do you think graphics settings can effect ingame play performance? (score or k/d)

[Kazoo]

there's theory number one, which the majority will most likely side with;
it's just going to make the game more or less pretty; it wont have an effect on your score.

there's the purist theory;
excluding resolution (higher being generally better in any case), high graphics settings add extra variables and details to the environment, creating a higher difficulty for your mind's eye to coordinate and calculate what's going on in front of you; therefore lower graphics settings simplify what you see, allowing you to get more headshots / quicker reaction time / etc. this argument may hold water, when you throw a gillie suit into the equation; on high graphics you might mistake the gillie for a shrub and get pwned, whereas the lower graphics settings user might more easily be able to point out and quickly kill the sneaky sniper.

there's the performance enthusiast theory;
the higher detail graphics you play at, the better you will perform. (again, frame rate and resolution are not a part of the equation, simply because both of those things, the higher, the better. period.) these performance enthusiasts would argue that, because their graphics are optimized, they have more detail, and therefore can see every thing much clearer. maybe they would argue that they could more easily detect enemies, or simply due to the fact that it looks better, they are going to perform better, in some way.





~~~~ i would like as many opinions as i can get, regarding this. what do you think? if you know any professional or otherwise competitive gamers, what graphical settings do they likely play at, and why might that be? is there ANY body that has a high-end system, but refuses to use the maximum graphical settings, due to the "purist" approach to FPS gaming? is this all a bunch of garbage, and every one should just play at the highest settings they can?

opinions, please!

[jango]

First of all hi Kazoo .. please take some time to read our forum rules. I've moved this thread to the correct forum btw, as this isn't specific to 'shooters'.

Now to your post ..

For me excellent graphics are a nice bonus, but gameplay comes first. It's nice if a game looks awesome etc, but if it plays badly because you have a high level of AA or whatever on (and would be just fine with a lower setting or none) then it becomes pointless.

Getting the right balance is obviously the solution, which I know most gamers aim for. For me personally I find people who are 'too' focused on graphics tend to play games as observers rather than what I would term as an 'active gamer' .. it's a game, not a movie - posturing over being able to run the best game on ultra settings means nothing if you can't afford the sequel because you bought 3 gfx cards in a year (or more in some cases amongst my friends). Lowering your settings often produces much better performance in general and makes hardware last longer if you buy carefully.

I run all my games at 1440x900 (assuming the game allows it, which mostly they do), and my settings range from medium to high (with most games being on high settings despite me not having an incredible card) .. depending on the engine and the specific game. When I see the same game on other systems, where perhaps a friend has a few or a number of better components, mostly the differences are minimal, except for cutscenes/cinematics. Most average PC users in particular don't want the latest card and they also don't want the oldest .. they want one that's affordable, but will perform well, and last a decent amount of time. Purists (who want ultra gfx all the time) tend to have HUGE issues with certain games because of the technology they're using is so very new .. and 'GumBummer Gamers' who expect to be able to run a modern game on an ancient machine experience obvious issues. Most people occupy the grey area between those camps, and adjust their settings between quality of graphics and gameplay performance.

For me personally it's somewhat reassuring to see myself in the majority when certain stats come out about systems .. once I start to lag into the lower group I know it's time to upgrade or buy new depending on the severity of what needs to be upgraded.

As for personal performance in-game .. that's very subjective. Some people with awesome PCs are hopeless .. so it isn't just a technical issue, and a bit of a red herring.

Those are my thoughts at least.

[Kazoo]

"It's nice if a game looks awesome etc, but if it plays badly because you have a high level of AA or whatever on (and would be just fine with a lower setting or none) then it becomes pointless" -jango

interesting. i would therefore classify you under group number 1; "it will only make the game look prettier. won't have any effect on your score." i did however want to exclude resolution, and frame rate from the equation (because let's be honest, 10 frames a second at 800x600 will be drastically worse for game-play than 1920x1080 at about 90 frames a second), but they are technically graphical settings so, it still makes sense.

for future answerers;
i'm asking more about the other graphical settings... so for this particular scenario, to argue points of these 3 types of "graphical settings theorists", assume we are talking about a computer running at 4 GHz, 8GB RAM, high-end video card(s) with 4GB discrete video memory, 10k RPM HDD, and a very high-resolution monitor. (basically an ideal machine, with ideal peripherals.)

yes, i know, if you didn't want to use the high graphical settings, then don't buy all that. but hey, maybe the guy is future-proofing? XD on a serious note, the above setup is the one we need to use as the basis of my question; "will lowering or maxing out graphical settings have an effect on your score or kill/death ratio in-game?"

[JadeDynastyInductionID]

Graphic is one of the most cumbersome data types of digital world; so yeah, it definitely affect game performance.

[EpsilonX]

You need more processing power to be able to process more. If you turn the graphics settings up, it makes more effects that need to be processed. Therefore, if your computer isn't powerful enough, it will lag.

I didn't even think this was able to be debated?

[Kazoo]

You need more processing power to be able to process more. If you turn the graphics settings up, it makes more effects that need to be processed. Therefore, if your computer isn't powerful enough, it will lag.

I didn't even think this was able to be debated?

nah thats not part of the question. im asking like if you had TOP of the line hardware, this is not a question based on frame rate or screen resolution; it's about your VISUAL experience. you can be 1 of 3;

1 - it don't matter... just makes the game prettier / less pretty

2 - low settings. less clutter, higher contrast of model textures (so easier enemy detection) and longer hardware lifetime.

3 - max settings. the better it looks, or the more realistic it looks, you will see things easier and therefore you will pwn more n00bz

personally, i'm with #2. i have a pretty decent rig. 2.8GHz CPU, 8GB RAM, Radeon 5770 GPU. i still use low settings for that little bit of frames /second boost and higher model contrast.

but thats just me.... who has arguments against that? :P

[EpsilonX]

Oh. That makes a little bit more sense.

Anyways, I prefer higher settings on some games, like an RTS, because it's prettier and its fairly obvious where the enemies are. However, action games I much prefer to have lower end graphics. It puts the focus on the gameplay rather than the graphics, which is a problem with so many new games.

[Diligence109]

I like your thoughts... I hadn't honestly thought on this particular issue before I read this thread. As soon as I gave it thought, I realized my own personal opinion matched yours (in so much that high resolution + low effects = WIN) but honestly it's such a minor difference as long as you have a decent framerate that I don't think it really matters XD

I'd argue that, assuming players had a decent framerate, the differences when you tweak the graphics would be so slim that they would be negligible. So I suppose that ultimately I fall into the "it doesn't matter" party; though if I were feeling particularly paranoid I'd lower/turn off graphic effects.

But on my lovely little 2006 MacBook Pro it's all a moot issue anyway because I have to run games at lowest settings to get them to launch anymore :D

[Kazoo]

i can definitely confirm that it almost doubles my frame rate to lower some of the major graphical settings (shadows, model detail, texture detail, anti aliasing, etc)

-but, this does not matter if you're a person that really can't notice the change between 25-30 fps, to about 90. it all boils down to whether or not you can notice the change.... i don't know- ever since i started using the lowest graphics settings with a good refresh rate and resolution, turn off vsync (to remove mouse lag from the game :P) i find smoother = better even if it's not a HUGE change. (for competitive... not for immersion. for games like elder scrolls and fallout, i'll max out settings.)

[RaiDae]

It's been mentioned in this thread that lower settings get rid of clutter and extra definition - both of which are not nesessary - which some believe bring more focus onto gameplay and make you do better. In my opinion - it makes the game easier and less interesting. For example, my dad used to play a shooter game on our old pc. It was only able to run at low settings. When we got a new computer, he bumped up the settings - suddenly big tufts of grass appeared, colours were more vibrant, shadows more obvious and textures more defined. From then on, he was able to hind behind these bits of grass and get some cover under these shadows. It made the game that little bit more interesting. there was more to notice, to utilise and it also made it more challenging in some aspects.

Being a casual gamer, I will always opt for a better experience than a better kill:death ratio. I like having better detail, it makes it more realistic - and makes me happier.

Overall though, I really don't think having better settings makes a wonderous volume of difference.

[Kazoo]

then again, those things he was newly able to "hide" behind, are still not visible to the lower graphics-settings users :) so really, he's not hiding . hes just laying on the ground. i think at this point it all boils down to one question; are you more into being immersed, or are you the more competitive type? competitive will do any thing fair to win and apparently for some, that includes lowering our graphics :) this concept really only goes for a first person shooter though... i still play world of warcraft and the like maxed out ;-)

[RaiDae]

then again, those things he was newly able to "hide" behind, are still not visible to the lower graphics-settings users :)

I forgot to mention, both my dad and I rarely play online (and if we do, it's usually against each other... eheh) My bad >.<

But yeah, both of us prefer an immersive game play experience. rather than optimised for the best score.

[Sickangel]

Where having high graphical settings improves some games, it may decrease the playability of others. for instance if you have bloom effects and high quality shadows on, you may be able to see the shadows of your opponent around a corner. You may not be able to see highlighted areas on bosses in RPGs and things alike. If your playing games like unreal tournament the graphics actually play a part in the sounds as well. its a 360 degree axel the game plays on. if your playing a game like quake, graphics may not be as important. I have always thought of the graphical interface to help me enjoy the game, the more i enjoy a game the more i play and the more i take pride in my skills while playing it. So its simple. Graphics are personal preference.

[Kazoo]

Where having high graphical settings improves some games, it may decrease the playability of others. for instance if you have bloom effects and high quality shadows on, you may be able to see the shadows of your opponent around a corner. You may not be able to see highlighted areas on bosses in RPGs and things alike. If your playing games like unreal tournament the graphics actually play a part in the sounds as well. its a 360 degree axel the game plays on. if your playing a game like quake, graphics may not be as important. I have always thought of the graphical interface to help me enjoy the game, the more i enjoy a game the more i play and the more i take pride in my skills while playing it. So its simple. Graphics are personal preference.


i have yet to play a game where i can see someone's shadow around a corner and that gets me the kill, but yeah, for the most part i agree with that... it really depends on the game, and mostly is user preference.

[W1CKEDTW1STED]

Wow, this is a great topic.

I have to agree with performance enthusiast theory. Now, this is only geared towards me because it's different for everyone. I find higher resolution, better graphics = more ACCURATE headshots (for example).

I could go on about some of these theories, but there is really nothing that hasn't already been said that I could state here. So I will just shut up and throw in my two cents. :)

[RecreationalGamer]

I just wanted to add that the ingame brightness settings can result in easier/harder gameplay. So...yes...considering the brightness effects the appearance of the graphics, I do think graphics settings can effect ingame...wait...I think I already answered it.

[W1CKEDTW1STED]

I just wanted to add that the ingame brightness settings can result in easier/harder gameplay. So...yes...considering the brightness effects the appearance of the graphics, I do think graphics settings can effect ingame...wait...I think I already answered it.

I never thought of that. Do you mean the brighter it is, the better you see equaling better / more accurate shots?

[RecreationalGamer]

I never thought of that. Do you mean the brighter it is, the better you see equaling better / more accurate shots?

Well to be specific, I used it recently in Mafia II during a battle in a very dark area. I upped the brightness to the max and the battle was extremely simplified. I could see all the enemies I couldn't see before. This was the only battle in the entire game I had to use this feature in, so it's not like my TV was unbalanced or anything like that, ya know?

[Kazoo]

my monitor's contrast ratio is 5000:1 so i need to have my brightness around 75% to see a lot of dark areas in most first person shooter games. i honestly liked my old CRT better, but it wasn't as big and i had to manually adjust its centering every time i started the dang thing.