Levelcap(gaming) explains why he does not play Planetside 2

At the beginning he explains loadout he uses (Planetside related) and progresses to talk about Planetside 2 before he gets back to BF4.

What do you think, do low graphics offer unfair advantage to high graphics? I certainly think so, i have no option but to play with low becouse my PC is shamefully outdated, but if i would have a choice... It would be harder to use high graphics.

Btw (off-topic, you have been warned), i am basically waiting until mid-late 2015 before i upgrade my PC due to money problems, i want a PC that can run Star Citizen, and at that time it should be clear what system can run it, if i would ugprade my PC to high end now, it would be mid to low end by the time Star Citizen comes out, and since i have money problems i can`t afford that. My Star Citizen PC on other hand should be able to run any games for next 3-5 years from it`s release becouse Star Citizen is all about pushing the limits.

Why do you think it does ?

I was always under the impression that he was only doing PS2 because he was being sponsored to participate in that ultimate showdown thingy.

And since His Wrelness provided much better and more in depth reviews, while LC mostly stuck to BF4, i stopped checking in on his channel within a month of being introduced to him.

Hm i remember the time when you could not see cloaked infis on low settings in some situations but you can see then no problem on high setting. Is that advantage for high settings players? You can't see shadows on low settings, but you can on high. List can go on and on both ways.

Anyhow people go for games that gets the views... Understandable (he runs tube channel and all).

As for me i'm still gonna play planetside for sole reason i love the game and every moment i spent playing it.

What he said

Isn't PS2 on PS4 locked at 30 fps?

Many Tube and Twitch channels stop playing PS2... And it's true that PS2 it's just a beta game and it stays on beta lag bug game till it dies.

Yes

AMD is doing some sort of deal where you get the game and a free AMD ship with starcitizen. If you are lucky, it may actually be optimized better for AMD hardware than Nvidia.

If you want to only play planetside 2, then just get Nvidia. I don't really support their proprietary BS, and buisness practices. But as a computer engineer, I would have to hand in my honor if I deny the facts that Planetside runs better with Nvidia. Or last I checked anyways...

Plus you get pretty particles and physics that people confuse for being impressive.

Then the only thing he's achieving is misinforming people.

It's not intentional, he is just ignorant of the fact. It was just confirmed only a few days ago and I doubt he's following Planetside 2 that closely these days.

Low graphics v. high graphics makes no sense as an argument point. They adjust the graphical quality of the game so that your computer can play it at the best speeds. There are some discrepancies between the two (apparently smoke was non-existent on some .ini settings at one point) but really the only difference is your FPS.

I don't think he put in enough time to look at the differences between the two settings (low and ultra). I have played on both and I can tell you that the only difference is that Ultra made the game prettier and that's it.

No shadows/foliage and lower detail/textures in general just make it a hell of a lot easier to see your targets. There's less "noise" and players are more clearly outlined.

On PC you are at a significant advantage if you turn your graphics down quite a bit.

Some low graphics settings obviously provide an advantage. For example particle density so your screen is less cluttered.
Same with flora quality so you can see things on the ground like mines.
Then there are other settings that you want to have. Like shadows, so you can see enemies that you would normally miss.
Render quality so targets at range are not just pixels, and render distance for obvious reasons.

Certain lowered settings on a high end PC provides an advantage.
Lowest settings because your PC is so bad that you can barely scape up enough FPS isnt an advantage, imo.
Most people would probably prefer 60 fps with everything maxed, rather than barely having 60 fps with everything on lowest.

I had a bunch of PS2 YouTubers that i had bookmarked, LevelCap among them, excitedly checking every day for new PS2 video's. As LevelCap did more and more BF stuff, i deleted the bookmark and stopped checking his video's.
Nothing against LC, but i dont play BF.

-Less particles that obstruct your view when you fire your weapon
-Brighter nights
-Less vegetation that blocks the view of targets

And of course, better fps. With that said; if I could play on higher settings without an absurd amount of stuttering I would.

This.

As someone who has played on lowest settings to maintain ~15-20 FPS over the past 2 years, cranking EVERYTHING to the lowest possible values is not an advantage. Infiltrators are still difficult to see, and players are "fuzzy" past certain ranges. Seeing what the game looks like on my screen, and what it looks like on a YouTuber's video with their graphics cranked up is like looking at two different games.

You simply would not want to play with my settings.

Never said it was intentional. The fact is, a lot of what he said is either untrue or arguable, hence my previous post.

Yes, certain lowered settings provide an advantage. Get rid of foliage for a clearer shot, dump shadows because they're distracting, lower texture quality to make infantry easier to spot, etc. That being said I play with everything turned up because it's pretty and I want to.

By the way, do you ever watch Starcraft 2 tournaments? The observer keeps all the settings turned up but sometimes they show the player views, and those pro SC2 players use potato settings to play.

I had the same situation Dev with performance. I don't blame SoE at all. I know my Rig just wasn't up to par with the recommended specs by the Devs. Trying to build a new one with intel/Nvidia componets in mind to improve the situation with performance.

It is, he should get his facts straight first, cant listen to his commenting to be honest.
He either does not care or is misinformed.

If you simply look at how much PS4 costs, you can get the idea of the performance.

PS4's strength is in its simplicity of use, mobility, comfort.
I am growing tired of PC's demanding knowledge of use and research, benchmarks and what not.

Still, cant beat a PC for its versatility (video editing, Microsoft word, cnc programing, excel etc,..)