I only play single player campaings exclusively, I only buy games based on the campaign, I never play multiplayer, not one.
Does high framerate really make for better gameplay in a campaign? Is 120fps noticable over 60?
I play on 60Hz now at ultra. Is 120fps Cyberpunk really a better experience than 60fps Cyberpunk?
You must log in or # to comment.
I think it’s mostly personal preference. I play at 144hz but my GPU is older so my frame rate varies. I don’t even notice anything unless the frame rate drops below 75, but I have terrible vision so, again depends on the person.
Depends on the game, in DOOM and Ghostrunner it’s very noticeable.
I don’t know Ghostrunner but I could seen it being beneficial in DOOM, although I don’t own it.
It would be noticable for sure. Better? That’s kind of subjective for SP. It’s only objectively better in MP where reaction time is crucial, since you’ll have less visual latency thus giving you an advantage in reaction time.
I hate not being able to read text with a scrolling screen, it gets blurry, messes with my eyes.
100+hz solves this
it mostly makes a difference for fast moving action
like doom or whatever
i wouldn’t say cyberpunk is “fast moving” but … i mean, high frame rates are always better, IMO.
I prefer it, and recently got me some 165 Hz monitors. they’ve been great.
i also mostly play singleplayer games. the multiplayer games i do play, are co-op. like diablo.
I play to buy one of the next gen graphics cards that can do 4K raytracing and then I will buy something that does 4K 120Hz. I play on HTPC with TV, not at a desk with a monitor.
I would like to buy RDNA4, RX 8000 series, but I suspect that I will have to buy a 50 card.
I wish all or most games used Vulkan like Doom Eternal for the great performance.
If you have a >60 monitor then yes imo. Ultra is almost never worth it at the vost og smoothness. A game running at >100 fps at high to me always looks better than 60fps at ultra
I don’t buy new releases every years, so everything is on ultra since it’s not a recent release.
I’d say that there’s a decent difference between 60 and 100 fps, especially if it has occasional drops lower. I always adjust settings to try to get around 100 fps. Going from 100 to 120 or 144 isn’t as noticable though, especially in single player.
You don’t demand at least 250fps for Wolfenstein? I’m messing with you
TLDR: it won’t affect the gameplay. It is a noticeable upgrade but probably not as much as having higher graphics, what you prioritize is up to you but you won’t really notice it is at 60 if you haven’t played at 144 before.
Better gameplay? No definitely not, even for shooters unless you are at a really high skill level it is extremely improvablebit actually affects youe skill if thr frames are consistent.
It is notable, in the sense that if you play at 144 fps when you go back to 60 fps you can feel yhe difference, but after a few hours you stop noticing it. The most important thing is consistentcy, as long as you have no frame drops you will be so focused on the game that it being lower frames is irrelevant. And you will (probably) need to lower the graphics to run cyberpunk at 144 and it will be more noticeable than the frames, especially if you don’t play at 144 before. It is of course nice to play at 144, but at the end of the day it is a matter of personal preference on single player games if you go for frames or graphics.
It definitely makes a difference in fast paced games like Doom.
Make a difference how? Because he asked if it makes for better gameplay, which I interpreted as an advantage in game (ex. Reaction time) instead of how smooth it feels, which for advantage it really shouldn’t matter for a singleplayer game that doesn’t require to be milliseconds faster than the oponent and isn’t designed with such minute differenses, unlike csgo. Because of that it really doesn’t make a difference gameplay wise.
But if it’s about how it feels, I agree that they feel different, once you go back to 60 it feels less fluid, but it won’t really change your results in game. And that difference is only noticeable once you play at 144 so it isn’t necessary recommendedable to spend a lot of money in a new monitor.
But at the end of the day, it is about personal preference if you are going for graphics on ultra or 144hz/fps and graphics on high as it’s a difference on how the game feels, the best thing is to go to a hardware store and ask if you can test a monitor or see if a friend has one to see if the difference on feeling for the fps is worth the money for the new monitor
It’s eye candy, it’s more enjoyable to play. Will it make you a better player? Debatable, probably not really, but it’s still fun and looks amazing.
I full recognize the need for high framerate in multiplayer for faster response timing, but I’m not convinced that 144hz will make campaigns a significantly better experience.
I plan at some point to buy 4K 120hz to try it, I’m trying to understand how much framerate matters for singleplayer since the entire game is played locally on the machine.
I don’t own Cyberpunk, I use that as an example of of a Songle player only, no online play. I can’t imagine 144fps Cyberpunk is a big deal on high graphics.
Even moving the mouse and windows around and scrolling is more enjoyable on 120Hz. Yes, it makes single player games a better experience as well.
But you’re right, you get used to lower refresh rate as well.
I thought it was something like this.
Personally I wouldnt recommend it due to the massive price difference between 4k 60 and 4k 144, as I said it is not something you notice unless you already play at 144fps which makes going back to 60 a bad experience. It is not something that results in a significantly better experience in that sense, sure playing at 144 is nice, but it is not something you notice as much as having better graphics (again, this is subjective, I personally have an 144hz monitor but I do play a lot of multiplayer games, and even then sometimes I play at 60 fps if it means significantly better graphics on single player games)
The best possible thing you could do is go to a hardware store that has monitors on display or ask if you can try it and see for yourself the difference and if its worth it, but as an abstract idea without knowing you personally I would recommend going for a 60 hz monitor, especially since you could allocate that difference in money to other parts of your build or peripherals.
And even if you were to decide to play multiplayer, believe me the difference is response timing is not that big and once you get accustomed to it your brain kind of gets used and starts predicting things geared towards that framerate, neglecting some of the advantage of higher framerates, I believe this idea was on a Linus Tech Tips video a few years back they did with Shroud, dont know how true it was but its out there if you are interested.
I already have the build that I want, I’m not building anything for years, except a video card that does 4K. In 2 years I’ll look at a 4K graphics card and then a screen to match.
I despise multiplayer because I want to play one game for 3 hours and continues progress through the game over the course of those 3 hours and never play a speific area twice.
The only stuff like capture the flag or deathmatch i say is trash garbage recycling a game every 15 minutes. Or CS:GO terrorist vs anti-terrorist, is the exact same game played over and over and over in a different place. Multiplayer is a constant repeat cycle, I find it pointless, a waste of time.
I have no interest in trying to beat other people, I play for the entertainment value and enjoy the characters and writing.
Linus tech tips did an experiment to see if 144hz over 60hz objectively made a difference. It absolutely does. Any game where you use your reflexes, it will help.
The typical human reaction time to visual stimulus is ~250 milliseconds. On a 60hz screen you need to wait 17ms for the frame to appear, then 250ms before you’re able to react. 267ms total. Switch to a 144hz screen and you only need to wait 7ms for the frame to appear, then 250ms to react. 257ms total. I’m sure that 10ms saving makes a huge difference…
Do you not have experience playing on both?
I made the jump from 60hz to 144hz a year or so ago, and more recently from 1080p 144hz to 1440p 165hz.
Refresh rate wise, it was night and day.
It felt way more responsive and just all around looked better imo.
Edit: I will mention that if you don’t have a gpu capable of pushing consistent frames that high in your choice of games, it is 100% not worth it.
What singple player campaigns have you noticed a signficant difference in response time when pkaying at 144fps? Only campaign, I never ever play online multiplayer.
I can’t do high framerate now, but for next gen in 2 years I want to buy a 4K card.
I exclusively play single player titles.
I feel like the increased frame rates helped with my response times in combat on God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn. If you play games with lock-on targeting you’ll notice it a lot less, but it feels like it’s helped with my tracking a good bit. Could be me perceiving it that way due to the game “appearing” to run smoother.
The faster paced the game is, the more of a difference you’re going to notice. For me it’s a hard preference now, but it’s hard to recommend to someone that hasn’t tried it for themselves, especially if you don’t currently have the hardware to fully utilize it.
Personally, it’s smoother and more enjoyable sure but it’s not the end all be all, like I’ve had more fun playing Diablo 4 on my steam deck at 40 fps than on my desktop at 144 fps.
If your monitor already supports it you could A/B test at like 720p if you prefer 120 medium settings or 60 high to see what you value more
It sounds like it’s a subjective issue and there isn’t a strong objective way to measure it in single player campagns.
