game changer for me in terms of selling framerates as priority.

@Exy I know what you mean there. I'm playing through Dragon Quest 7 3ds, and while it's a fantastic game it has pop-ins which isn't a big deal regarding gameplay...but it's noticeable and can take you out of the immersion.

Fast-paced, arcade-like action games (shooters, sports, racing, fighting, platforming) all benefit and screams for 60fps.

More mainstream nowadays genres like FPS, open world games, and some AAA adventure/action games may not have a 60fps because of their scope, buy they all would benefit form achieving it.

Slow paced games would never need such high frames per second, like turn strategy, RPGs and some slow life simulation games.

Indeed, at the end of the day, all styles may benefit at a higher fps rate!

One of the reasons why the PS4 Pro announcement was kind of disappointing was the lack of a more powerful CPU. While I get why Sony didn't improve the system in that front (one less way to split the userbase), it was very disappointing to see the general focus of that new iteration placed on 4K gaming instead of framerate increase.

As others have mentioned, I'd take a 60fps standard any day of the week over 4K resolution, and I'm sure a sizeable portion of the market agrees. If Nintendo decides to go that route, I'm sure they'd find a lot of ears eager to listen to what they have to say.

And about what a higher framerate brings to the table: it increases the responsiveness of the game and makes animations smoother, which in turn increases immersion. Those defending the "cinematic" (a marketing buzzword if there ever was one) qualities of a 30fps standard just aren't used to higher framerates.

Games need to be at the highest quality visuals and running at 120fps. Get with the times Nintendo, geez.

Aren't we lucky then that they'll have 64k graphics and 240fps so we don't need to worry or choose?

Stupid answers for first question how do I choose

As long as we get a more realistic moustache on Mario I'll be happy.

60 fps is super cool, but is it a really good marketing argument ?
It may feel gimmicky in TV ads.

Playing captain toad at the min it's gorgeous realy shocked me how good it looks

Both. But, I want 60fps regardless—I just think that's something we should expect from most games in this day and age (at least any games that are above indie level for sure)—and "exceptional graphics" is relative thing. If NX is mainly a handheld and has Wii U-level of graphics then I'd say those were pretty exceptional. If it's a normal home console and doesn't even better the likes of PS4 or Xbox One in terms of visuals (the standard consoles), it's already causing itself problems.

Goldeneye was a steady 12fps on the 64 nobody cried about that back in the day things have got out of hand. Nintendo has had the right approach this gen

Just gimme games. I know graphics means development cost and more expensive but look at Sony PlayStation store game prices and Nintendo eshop game prices. Mario kart 8 still cost 49.99.

Framerate will always top graphical prowess in my book. 30 fps is fine as long as it's COMPLETELY stable, but by 2017, 60 fps really ought to be the standard IMO.

@sandman89 the games beautiful. Enjoy.

I mostly just want the game to run smooth enough. 60 fps isn't necessary. But I'm a sucker for good visuals and especially good art styles, like in Color Splash or Splatoon. Here's hoping the NX has both.

"It can vary depending on the game, but mostly 60fps"

Both. First and foremost, a smooth, stable, non-choppy frame rate. At the same time, I'd expect, or at least like to see a competent resolution (at least 720p), followed by nice looking graphics.

a decent looking game running at constant 60fps is far superior to....well, superior graphics.

Why is this a poll? Just about every console ever has games that run in 60 FPS. It's achievable. Just focus on the graphics part

I love a good looking game, but I typically prefer 60 fps. If it's an adventure game or RPG, 30 I can deal with 30 fps. But racing and fighting games need to be 60 fps for me.

While I quite enjoy tweaking my PC's for best performance, watching the stats as the overlay tells me everything is working to it's best potential - I can't quite fault Nintendo's direction. Should they maintain a market and consumer base in the coming years, given their ability to create tightly designed games around their own hardware - with solid performance across the board. I'm confident that eventually the technology and their creativity from a overall performance perspective will come together again.

Making a stand on gameplay, while providing vibrant and colourful game worlds to interact with complete with consistent performance is commendable.

As technology continues to progress and as the reach for console to bridge the gap between budget/ performance focused hardware and PC is seen for the illusion it really is. When the dust settles, it will be the experiences that define the victors - not the hardware.

I'd rather have a great looking game running at 30 fps than 60 fps. 60 fps is already here and except for some obvious genres it's not important at all.

I am not refering to 4k resolution either as that jump isn't really that impressive.

60 fps F-Zero NX @ 720p that I can play both on the tv and on the go? Why yes thank you, Nintendo, I will take two.

Not fussed about graphics. I just want accessible games with fun enjoyable graphics. And top notch local multiplayer features.

Dreamcast had most of its games running at 60fps, and their gralhics were pretty impressive at the time, no other system could compete until the Ps2/GC/Xbox arrived.

I wish both were possible.

I prefer a larger library of fun games.
Higher framerates demand better animations, which cost more money, takes more time, and disinsentivises risk, meaning no more metroid, F zero or starfox.

Better graphics though is even worse in terms of cost.

Just give me 30fps with gamecube esque graphics, and give me more games. I don't want the NX to be another PS-bore.

@SetupDisk
This comment I can't really agree with. 30fps is fine for many games "IF" that's what you have to settle on. But, 60fps if it can be done consistently/ smoothly should always be the minimum target.

Differences in the experience are night and day on almost any title between the two frame rates....

Exceptional graphics are surely a charm to watch, even breathtaking at times, and a game running at 60fps have an extreme smoothness in the flow that is hard to deny, however after playing various games on my not-gaming pc I gotta admit that when a game is fun I can easily manage to deal with sub-par graphics and sub-30 fps (as long as the game remain in playable-land obviously), so I really don't care which one the NX will try to achieve, in either case it will be just a bonus for me, not a needed feature.

@edcomics framerate is what makes a modern racing game playable or not, just saying. Some genres really do need smoother movement for faster player response time. Fighting games are another good example on how crucial the framerate may be. I remember Virtua Fighter on Genesis being nearly unplayable because of that.

tbh frame rate > graphics

because we dont want the next mario to run at a whopping 1 fps at all times

@rushiosan
Forget Virtua Fighter on Genesis, Mortal Kombat 1 on Game Boy is what you need to complain about!

I just want at least 30fps with NO frame drops, I think some games actually works better with 30fps I know I'm weird lol

I'm going to say I don't care about graphics because hipster

@GizmoGadgets
That's great for you but I don't normally care about framerate unless there is slow down. 60 fps isn't really that impressive or necessary if it's not a fighter or racer.

I'd rather have a great looking game than 60fps in any other genre ESPECIALLY if the one the one thing holding it back is an attempt at locking it at 60 fps.

How about Console Power so that all of the third-party games don't crash on it?

If the CPU on the WiiU had been better off it would have saw more successes in third party ports, which would have made it a lot more attractive on several levels. Just make the NX easy to program for with descent specs and I will be happy. The rumored $300.00 price points makes me believe The Big N will be doing just that.

@hieveryone
That's not weird some of the lazy upscales this gen made 30 fps to 60 fps and they obviously played better at 30 fps.

I personally care more for framerates per second than graphics, especially these days.

Honestly, I hope the NX has 120hz support. HDMI 1.4 is able to output 1080p/144hz if pushed to the limit. While most games won't run at 120fps, if they put an NVidia GPU in there like the rumors say...

G-Sync pls
I want Displayport
C'mon Nintendo, I can't play anything on consoles anymore, it's not smooth enough! PLS NINTENDO

This is a silly poll. NX won't have the power to produce 'exceptional' graphics.

I'll be happy with exceptional artwork with either a solid 30 or 60FPS. 30FPS has its place for large cinematic experiences.

If I read the possible answers to the first question then there is no 1080p @ 60 fps, both constant. No dynamic resolution, no dynamic fps (60/30).
@NintendoLife:
That would be my answer but I can't choose this. Why don't you think someone could want to get both?

It really depends on the type of game.

I would say 60 FPS is technically more important, but I don't see a reason why there shouldn't just be both 60 FPS and 1080p graphics.

If you're asking what I expect, I expect 720p, 30 FPS.

It all depends on the game. Mario Kart and Smash demand 60 fps, while something like Zelda doesn't. An F-Zero title would need to be 60 fps in order to be properly playable, but a Metroid game would benefit more from high-end immersive graphics, where 30 fps would be perfectly fine.

Then again, Nintendo and its partners are wizards at pushing their own systems, as some of Wii U's best looking games also run at 60 fps (Mario Kart 8, Bayonetta 2, Mario 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze...)

@edcomics well said.

Fun games

This feels like the article where we've finally run out of NX things to talk about.

Ditch the hd and let's go back to component and enjoy that 480p like wii all did. 30fps if we're lucky.

I don't really get bothered by 30fps. Some games really benefit from 60fps like Smash, but nearly everything else is perfectly fine in 30fps. Even my favorite series, Tales of, has bounced between 30 and 60 and while it catches me off guard at first, you adapt and nothing else changes. Hell, even competitors hit sub 1080p and 30fps on a regular basis. It's not as big of a deal as people think it is. I'd rather them focus on maintaining 1080p and making the games expansive and beautiful.

@SetupDisk
I would disagree here. I think Nintendo mostly agree's as well with what I'm saying. Which is why they will aim for that 60fps when the hardware allows. The difference between frame rate is purely a technical limitation against the vision of the title being made and the hardware it's made on. That's all it is.

Whereas the perceivable difference between consistent displays of both is tangible.

I'm not saying I disagree with 30fps as an acceptable result. Effectively a consistent 30fps in almost any title can be easily workable. What I do believe given my experiences with multiple hardware is that 60 fps consistently results in a smoother refresh regardless of the type of game being played.

Nintendo games already look exceptional, so the obvious answer is framerate.

60 fps for FPS

Waiting for reveal of new Nintendo system.

I'll take better performance over graphics any day Dood!

Interesting discrepancy between the two polls, at time of writing this comment anyway. I wonder why that is?

I don't really care; Nintendo games look great already, to me. I'm just hoping to see more games more often and I'd like to see Nintendo take some risks with new IP and dormant IP. Good risks though, not federation force style risks 😜

@Jayvir
This is true of course but there's no reason at this stage from a technical POV why Nintendo wouldn't want to focus on an average performance goal of 1080p native/ 60fps going forward.

All games benefit from that bump in frame rates so long as the result is free of slow down and/ or micro stutter. The latter rarely an issue for closed system programming.

It's not about 30fps being unplayable, that view point would be unrealistic and untrue at the same time. 30fps is highly playable for 90% of games out there.

60fps benefits all games in providing a smoother experience which only holds true if the framerate is consistent. This is a technical issue/ debate. Granted, certain games benefit more noticeably than others.

It really depends on the type of game of course! For racing games or fighting games I'd go for 60fps...even for a fast pace action game like Bayonetta, it would be ideal. But for an adventure game or RPG, I'd prefer 30fps and more visual flare.

I'd rather have a game performing smoothly than 4k. What do you need to fully appreciate such visuals on, an electronic billboard to connect the console to? I think the recent years demonstrate that the graphics evolution is nearing its end - or at least the end of practicality. Many 8th Gen games look [borderline] photorealistic now, although that's in demand for the games GOING for such a style - you hardly need The Last of Us kind of visuals for a game like Gravity Rush or LocoRoco.It's been mostly about definition and framerate now, and IMHO 1080 should be plenty to avoid blurry faces and animate convincing articulation/emotions. The rest is aesthetic and may help games as a visual art form, and I'm nobody to object to it if the developers and console makers want it. But I'd rather see extra console horsepower go into supporting more things happening onscreen during gameplay, accounting for multiple elements of the game world, increasing interactive value in open world settings, teaching the player characters and AI to do more at a time and in general... To me, it takes priority over some supposedly wowing 4k that might just impair the pricing compromise by leaving me to buy a new monitor/TV this to wouldn't actually lag on.

I can't stand it when games only do 30fps just to bump up the visuals a marginal amount.

The game looking ever so slightly better makes a flip of a difference, but having that game run at 60fps can mean the difference between jitter and butter.

Why people would want anything less than 60 in exchange for an ever-so-marginal visual improvement just astounds me.

I would really appreciate 4K Nintendo games with HDR and have it reduced to 720p-900p for the portable Nintendo NX console.

This is not going to happen as Nintendo took nine years to get out a console that can do 1080p.

It's a weird poll for me. Honestly I'm not too concerned about either. Graphics are already at a point that the differences are small and very few games struggle to hit a solid 30 fps. If I'm forced to pick, I guess I go fps but the tech is pretty good at this point. Even Wii U which was labeled as underpowered still managed 720 at 60 and even 1080 games. NX should be 1080 and 60 fps as standard I guess

I'll take that smooth 60fps any day of the week, and moreso if racing or shooting. Even a game like Metroid which relies heavily on atmosphere has way too much action that I'd rather have good performance than graphics (unless the graphical fidelity means I can just LOOK at something for details rather than use the scan visor?).

Playing Wind Waker HD and that rough motion just bothers me every time I start. Thankfully it doesn't NEED that frame rate as much as, say, Splatoon, but still. Ew.

I want a 240p signal, I want RGB output, I want 50hz AND I wasn't a built in CRT television in the controller!

@Deanster101 - I also want to be able to play it on my 24 inch black and white tv that looks like a piece of furniture that I can set my fish tank on

Really depends on the game. Competitive online shooter yes I'd rather have 60fps. Turn based strategy, 30fps is fine (and actually happy to sacrifice graphics as well for not having to wait as long for each turn to be processed).

Silly debate though, as really is up to the developers more than the hardware

69fps. It's a game. 60fps provides the best gameplay.

The second question is a loaded one. It's very difficult - especially with where we've been and are now - to have an immersion experience with a slow or choppy frame rate.

Playing Dark Souls 2 on Xbox One proved to me why 60 FPS is so sought after in the PC world, heck I would argue the games look better to me because of that silky smooth framerate. I can't think of a genre that I wouldn't want it to be at 60 FPS but I can understand that sometimes it just isn't feasible for some games without making significant compromises to what the developers' vision of the game should be. If given the choice though I will always choose 60 FPS over better graphics any day of the week.

I honestly don't care if the graphics are Wii-U quality and 30fps. I want the NX to be a simple, gimmick-free experience with a portable form factor, and a single very high resolution screen. No more crummy, low-res 3D garbage. No waggle. Just comfortable controls, decent power, good battery life and a way to dock it quickly and easily to my TV.

I want Nintendo to put all its efforts into delivering games like they made on the SNES, GBA, and GameCube before budgets went crazy and gameplay became repetitive.

I love polls. I think it may be too late to influence the NX though!

@-SD- You nailed it buddy. Fun first, technicalities second. I honestly believe that a slightly rough looking game with a smooth framerate is preferable to a beautiful but choppy game.

PC pros drop graphics for better fps and glitches...

Artsy games I like better gfxs

Hearing the phrase "exceptional graphics" used in the same sentence as the word Nintendo seems wrong.

A bit like "decent human being" and Jack the Ripper in the same sentence.

I find the question strange because "exceptional graphics" automatically means decent frame rate.
It depends on what the developers chooses as a priority.
A £5,000 graphics card can produce 30fps if graphics quality are extreme or 300fps if they are reduced.

Saying that I really hope Nintendo ignore the majority of their fanbase that don't seem to care about graphics.

If this console is seriously underpowered I don't see it selling better than the WiiU, created huge losses again for Nintendo.

I'm fine with 720p and 60fps; they looks fine on my TV. What's outrageous is Nintendo keeping the frame rate at 30fps to "emulate the feel of the original game". ("COUGH" TWILIGHT PRINCESS HD!!! "COUGH")

A weird poll, since we don't have to choose either/or, since according to this rumor, the aim is both exceptional graphics AND a solid frame rate. However, a lot of people here are either completely missing the point or are just misinformed.

60fps is NOT necessary and/or beneficial in every type of game. There's a reason why movies are still shot in frame rates below or around 30fps; to get that cinematic experience that makes the movie look even better.

Certain genres of games also benefit from that cinematic quality, so 30fps will be more than enough and other types, like some smart people have already mentioned, such as racing games, fighting games and sports games definitely do benefit from 60fps.

Also, a good solid frame rate does NOT equal excellent graphics. That is a HUGE error in judgement. Even a still image, aka having 0fps, can still consist of exceptional graphics.

Graphics consist of certain complexities and of a certain fidelity, but frame rate is definitely not a measure of graphics. It's a measure of gameplay mechanics and animation, as in them being smooth or not. It is true that because animation also has to do with graphics, that there is some overlap there, but it is not tied to graphics in and of itself.

Even a wire frame game can have a good or bad frame rate, and that could certainly not be labeled as having excellent graphics...

But if NX is able to hit anything solid frame rate wise, tackle the multi-platform stuff in 1080p and have the enjoyable games that we are ALL longing for, then they might have something in their hands that will make them a lot of money and will make a lot of us happy campers.

Here's hoping we'll know either way before this month is through...

I don't get what's so great about 60 FPS, seeing as the human eye can't even process that many frames per second. I certainly can't tell the difference. The only benefit I see is that if a game does suffer from some framerate drops then they'll be unnoticeable, but if the games are made well enough at a rock solid 30 FPS in the first place, then that doesn't become an issue.

Just give me the games. Resolution and frames per second mean nothing to me. I grew up playing 2D games and then the earliest 3D games, so I learned to enjoy games regardless of resolution, fps, pop in, screen tearing, etc.

Where's the option for a locked framerate? I'm fine with 30 or 60 FPS, but having drops or slowdown is annoying when I'm playing a game. At least in old shmups, it was like having bullet time to dodge stuff when there was too much on the screen at the same time.

How about no more nx talk until Nintendo finally reveals something?

@SMW Agreed. I don't care that Mario Kart 8 is 720p while some other guy's Call of Duty 27 is 4000p, I prefer Mario Kart because it's more fun to me.

I am very sorry, please do not take this personally, but I need to say it. The level of ignorance in this comment section is cringe-worthy.

@SilentHunter382 (#16) Did I miss read? Playing online never required everyone to play at the same framerate or resolution. That doesn't make any sense.

@khaosklub (#45)
"Higher framerates demand better animations, which cost more money, takes more time"
Framerate does not influence the complexity of the animation in 3D games and has a very limited influence on the man-hour budget over all. If you really want Gamecube visuals, maybe you should... you know... stick with the actual GC. It's a great system.

@Braok (#59)
1) I haven't seen any TV manufacturer supporting DP at the moment, sadly.
2) Why waste money on Gsync when you can use Freesync... for free?
3) 3rd Parties won't bother with anything higher than 60 fps. Games shared with the PS4/XB1 might even have a locked 60, if not 30. Just like it happens with PC ports.
4) Pushing 120/144 when so many games and movies and released at 24~48 fps might not be wise. The mass market won't give a duck about 120 fps. The average user isn't ready.

@-SD- (#10)
"I'd rather developers focus on delivering fun, interesting games that are actually complete and don't require an 18GB day-one patch."
THANK YOU!

360p at 250 fps
or
4k at 15 fps?

Choose your poison

I'd prefer pretty visuals to 60Hz, as long as it's a stable framerate. However, it can depend on the game.

One of the big reasons that Super Mario Bros. on the NES and Super Mario 64 felt so much better than the competition is that they ran at 60 FPS... games play much smoother at 60 FPS. There are certain genres that can probably get away with 30 FPS...

Movies are a different animal... and look just fine at 24 - 30 FPS... super fast action can benefit from higher frame rates, but it's generally not necessary.

Considering the vast majority of TV sets that are in homes... 1920x1080 @ 60 FPS is what most games should target.

Blu Ray films should be viewed at 24 FPS... if your television does not support 24hz input... with all motion processing off... you are not viewing the film as intended.

They should go one step beyond.

Nintendo 64FPS.

For games that are more interactive cinematic experiences, I actually don't like 60FPS. Movies are not 60FPS so a game that focuses a lot on story telling, trying to approach a movie, I prefer something more detailed with a slower framerate. However naturally there are instances where a good framerate is the only way I can play a game. A first person game with a choppy framerate actually makes me feel sick. And I like the increased sense of speed that 60fps allows in racing games. It all comes down to the type of experience the game aims to offer, for me.

Fps for sure

I want to play a game, not a sideshow.

@Joeynator3000 Is that in your avatar the teacher from Azumanga Daioh?

60fps = smooth as butter gaming

I don't care about graphics or framerate... I just want to play fun games.
That's why the last non-Nintendo console I owned was a PS2... so many games on the other consoles just try to use their graphics and framerate as a selling point, but the games themselves just don't interest me... I'd take a half decent Nintendo game with N64 graphics over them any day.

But if I had to choose between graphics and framerate, I'd have to go with graphics, as I find that more noticeable than framerate.

60fps is much more important than resolution or visualeffects. fps actually are important for the gameplay.

fps always, every game plays better at 60+

this "feels more cinematic" meme needs to die

@clvr Yup, from the anime's opening.

@edcomics people like you are the problem. nothing about it is "cinematic" and it being "less real" is so stupid. the world doesn't move in frames, its fluent at all times of the day to the point a camera can't capture everything because its literally impossible

Personally while I think 4K is nice it hasn't gotten to the point where its easily affordable for the mainstream consumer. While 4K TV sets have been going down in price the biggest problem still is content and 4K game development is still way too expensive to be viable

Wanna see the graphics like Mario Kart 8 or Lego City Undercover Wii U. Well, I don't really care if 60 fps or not as long less jagginess, good gameplay and colorful enough can make me enjoy the games that I play. If Animal Crossing NX have very detailed environments and 360 degree camera angle, it will be great enough for me to spent my time for gaming.

@yomanation Learn to read... especially before you post a snarky attempt to sound clever.

I clearly said ONE of the reasons that those games FELT so good...

If SMB or Mario 64 had a garbage frame rate, they would have suffered immensely and may not have become the classics that they are.

Where's the "I don't care about either" option? Graphics is pretty low on the list of things I look for in video game hardware and software, I look more at good gameplay and originality than anything else.

Just make sure that the constant pursuit of 1080p, 60 FPS doesn't result in yet another fugly-as-fark game like Super Smash Bros 4 U.

A solid 60fps all the time, every time. I couldn't care less about 1080p.

I'd rather have average looking but smooth and highly playable game rather than have 16k but drop under 40 fps. take doom (PC) as an example. not the best looking game on the market. but GOD its pleasing to the eye.

FPS is the only correct answer. Graphics are nice, but meaningless if the game doesn't run at a steady, consistent pace, which sadly is the case with so many big games on PS4/X1 these days.

As a Smash player, I can say that anything lower than 60 fps is a nightmare.

More important for the NX generation than either of these options is announcing what the thing actually is... and soon. Or, at least tell us when you're going to announce it. Let's go Nintendo.

In this day and age there is no excuse for Nintendo to not trying to delivering the best.

As someone who can't really tell anything above 720p anyway, I usually say that frame rate is more important. I think 60 fps is a must for fast-paced games, and while slower-paced games are okay at 30fps, 60fps is certainly welcome so that you can move your camera and still take in the nice view.

However, I'm no technical expert, but if the framerate and resolution came at the cost of the physic engine, I'd rather have the fancy lighting effects, shadows, large draw distances, anti-aliasing, etc, so long as the framerate is consistent and not choppy.

I'm no game developer, though, so feel free to call me out if anything I said was completely ignorant

@yomanation
Double, triple, quadruple... I have been playing games since the 80s, and have seen enough games in both 30 and 60 FPS that I can definitively say it is indeed marginal. Games like The Last of Us Remastered that give a choice of fps, I can't even tell the difference visually. But I can tell when it's choppier.

You could post all the screenshots in the world of side-by-side comparisons of the same game running at 30 and 60 and see if anybody can notice a difference between the two. And even if they can, it won't be by much.

It's not like a game is suddenly going to jump from being PS3 level level graphics to PS4 level graphics just by reducing the framerate to 30. I mean, even that jump between 7th and 8th gen systems was marginal. How much less then the improvement gained by cutting a few frames? Valuable frames at that. Frames that often make the difference between stuttering and fluid motion.

I'm more about 60 fps myself. Frankly, with as beautiful as console games can be these days, I'd never see the need to rig up a high power gaming PC. Console quality is good enough for me. Speaking of which it's high time I upgraded from a PS3 to a PS4 Pro! Think I'll be doing that soon.

I don't really care about the graphics. Some 3DS games look really beautiful even with its small screen and limited graphical cabalities. And the most impotant thing about framerate is that it stays constant. Both 30 and 60 are fine as long as they don't drop midgame.

Good Games are all I really care about. That said I'd rather a game be locked at 30FPS than have wild dips and I'd appreciate the visuals being clear but I'd rather good draw distance.

60 is practically necessary. I run a Youtube channel recording footage of Mario Maker, and I used to record at 30fps, until someone mentioned it to me. Now, I've fixed it and only record in 60fps. It's a world of difference; Those old videos done in 30 fps are crap compared to the current videos with 60.

how about a little both k-dog

Make it 1080p60 (or 1080p30 - depending on the type of game 30 fps is just fine) and then take it from there. Make it as 'pretty' as possible while sticking to the framerate and resolution.
I know, normally it works the other way around, but this a chance for Nintendo to set itself apart

@Kroko Because the NX uses an NVidia GPU, apparently.

@yomanation Most fighting game players are fine with using 120hz monitors. If you're on a 60hz display it just halves the framerate. Right?
Right?

@edcomics You have to be joking in saying it looks "less real". WFT?

I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps, so don't care there. As long as the framerate is stable, anyway.

I'd rather they concentrate on great games than great graphics too.

I don't care about FPS, as long as the game is not 50 hz or 20 fps.

Graphics don't make games what they are. So long as they perform well, delivering enjoyable gameplay. Certain retro looking indie games are selling well for a reason.

@BulbasaurusRex That's a myth. People can tell the difference between both quite easily. Can't believe this went unnoticed for so long.

I'd rather have any stable framerate of 30 or above. For example, there's nothing worse than in a racing game having a stable performance for most of a track but if you turn a corner and the framerate drops because of what comes on the screen at that moment it's very annoying.

Highly depends on the game. I think all games benefit from having a higher receive and response time, but that also depends on the game too.

Honestly, graphics and frame-rate never did bother me growing up. I played a lot of games below the 30 FPS line for a long time (I remember running Half-Life and Deus Ex at sub 20) so I guess I'm used to it. I admire graphics of all kinds of games (unless they clash visually) so that doesn't bother me either.

But don't get me wrong, a low FPS can sometimes make games look a bit funny. An example would be Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice, a game I'm playing through right now. The animation work is gorgeous, and the models are very nice. However, the lower framerate often gives off the look that the game is skipping frames, barely keeping up the pace.

Since it's a visual novel, I suppose it can get away with a lower framerate, despite it even affecting the rate text is outputted on screen (and even skipping dialogue).

In the end of the day, I'll gladly have both a high framerate and a nice visual design. The Wii U had plenty of games where I feel both criteria were satisfied in my opinion.

Nintendo still has zero AAA studio so I don't see them taking the "exceptional graphics" path. And they're right. The AAA model isn't viable in the long run and destroy the people who make them.

Future proof the console, for at least four years.

Spend the money on the console and not the controller. ie,Gamepad, Price is not a big issue.

Don't compromise the consoles ability for the sake of £50/£100 saving. It's the games that sell the machine.

The same gamers will spend money on phones, tablets, Xboxes, PS's and laptops, they can afford an NX.

I want a clean image, with fluid movement.
1080p, 60fps, decent AA / filtering.

I don't care how technically demanding the game is, that's not what make game beautifull.

However image quality and framerate are very important.
Zelda Botw looks wonderfull, but at 20-30 fps, 720p and no AA I won't be able to appreciate to its fullest because thoses are technical issues caused by weak hardware that ruins an otherwise incredible artistic work.

Plus flickering and stuttery frame rate hurts your eyes and give headache

This argument is interesting as Nintendo's art lends well to 60fps.

If you look at games on other consoles, Halo 5 (PVP mode) for example, you can tell the art style has been sacrificed to hold the 60fps and is not very visually appealing.

I play a lot of Destiny which runs at 30fps but offers fantastic environments so either way there is a trade off.

Personally I would like the developers to be able to build the games to how they see fit and not be locked into either or.

Irrelevant.

I want great games. To what extent its fps matters changes per game type. Let developers create the best experiences they know how to make.

Stable framerate is what I want in all games, but fast paced games like action games or racing should really always aim for that 60FPS.

Though gameplay and soundtrack are both far more important.

They've basically already missed an ENTIRE generation of 3rd party games and even if the NX is as powerful as a PS4 they're in the same position as the Wii U was where it came out at the tail end of a generation of hardware. The next consoles Sony and Microsoft have on offer are coming and Nintendo will be behind again so aiming for highest end graphics is like a lost cause. Doubling down on performance is a fine trade off for not being the prettiest girl on the block ifyouknwwhatImean

@MarcelRguez Maybe it's an individual thing, like the ability to perceive stereoscopic 3D. Personally, anything running at least 30 FPS at any HD resolution all looks the same to me, and several of the other commenters have likewise said they can't tell the difference.

@crazyj2312 I haven't heard anything about Sony or Microsoft coming out with new consoles. It sounds like they're both willing to stretch out this generation by releasing hardware revisions in the interim. The NX might be on the market for a good two or three years before the competition moves on.

720p is a high enough resolution for a game to look great, as I barely notice any difference after that. As long as I can get a consistently decent framerate at 720p, that's good enough for me. Why so many people are obsessed with 4K is beyond me.

@BulbasaurusRex I can see why most people can't tell the difference by looking at someone playing it (either watching them online or watching them IRL) but if you play the same game at 30fps for a bit then up the fps to 60 you will see and feel the difference.

Higher fps not only makes the game smoother to play but a game running at 60fps will have less input lag to a game running at 30fps. Now I would rather a game run at a constqnt 30fps then a game that runs at 60 with constant dips.

@BulbasaurusRex There's a big difference between "I can't recognize differences in framerate" and "the human eye can't see past 30fps".

As far as graphics and power, even if they're not as powerful as PS4 or XBONE, we found out that there still can be many games out for it...as we found out during the Wii era, but most will not be as great. If the system has the same power of at least the XBONE and PS4, then nintendo can sit well, as they can have the 3rd parties on board, and get the same games as the others without getting sequels skipped and big titles skipped. As far as the nintendo games go, as long as they are their normal games and have the same fun factor, I don't care what they do with their own franchises!

As I've got older I've really started to struggle to play 30fps games, and I'm so annoyed as it never used to bother me.

Any time there is movement in a game I see a double image. From what I can tell from internet research it's because of a game being 30fps but the tv refresh rate being 60hz. It's not motion blur as it happened on my plasma tv and I see it on Mario Sunshine on my GC on a CRT TV. I never used to notice this, but it's making games almost unplayable now. For example, I'm playing Deus Ex on the Wii U at present and every time I turn I see these double images in the background and I can't stand it. And that's hardly what I call an 'action packed' event in a game. I wonder if something's happened to my brain as I've got older?!!!

If anybody has any info that will help me with this problem I'm all ears. It's really starting to impact my enjoyment of playing games.

Slow news day...

Games running under 60 fps are rarely noticeable, but Nintendo has never been known for top notch graphics. Tough choice...

@Nintendo_Ninja Guess you have never actually played a 60fps then

60 fps ALWAYS, they actually make the gameplay better. graphics are shinny yes, but they dont make the gameplay any better than it is right now

I would rather they focus on making games, lots and lots of games, instead of the vast spurts of droughts that happened with the Wii U.

I still don't get why people freak out over frame rate so much. You know movies? Those things in the popcorn stadiums? They tend to be 24 fps (though maybe that changed after the Hobbit movies - I don't know how it works any more). It was based on some... thing long ago, and it's what we're used to. Not to mention that in most cases, it's artistic. It's not real so it doesn't need to look like reality. So in most cases it looks great. Or we're just used to it or our eyes don't know the difference or whatever. Now imagine a game with a strong artistic design to it, especially one that takes place in a dream-like world. The best example I can think of is Shadow of the Colossus (sorry I'm too lazy to think of a Nintendo-related example). That game would look TERRIBLE at 60 fps because it would totally take away from the unique atmosphere of the game (and for all I know the HD version probably is 60 fps). So yeah, there are games that probably need to have a higher frame rate (racing games, sports, Call of Shootings, etc.), but on the other hand, too high of a frame rate can look weird and pull you out of the fantasy world in the same way the uncanny valley can. But people seem to think it's the most important thing in the world (or they think a high polygon count and lots of fancy modern effects is important), and to me that kind of sounds like someone saying "yeeeaahh... A Streetcar Named Desire is a good movie... but the frame rate is embarrassingly low and that means it's crap." Ugh. I'm done. Sorry.

@Aurumonado ''FPS is more important but graphics will get the third party ports which will sell the consoles.''

That's not really how it works.. You don't build a console with good ''graphics''. Resolution and framerate require computing power. A game in 1080p needs to render twice as many pixels as a game in 720p (twice the amount of rendering equals about a twice as powerful device). Same is true for framerate, 60 frames per second requires double the computing power of 30fps. It's a case by case issue for each game; Do we sacrifice some visuals for a higher framerate, or are we going to target the best visuals? How much can be rendered in a certain game at 720p at 60fps depends on the hardware for example. Even the Wii U could render 4K games at 60fps if it had a HDMI 2.0 output, it's just that those games can't have too many polygons and particle effects on screen.

@shaneoh I'd argue that a fair share of their games could use some proper AA, it's really noticeable at times.

@Braok nVidia GPU has been rumored, but at this point there is no way to tell if it is true.

I'd always choose a higher framerate over better graphics. It's about the gameplay. The higher the framerate, the more responsive the controls feel, the quicker and easier you can react to things. On the PC, I'll always turn down the graphics settings or lower the resolution to get a good framerate. It's easier on the eyes, too.

750 fps at least, otherwise it lags. Also, the resolution should be 4 K according to the modern standards. Anything worse, and the game itself is bad.

@yomanation After reading your first paragraph, I was about to reply the same that you said in the second. Couldn't agree more. It's hypocrisy at its best at times. And I know too that many people were impressed with the visuals of BOTW, or Mario Kart 8 a couple of years ago. I'd say it really does matter. Problem is that when I say that, people think I'm arguing that Nintendo should become like ''the evil third parties that sacrifice quality for resolution and framerates'' or whatever. It's something of recent years I think, can't remember any Nintendo gamer saying that during the N64 or GCN era, it might even have been the opposite at certain times. Just wished people said that they prefer Nintendo games more and not some ridiculous excuse like ''graphics/specs don't matter''. Cause at the end of they day, they do. I'm all for more immersive worlds in games, more complex AI, smoother gameplay, but I also wouldn't mind some better visuals, it's not always a choice, both are possible too. I've played plenty of new titles this year, and I can say that we've still got a long way to go, there's so much more room for improvement. Therefore, I'm thankful that the game developers and hardware developers are actually still moving forward and aren't stuck with the same ''specs don't matter'' mentality. Cause if that were true, we would still be playing 8-bit games.

120 FPS > 60 FPS. PC trumps console every time nowadays. Even if you spend $800+ on a good rig, you can recoup the costs later in awesome software sales bargains. With the 8th console generation, consoles have fallen by the wayside for me in this regard.

The difference is glaringly obvious to me between 30 and 60 FPS. There are some games with a cinematic feel to them, like Mass Effect, where I actually prefer locking at 30 FPS due to the slower, closer to 24 FPS rate of movie productions. (And because I grew up with some games like Perfect Dark on enforced slowdown ) For most games, though, it's 60 FPS minimum. Good frame rate trumps graphical fidelity, but sometimes compromises have to be made.

Also, I'd say fast loading times arguably is just as important, which NX will hopefully have covered. I know PC is better than consoles in that regard with their SSD's every time.

If Breath of the Wild on the NX has good drawn distance and other nice looking graphics, then I don't mind if it runs at a solid 30fps. Anything less would be absolutely unacceptable. 60fps would be sweet though.

It depends on the game. Fast paced games need to be in 60fps!

Nintendo Has proven (when need be) that they can produce beautiful graphics and 60 fps, eg: Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros, and produces extremely lovely graphics when speed/fluidity isn't as important, and BoTW will be one of these games.

@yomanation
Yes it is marginal, especially given what must be sacrificed to attain it.

If it was a matter of jumping from PS3 to PS4 graphics, that would be substantial. But numbers on paper have little meaning when you can physically look at a game and see negligible improvement.

I just want the games to look good. That said, I was plenty satisfied with the PS3 era when they weren't making everything look filthy to pull off realism.

@-SD- I'm with you there. Although hardware considerations are important, Nintendo need to overhaul their approach to game design and third party support, and their account system so that games are easy to transfer and access digitally.

They can get the hardware right, but that's just the first step. If the games aren't there, and new design philosophies aren't there, then it'll be a shame.

@CTMike When I first played Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast, that's when I knew it was possible to achieve exceptional fidelity combined with high frame rates. Of course, it was a 3D fighting game, not an RPG or open world game... Nevertheless, that's when I knew the bar had been raised.

Going to raise my pinky here a bit. I prefer to have 60fps because the current gen's idea of exceptional graphics usually involves low res textures requiring me to mod a number of my games on PC so they look better. Polygon count goes up but it seems like everyone is taking the easy way out on texture res which makes the game still look like mud. Art direction goes a long way and Nintendo is masterful at that. Think about how good WW still looks today. Not to mention the benefit of 60fps looking better (and keeping me headache free...yes I am sensitive to framerate drops).

Frames per second don't sell game big flashy realistic screenshots do

@yomanation Every frame counts with pro fighting game players. However, they usually play on CRT's when possible, since there's no image processing like with digital monitors and TV's, just an instant image projection. So they are usually confined to 60 FPS.

Pro players of every other genre, however.... Have no qualms with going for 120 Hz if their game supports it, especially in RTS and FPS.

And yeah, your points in your original post just underscores the divide between console and PC price-to-performance ratio that has developed with the 8th console generation. From the 2nd to 7th console generations, consoles consistently had a superior P-T-P ratio over PC. For years, PC's needed thousands of dollars invested into them to match or surpass consoles. With the 7th generation, that significantly lessened, but even the supposedly exorbitant $600 launch price PS3 beat most PC's P-T-P ratio of comparable gaming capability at the time. With the 8th generation, that all disappeared- the consoles were almost immediately obsoleted by slightly more expensive PC's, and only the Wii U offered something unique in exchange. With the upcoming PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio, this is only exacerbated by their lack of newer SSD support.

Hopefully, Nintendo will pick up the slack... Otherwise, it'll finally be time to abandon newer home consoles and go PC/retro.

@Yorumi Yeah, the project of BotW has evolved beyond the Wii U's scope. It's basically an NX game now, for all intents and purposes. Aonuma and his teams probably had to literally give up the world just to get that beast running on the now anemic Wii U.

Honestly, I don't get people who say framerate isn't a priority for them. A low framerate (especially if it'a unstable) strains my eyes and it's hard to play. Screen tearing has the same effect on me, so VSync and a high, stable FPS are very important (I can live with 30 FPS for some games if it's stable, but I prefer 60).

That's why I really find Sony and MS's hardware approach very unappealing this generation. They're tanking FPS for the sake of running extra effects and textures and hitting a resolution benchmark (or not, in the Xbone's case). And now they're doing the same thing with the "refreshes," avoiding a target of 1080p/60 FPS in favor of fake 4K. It's like they're making screenshot machines instead of consoles.

I would like to put a nail in the 60 FPS coffin. http://www.athleticarcade.com/athletics/reactiontime/

The human body does not work at 60 Hz. Athletes have to make predictions and make a statistical analysis of a situation and decide how to act prior to the moment. Controller latency is far more important to performance than 60 FPS.

@edcomics I agree. Unless it's a fast racer or a 3d world with wide views / and fast camera movements 60 fps is not needed.

But on fast games it must be 60fps (or as close as possible) for good control.

@RoomB31 yea they went hd in 2012

@kurtasbestos

"That game would look TERRIBLE at 60 fps because it would totally take away from the unique atmosphere of the game (and for all I know the HD version probably is 60 fps). So yeah, there are games that probably need to have a higher frame rate (racing games, sports, Call of Shootings, etc.), but on the other hand, too high of a frame rate can look weird and pull you out of the fantasy world in the same way the uncanny valley can. "

Wow... just wow... is this for real ?

@UK-Nintendo elaborate, not sure what you are implying?

@Kroko
It is a great system, with ironically no games. F zero GX can only keep you occupied for so long.

@Kroko
Higher framerate would mean that oddities in animations would stand out more. There would be more frames seen of the same animation, and there is more you can get away with at lower framerates.

You would need better talent, which costs more money.

And who limited the conversation to 3D games?

As long as it doesn't drop to less than 30fps, I'm good. between the two, my eyes are more sensitive (picky) to certain visuals than my muscle's reaction to movement.

Reminds me of the dilemma I had when I have to play PvZ: Garden Warfare 2. Adjust the setting to run well over 60fps but lower graphics, or better graphics but running at a least 30fps.

I'm still playing with the latter settings.

@RoomB31 beautiful graphics started only with the wii u

@UK-Nintendo So your definition is HD = beautiful Graphics, because Mario Galaxy would like to disagree with you.

@RoomB31 your right Mario kart wii is beautiful

Yes. Both isn't the easy option... It's the ONLY option.

@darth2d2 Everyone's eyes are different. I've noticed a stark difference between 30 and 60 FPS from a young age. In fact, I feel like certain games (like Mass Effect) actually appears TOO smoothly animated at 60 FPS for me. I prefer locking down at 30 FPS for certain games like that because the animation appears more natural to me. On the other hand, with other games like StarCraft II, going up to 120 FPS looks noticeably better than 60 FPS, and worlds apart from 30 FPS.

But again, that's just my eyes. Your mileage may vary.

@Faruko It is real for me, but only with certain games like Mass Effect.

@yomanation The expectations and scope of BotW have outgrown the Wii U hardware at this point, unfortunately. It may as well be an NX game at this point. If it were closer to a standard 3D Zelda, or even doing something a little different like Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, the Wii U could handle it. But it simply cannot handle the grand open world vision of BotW's current state, which aims to weave a beautiful tapestry of adventure while challenging the likes of The Elder Scrolls. (Which looks pretty ugly without mods on PC, honestly.)

As someone who has never had the pleasure of playing a game in 60FPS (my PC isn't the best of rigs and the only other home console I own is a Wii U), I would choose graphics over frames. 30FPS has always seemed solid to me, and when the games look gorgeous, take SM3DW for example, the fact that it's 30FPS isn't something that seems to cross my mind.

60FPS minimum for action, fighting, racing, rhythm/music/dancing, and sports. 30 for RPGs and slower-paced adventures is okay for me as long as the gameplay does not require frame-precise actions. That, and it had better be a "3DS-stable" locked framerate even after special effects filled with explosions, particles, and alpha effects!

Neither. I prefer great gameplay and a good story. If the game can do both with 30 fps and a good artstyle that fits the graphics than I think it will stand the test of time.

I'm sick and tired of seeing PS4 and Xbox try and get into a hardware race with PC. I really hope Nintendo doesn't follow them as well.

@yomanation I said most are willing to. And, as far as I know, many fighting game fams on PC do as it halves input lag in many situations.

@Kroko True, but if they have an NVidia GPU which seems very likely at this point, I doubt it will have Freesync support. Either way they probably won't have support for higher refresh rates or G-Sync

@Octane
Honestly, I don't notice.

@Yorumi I would be interested to see these studies. It is important to note that "muscle memory" is still tied to synaptic response times and is be definition still tied to the 100 millisecond limit. That time of 100 milliseconds is the time between your brain receiving the cue and the automatic electrical transmission, or "muscle memory", to your muscles which then contract in response.

The studies are probably errored in that they didn't control for video game experience. If some practices at 60 frames per second they may have trouble at 30 frames per second because their brain is tuned to a cue that happens at 60 that is skipped at 30. They may also have not controlled for controller latency. These seem like reasonable things to control for, but seeing as these are studies related to video games I have reservations about their quality. There just isn't a large enough body of research to produce reliable data.

Synapse response speed has however been researched quite a bit and has been measured by several independent sources and findings have had consistent results. We can now even measure the speed of synapse between two neurons. When applied to kinesthesic research it becomes obvious that while professional athletes have slightly faster synaptic response speeds their performance is largely due to practice and programmed reactions. A professional NHL goalie can't see the puck from a slap shot once it is in motion. They actual begin moving before the stick makes contact with the puck. Players of video games operate in the same behavior. They make inputs based on predicted opponent moves and cues.

Perception and preference of 60 fps is of course a subjective matter.

Im not sure about all the people here, but MOST of Nintendo games are 60fps lock because they know better frame rate produces much better gameplay, tighter controls and response, it feels MUCH better to play.

So suddenly everyone arguing that "frame rate is not important" seems like a real issue, Nintendo has always been applaud fortrying to stick to 60fps because it makes gameplay superior compared to most developers, they should keep doing it, 60fps IS the best way to play games (ok, 144hz, but thats another discussion lol)

I just dont get it, Mario Kart, Splatoon, Smash Bros, F-Zero, would not be the same with 30fps, and i hope Nintendo sticks to 60fps when possible

60FPS>30FPS in most cases, but I'm fine with 30 as long as the game is visually stunning. I would rather see a game with better textures, resolution, draw distance, etc and sacrifice some FPS as long as it's a stable 30 minimum.

I never had a console. PC always. But now that I heard nintendo might be 1080p60fps, my heart smiled.
This is the first console I ever considered buying and definitelly will if 60 fps turns out true.
I hope this is their bussiness strategy. There must be a lot of people that think like me.

And guys, 60fps is a minimum. It matters, if you dont' understand why just try it out.