This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do ultra and high graphics even matter?

#1ORANGE666Posted 7/22/2014 3:00:04 PM
To the average PC user, not enthusiast.

Give me a game and ask me what settings I think its at. I would not be able to tell. The difference between ultra and medium isn't that big for most games, I wouldn't notice unless I saw comparisons side by side.

The biggest difference maker I notice is aliasing. Jagged edges always stick out to me.

I've talked to other average pc users, and they say the same thing. Some even think ps2 remasters on the PS3 look better than games like Uncharted because the ps2 remasters like Kingdom Hearts are so smooth compared to aliased ps3 games.

My point is that for the average gamer, AA makes the biggest difference. Yet all I see is console developers pushing textures and details, when casuals only notice edges.
---
I am a Nintendo Fanboy and let me tell you, being a Drone is actually a great thing.
We have beautiful people and we have ugly people. just like other fanboys
#2soccerj75Posted 7/22/2014 3:02:09 PM
Anti-Aliasing= Useless at 1080p.
#3cody4783Posted 7/22/2014 3:03:30 PM
See, I could argue the opposite. When running at native resolution, the difference switching to High/Ultra graphics is far more significant than turning on AA to smooth out jagged edges.

AA is, IMO, one of the least noticeable graphics settings, especially after basic 2/4x, and when considering the processing power they require. It's a nice touch when you can already max the rest of the settings, but it's far from the first thing I look for, and I've never sacrificed other settings for it.
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/zgyKBAY.jpg
#4ORANGE666(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2014 3:03:31 PM
Forgot to say that Lighting also makes a big difference, a lot of people seem to like heavy glare and ambient lighting
---
I am a Nintendo Fanboy and let me tell you, being a Drone is actually a great thing.
We have beautiful people and we have ugly people. just like other fanboys
#5ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 3:05:18 PM(edited)
Shadows are one of the easiest ways to tell what settings are being used; that along with tesselation, reflections, AA, AO... and texture settings.

If you think textures don't make a difference you might be blind... Having good textures makes games look much better.

I'd have to agree with Cody, AA is prob the least noticeable effect especially when playing at higher resolutions, while texture and lighting are the easiest to notice changes to.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#6Lemur_HPosted 7/22/2014 3:05:41 PM
Anti-aliasing is a waste of power if you're playing at a fair distance from the TV on the couch.
#7cody4783Posted 7/22/2014 3:10:00 PM(edited)
Clouddx posted...
Shadows are one of the easiest ways to tell what settings are being used; that along with tesselation, reflections, AA, AO... and texture settings.

Absolutely agree on Shadows...Reminds me of GTA IV and how basically everyone with weaker systems recommended or said they turned the shadows OFF to improve performance. It was like, the one thing I couldn't give up; I'd turn down most other things to save having some sort of shadows, because it was just eery without them.

Textures, lighting effects, reflections (Oh god, reflections...) are all, generally speaking, immediately noticeable from moderate to high-end settings. If the textures look like butts, then smoothing out the edges of them with AA isn't going to do much good. :\


There are only a few instances where I've actually noticed the "lack" of AA being bothersome while playing. At most, it's something I'd see while staring at a still screenshot for more than a few seconds. But it's hardly noticeable in-motion for most games.
---
PC: http://i.imgur.com/zgyKBAY.jpg
#8MaximoomPosted 7/22/2014 3:11:30 PM
When I had GTS 250 (until last year) I could play games at max settings for everything if I just turned AA off (and ubersampling for witcher 2).

Now with a GTX 760 I just let everyting on max. Witcher 3 will most likely be the first game that will make me set AA down again.
---
Asus P8H61-MLE/BR | i5 3470 3.2Ghz | Zotac GTX 760 2GB | 8GB DDR3-1333 | 1TB HDD | C3TEC 500Rve 500W Bronze | Samsung 32" LCD 1080p.
#9johnny_payPosted 7/22/2014 3:12:03 PM
most of the time the difference between high and ultra is draw distance and aa. assassins creed 4 and battlefield 4 are good examples. look at screenshots of high and ultra and you will see things being rendered further in the distance on ultra compared to high.
#10foodeater4Posted 7/22/2014 3:44:07 PM(edited)
I don't think textures matter all the time. It depends on the game. If its a slower paces RPG game where you might be doing a lot of looking around and exploring I Want it nice. But other games likes shooters and stuff you might not be focusing on the environment as much so if they have some dumpier ones thrown in there its not as noticeable.

I more like settings that increase immersion IMO. Shadows are a must. I hate running around in a game and theres no shadows made by anything or even my own character is not projecting a shadow if appropriate for the scene.

After that draw distance is the biggest one for me. I want to see everything. I want to see as far as I can in real life assuming the weather is good in the game that would allow that. Nothing stinks for then artificial fog.

I like nice lighting and all that junk.

standard AA is no big deal, if you don't use it you really hardly miss it. Some of the more advanced AA settings coming out though look pretty awesome if you can handle them.