Are max settings really worth it?

[hex4]

I agree with @Notree 

 

CSGO i play with 8xMSAA but everything else except shadows on low and textures on high with 16xAF will be lowest possible because frames matter.

 

I have been playing Mad Max and enjoying the maxed out graphics even though i sometimes drop below 60FPS.

[Virtual01]

12 hours ago, DeadlyPilot said:

Good point but I honestly don't have a clue how different max settings look, as I don't have anything that can run it 

There's really no definitive answer. Some games look almost as good on low as they do on ultra, for example the new Doom game that just came out. On the other end of the spectrum is a game like Skyrim that looks like it's running on an N64 at low settings, and looks really good on ultra.

 

Also keep in mind that you notice shiny graphics less while playing the game. I noticed this with Dark Souls 3 while my friend was playing, the graphics look almost photo-realistic but while I was playing I didn't really notice and thought they were just pretty good. Framerate is what really matters as you will always notice it no matter how pretty your game is.

[TheBestUserName]

I have split feelings about it.  I've got a 6700k and a 980ti so I can max out games, but the bill from buying new-release AAA games gets pretty high pretty quickly.  You might be thinking, "Well you have that expensive computer, you should be able to buy games."  Well I sold shit to build my computer so I'm back to being a regular dude working in some great games into by budget.  Sometimes I find deals and discounts, so that helps.  

 

But any way, the topic.  I really like seeing pretty graphics.  Geerally my eyes can't see the difference with the different types of anti-aliasing, but I can definitely see it when it's a selection of presets. 

 

If your hardware budget allows for high-end parts, I say get them. Deal with buying games later. 

Hmm. Maybe I'm not so split on it after all. 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

Back when my laptop was pulling gaming duty, it was a struggle at all to get games running on minimum settings and 800x640 resolution in the worst cases. 

 

The most demanding game in my library currently is Tomb Raider (2013), so my 960 pretty much maxes everything else I play at 60 fps. While I run a 768 hdtv, I always downscale, just fyi.

[Mushious]

Yes.

[AHaskin14]

One thing youtube and screenshots never convey is how smooth anti aliasing looks during dynamic gameplay. A standstill screenshot will look similar between pc and console, but as soon as your character moves on console the whole screen falls apart. PC maintains a buttery smooth picture with no pixly imaging.

[Carclis]

It's a really tough call. There are enough games out there that look absolutely superb at max settings, but when you get games such as Dark souls 3 which don't look very good and don't perform very well it throws that out the window. IMO if you go mid-range you can't really be disappointed because at the very least you get console beating performance and nicer visuals to boot.

[Kryptyx]

I find it makes a big difference (in games that can utilize the hardware). If I didn't care about graphics, I would just get a console. Also cost is a relative thing. If you can afford it then why not? But if you can't then make due with what you can.

[hex4]

1 hour ago, Kryptyx said:

I find it makes a big difference (in games that can utilize the hardware). If I didn't care about graphics, I would just get a console. Also cost is a relative thing. If you can afford it then why not? But if you can't then make due with what you can.

Thing is you don't even need mid end hardware to do better than a console now.

My 580 3GB out paces this gen of consoles handily in every port of a console game i have thrown at it.

[Kryptyx]

3 minutes ago, hex4 said:

Thing is you don't even need mid end hardware to do better than a console now.

My 580 3GB out paces this gen of consoles handily in every port of a console game i have thrown at it.

Right but at the same time you're not running games on ultra with that either. Also, to be fair, the 580 at the time of launch was more than modern day consoles cost.

[hex4]

4 minutes ago, Kryptyx said:

Right but at the same time you're not running games on ultra with that either. Also, to be fair, the 580 at the time of launch was more than modern day consoles cost.

You would be surprised what this can handle, it runs every console game above console graphics at superior frame rates.

 

I'm buying GTX 1070 when it launches though.

[killcomic]

Depends how much of a difference it makes.

For example, I can't stand blocky shadows or lack of ambient occlusion.

Some games have such terrible performance that the quality of the visuals do not justify the amount of horsepower required (like AC Syndicate). Those I can live without maxing.

To be honest, I'll lower the resolution before I start lowering the settings.

 

I guess it comes from me gaming since I was really young in the early 80's. My first computer was a Sinclair Spectrum with only 9 colours. I'll be damned if I'm going to sacrifice my eye candy!