Graphics, Looks vs Performance, who are you?

I said I see the shadow in the floor infront of me when they are behind me... work on your reading compression kid.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I was expecting a diagram to be honest

Not sure how misreading makes me a kid

If i see a shadow on the ground and know where the sun is, i can blast the LA, ESF, Lib a few bullets, flak shells, lockon rockets or tank Shells in the face. if i havn't, i can't.

I was a graphics guy before I experienced 120hz gaming

But if you run around Buildings/Biolabs, the extra shadow can actually help conceal and make targets less visible to you.

Maybe if your blind.

Less visible <-> Undetectable

There is a big difference between the two, something anyone who has played more than 2 hours of FPS games should know by now

Camo doesn't make you invisible IRL but they still use it, simply because it reduces the probability of being noticed.

lol i am the first guy. i got crysis 3 last month and was like "hm, not sure what will happen to my 650ti if i put everything maxed out (not including AA mostly)?"

so i did and to my surprise, the game ran fine, (mostly) above 30fps, and higher indoors, and i can live with that, especially in a SP game, although higher frames are always good.


and since OMFG i just put everything from high to ultra because i can , i usually got 30-70 frames on average, and in between those numbers in fights.

although physx drops my frames like a bowling ball in PS2 sometimes, so i leave it off. the only other game where i keep physx on fully is batman AC, lovin dat wind effects lol

Performance, although it depends on the game. If it's a fast paced multiplayer FPS, I generally go with what gets me 60+. Slower paced games and single player and I generally go 30-40+. I hate dips below 30. I will sacrifice the crap out of settings to stay above 30.

Since the OMFG patch, I've actually settled upon increasing the crap out of graphics while still staying above, say, 25-30. I'm sorry, while I would sacrifice shadows pre patch, they look too good. And I only really need them off when i get a 100+ person battle anyway, so...yeah. I'll keep them on until it gets choppy and turn them off for the duration of the battle.

I'm definitely the former. If I weren't, then I'd be playing Battlezone from the 1980s.

That's what BF4 does so well. Regardless of gamers settings, they will mostly get the same terrain. DICE did this intentionally so that gamers couldn't "game the system" by adjusting their graphics settings to remove elements like tall grass from the terrain.

SOE would do well to learn this, as well as other things, from BF4's developers.

i have the graphics as high as possible BUT as clear as possible
so i have a mixed ultra/high/low in PS2

what i hate in games is unnecessary fog and glare - i do whatever i can to get rid of that so in ps2 i have "graphics quality" set to low and just about everything else on ultra or high

theres no point blinding me with glare and also making it hard to see in the distance with unnecessary fog - it doesnt make the game any more fun

There is too much fog bloom glare on "Graphic Quality: High", so I run Graphic Quality Medium.
I use Ultra textures, No shadows, No Flora, everything else on high.
Makes a clear and decent looking game.

I do not like the flora in this game, it pops in about 65m out as you walk, it looks bad having things pop in out of nowhere.
I do not like shadows, the cycle time on the animation is too short, it is repetitive, and not smooth on cycle restart, it looks bad.

My graphics card say it for me... I play it the way it's meant to be played.. Ultra settings + max FPS

when I lower the settings, I may see the enemy a bit better, it's less foggy, I can actually see against the sunset/sunrise glare.. But the FPS stays exactly the same (when FPS drops come, it just goes down to 5-10 FPS regardless of graphics being on lowest or ultra, such is the optimization) And it feels like I'm sort of cheating.. If I wanted the game to be easier, I wouldn't be playing NC in the first place.

+ The game looks absolutely fabulous on ultra settings

So yeah, graphics all the way. I don't raise my competitiveness by cheap lowering of my settings, but rather by improving my skills.

what if i don't go into Biolabs unless i have to? i like my battles like my sex: indoor>outdoor>lab

Maxing out the in game settings is rarely enough. I go into the video card driver settings and max them out as well. If the game is modable and the possibility exists to install extreme high texture packs they go in as well (plus all the ones that make people naked). Anything and everything to make the game look and sound as real as possible...and if you vote for me I'll use my presidential veto power to unilaterally stop all console development and make owning them punishable by making you eat the console while it is still warm.

Thank you.

I like to reach a compromise. I like to have my graphics as high as possible without dropping below 40fps.

I love the eye candy for singleplayer and maybe the first 2-3 hours of a multiplayer game. After that it's pure performance, everything distracting off or on minimum settings I don't need screen filling explosions and particle effects as I don't need music or ambient sound. If I could I would play ps2 as I played Q3, almost no textures, high gamma, hyper simple objects, large fov, no drawn weapon, minimal effects, default models for friendlies and foes and just a centered dot for aiming

I find ultra graphic settings don't make the spawn screen look any better.

I have it all turned up now... except NO flora. I don't need that ridiculous trash cluttering up the ground in front of me. If they bring back GPU particles, I'd probably leave that off. They were a bit too much and gaudy looking for my liking.

I tried settings that get rid of the "air quality/smog" problem in PS2 especially when you're flying, but it just looked far too artificial for me.