Sacrificing visuals and graphics in favor of gameplay and smoothness.

[ShadowTiger]

I remember way, way long ago, back when I was going to be playing Half Life 1 for the first time on my old potato of a Pentium II PC, and I was concerned about frame-rates and lag. We were always super-frugal and slow to get new technology and computer hardware. I set all of the graphics to the lowest, and the resolution to 320x200 (That is not a typo!) and I have to say, 60 frames per second had never felt soooo gooood. She sheer fluidity of the gameplay was more satisfying than the loss of visual excellence's drain on my gaming experience.

Plus, I will also allude back to those old RPG games that were basically pixels. Ultima 3, Dwarf Fortress, etc, really didn't have that much in the way of graphics. But we played them anyway, and appreciated what we had. Where we played, we replaced bad graphics with "representational" graphics in our mind, and it was sufficient.

I will dare to say that we're still capable of doing this even today. I can count on one hand the number of times I looked at a game's graphics and said "Holy cow, these are breathtaking..." - And if I did, the notion was likely fleeting because I was there to play a game and immerse myself in the gameplay, not necessarily in the perfect visuals. After all, what is a game without its gameplay? It's just a movie, or, worse, a slideshow.

What do you think? Are you able to wrest your mind from the restraints of beautiful graphics to experience what a game has to offer without its beautiful graphics?

 

[Ryzengang]

I chose the "Graphics are important.." option. Maintaining FPS is critical, but I want the game to look good. I think balance is what most gamer's want, I'd think. 1440p is still the sweet spot, and if you care about FPS, the "4k gaming is here" is largely not true. Theoretically, I'm probably more in the "Crank the settings" category, but from a pragmatic standpoint that just isn't reasonable to me. To get acceptable FPS, there certain games where some visual qualities will have to be reduced.

Ultimately, though, how important the visuals are depending on the game. In games like The Witcher 3 and other similar open world games, the beauty of the game world actually matters a lot to me. I will often take it slow and appreciate things. However, in games such as, say, Doom Eternal, visuals matter less. Like, I enjoy how Doom Eternal looks, but at the end of the day I'm mostly running around like a mad men ripping demons apart. In such an instance, graphics begin to fade in to background a lot more. Or a game like Risk of Rain 2 that looks like utter trash but is tremendously fun so it doesn't matter. So, I think it depends on the game for me. All things being equal, I want the best of both worlds if possible: great performance and great visuals.

 

[DXCHASE]

I chose a nice balance but i wanted to choose wait until i can push it to its max, but i think most pc gamers want to do that in some sort of a way but that depends a lot on money imo.

I have a 4k tv but only a 1080 gpu so when i play on my tv i have no problem in dropping it to 1440 or 1080p for a more stable/higher fps game (i play older older games in 4k if i can). Or, i have no problem playing games with low settings in 4k to reach 60 fps because im sitting on a couch like 4 feet away anyways, the high graphic settings are way less noticeable sitting that far away to me (but i know deep down inside that even on lower settings its still better looking than a console )

 

[Sarafan]

It depends on the game in my case. I don't mind playing pixelated games as long as they were designed this way. In other games I often try to maximize the settings while keeping fps at least above 30. Sometimes I lower a setting or two to get a stable 60 fps if the counter is close to this value. I never play a game on the lowest settings however. It's been a while since I had to lower them to this extent, but if it happens I'll probably wait for a better hardware.

 

[Frindis]

It depends on the game in my case. I don't mind playing pixelated games as long as they were designed this way. In other games I often try to maximize the settings while keeping fps at least above 30.

Pretty much the same here.

 

[ZedClampet]

I remember way, way long ago, back when I was going to be playing Half Life 1 for the first time on my old potato of a Pentium II PC, and I was concerned about frame-rates and lag. We were always super-frugal and slow to get new technology and computer hardware. I set all of the graphics to the lowest, and the resolution to 320x200 (That is not a typo!) and I have to say, 60 frames per second had never felt soooo gooood. She sheer fluidity of the gameplay was more satisfying than the loss of visual excellence's drain on my gaming experience.

Plus, I will also allude back to those old RPG games that were basically pixels. Ultima 3, Dwarf Fortress, etc, really didn't have that much in the way of graphics. But we played them anyway, and appreciated what we had. Where we played, we replaced bad graphics with "representational" graphics in our mind, and it was sufficient.

I will dare to say that we're still capable of doing this even today. I can count on one hand the number of times I looked at a game's graphics and said "Holy cow, these are breathtaking..." - And if I did, the notion was likely fleeting because I was there to play a game and immerse myself in the gameplay, not necessarily in the perfect visuals. After all, what is a game without its gameplay? It's just a movie, or, worse, a slideshow.

What do you think? Are you able to wrest your mind from the restraints of beautiful graphics to experience what a game has to offer without its beautiful graphics?

I'd rather play a game as beautiful as it can be if possible. I play games with mediocre to bad graphics all the time. However, I started playing video games before Atari, so today's near photorealistic graphics have always been the dream for me, so if the game is capable of great graphics, I crank them up as much as I can while still keeping at least 45 fps. Again, though, I don't mind playing games with lesser graphics, as I rarely play AAA games anyway. I can't even remember the name of the last AAA game I played. It was some horror game with QTE's.

Edit: It was Man of Medan.

 

[Zloth]

Yep, maintaining a decent framerate is important. And, by decent, I mean at least 30fps. Maybe a bit less for turn based games. Much past 40 and I'm looking for more eye candy to turn on. (Highly twitchy shooters can need as much as 60.)

Not only do I crank up the graphics, sometimes I'll crank them up twice by using 3D Vision. And, when something impressive comes around, I'll stop playing and take screenshots which I will then sort into folders and look at years later.

 

[Pifanjr]

I chose the balance option, especially because when you put everything on the lowest settings, it usually starts affecting gameplay as well. Especially in open world games when you reduce draw distance.

Even if you can leave the draw distance at max though, I want the game to look at least somewhat like it was meant to.

That being said, I don't care if a game is designed with minimalist graphics. I've been mostly playing Angband with the ASCII graphics lately and that isn't a problem for me at all.

 

[Dakkon]

Depends on what you want.
I was never a ''graphics first'' guy.
Don't get me wrong I like me some eye candy now and then and it is what draws me in at first.
But a nothing beats a good story imho. Not even gameplay.
Let me bother you again with the best game I ever played. Planescape: Torment.
It's done in Infinity engine as were most Black Isle crpgs at that time. Combat is kinda meh if you're playing a warrior. It's usually auto attack and cast spells until you're done.
But the story is magnificent and it holds everything together.

 

[Sarafan]

Let me bother you again with the best game I ever played. Planescape: Torment.
It's done in Infinity engine as were most Black Isle crpgs at that time.

On the side note, PT is based on Infinity Engine, but it looks a lot better than other IE games. The engine was quite heavily modified for this game. But graphics is the last thing when it comes to this game.

 

[ROFbeddingfield]

I have watched alot of video card comparison videos on youtube in the last week. So many times that the the 1660 super wont in the FPS and frame refresh contest, but the slightly slower 5500xt or even rx 580 had better LOOKING GRAPHICS.

Id rather have the graphics that look better to my eyes, then the winning card with winning frame rate that has graphics that are excessively bright to me.

 

[SBan83]

Depends on the game. Fast-paced online shooter or racing game - definitely prioritizing 60 fps minimum. Something like Cyberpunk where it's as much about taking in the world as the activities you do in it, I'd be okay with occasional drops in fps in busy areas, etc.

 

[Zloth]

Answer me this , can anyone honestly say they can actually see the difference between 80fps and an 100 fps.

It matters. This has been shown pretty conclusively when you're talking about shooters where you have a very small window of time to point and click. HOWEVER, you've first got to get your skill level up to a point where you are only missing the window by a fraction of a second.

I wonder if these shooters would ever put a framerate cap in? Fighting games do that all the time.

 

[ceaRshaf]

I would be lying if I would say I don't look at visuals first. Also, good visuals have a better chance of hiding design flaws behind theme.

 

[Johnway]

When it comes to competitive PvP back in the day, running games at the lowest level spec was expected and recommended. Thankfully with decent internet connections we don't need to sacrifice that much if at all. That said, being a try hard i would consider reducing all the settings to low so that i can play better sometimes. So strip out all the lighting, increase the gamma so no one can hide in the shadows, reduce the details to their bare essential flat polygon shapes etc to squeeze that much more frame rates. i remember doing that for Bad company 2 and Battlefield 3.

I did try that in Planetside 2 as well, until i realized prior to patching cloaked infiltrators were literally invisible as it got rid of the shimmering effect of a cloaked infiltrator. So i upped the model details to medium.

haven't played any PvP like games since then.

But what about single player games? Honestly more a last resort. As a bit of a graphics whore i want to play the best games with the best detail possible. but it really depends on the game and how desperate i am to play a game. if i have to run it on the lowest settings, so be it. but if it comes to that point, the writing is on the wall, should be looking to building a new pc or upgrading.