Lower rez or diminished effects with higher rez
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
!
Thats what I try and do (commerical reality rarely gives me that much freedom
). I try and get everything except the 'special' stuff working at 1024x768 on a high-end video, have a few 'special' features for next-gen cards (they can also use AA, higher res) and make sure it runs well at 640x480 for those with crap video cards.
My research is stuck at 640x480 at the moment but as research its meant to be slow
Himself said:Give me the goods, I want all the features being used all the time, if I can't run it with 6X FSAA so be it. I would say that 1024x768 would be my lowest resolution I would ever want to use, people do own large monitors you know.
Basically, put all you want into it to make it look the best you can, then make it as fast as you can and wait for the hardware to catch up, from there you can put in a dumbed down version on the CD for sales. I want lots of visible detail on the screen, the more the better, I can make it look better with ansio or FSAA at my leisure, hardware willing. If you cut features for the low end then you are evil, make the break today not tomorrow, full steam ahead, go! go! go!
Thats what I try and do (commerical reality rarely gives me that much freedom
). I try and get everything except the 'special' stuff working at 1024x768 on a high-end video, have a few 'special' features for next-gen cards (they can also use AA, higher res) and make sure it runs well at 640x480 for those with crap video cards.My research is stuck at 640x480 at the moment but as research its meant to be slow
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Just to throw in my $0.02...
I'm in agreement with the 1024x768 minimum crowd. Based on my own monitor size (19"), that's really the lowest resolution I will "tolerate". I will turn off features (including AA if need be), in order to get playable at that resolution.
At that point, it's really just subjective, and it depends entirely on the feature itself on whether or not I'd rather go higher than 1024, or stay at 1024 with the feature.
I'm in agreement with the 1024x768 minimum crowd. Based on my own monitor size (19"), that's really the lowest resolution I will "tolerate". I will turn off features (including AA if need be), in order to get playable at that resolution.
At that point, it's really just subjective, and it depends entirely on the feature itself on whether or not I'd rather go higher than 1024, or stay at 1024 with the feature.
i supose i should add that after 800x600 comes all the eyecandy in the game but then i will increase the resolution to at least 1024x768 before applying any aa or af. acutaly 1152x864 is the point the pixels stop standing out on my 21" and i will sacrifce a little aa and af for that resolution or better if i have the headroom avalable.
deviantchild
Regular
i don't find 'jaggies' particularly acceptable at any res in this day and age
with a decent AA with support for alpha textures that had no performance impact in itself, turning down even as low as 640x480 would be a preferred solution to switching off any fx in my book
as was said by others previously, my next monitor won't be so large as to enable me to use resolutions that my next gfx card won't be able to perform at
with a decent AA with support for alpha textures that had no performance impact in itself, turning down even as low as 640x480 would be a preferred solution to switching off any fx in my book
as was said by others previously, my next monitor won't be so large as to enable me to use resolutions that my next gfx card won't be able to perform at
MatrixShark
Newcomer
I like to have roughly enough computer "power" to run current games at 800X600 with 4XFSAA and 8XAF. As things slow down and games advance, I tend to begin upgrading my system bottlenecks.
Similar threads
