Home › Forums › XDC Gaming › Battlefield 2142 › Graphics quality question
- This topic has 8 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
crazy hippo.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 4, 2007 at 7:15 pm #15880
Lensman
ParticipantI’ve just upgraded my graphics card from a 5900XT to a 6800GT, and as a result have been able to update my quality and image size settings quite a bit.
Originally I had most effects etc turned down low, and ran at 800×600. This gave me a very playable framerate on the 5900XT.
However, now I can run with everything on medium/high and at 1024×768, and am pretty stunned by the quality difference. Some of the levels look completely different with dynamic lighting, shadows etc all turned on, and it almost feels like I’m playing a different game.
So now I’m thinking that if I turn all the effects down again (just keeping the higher res), I’ll get fantastic framerate at the expense of graphical gorgeousness.
So, what’s your choice?
February 4, 2007 at 8:27 pm #44828Wipers
ParticipantI kinda like seeing the game as the developer intended so am willing to sacrifice a bit of fps for the graphical gorgeousness.
February 4, 2007 at 8:54 pm #44829XDC MadHippy
Participant@Wipers wrote:
I kinda like seeing the game as the developer intended so am willing to sacrifice a bit of fps for the graphical gorgeousness.
Me too! 😉
February 4, 2007 at 9:05 pm #44830XDC Dutchman
ParticipantGraphical beauty is the way to go. OR at least then I can say my FPS is crap and that’s why I play crap
February 5, 2007 at 10:32 am #44831Ryzo
ParticipantBest of both, hovis.
February 5, 2007 at 10:40 am #44832XDCNeonSamurai
ParticipantI’ve got an old 6600 card, which’ll let me play 2142 on ‘medium’ settings at 1024×768 with AA on. The game still looks ‘pretty’, but it has a lot of trouble on the titan maps. So much that I often can’t fight onboard a titan due to the frame rate dropping to something like 10 or 12.
Roll on a nice ‘new’ 1950XT (when I’ve got some money).
February 5, 2007 at 5:33 pm #44833Alzir
KeymasterDefinately framerate over beauty. I’m fortunate enough these days (for the first time ever) to run games at top gfx settings and still have a decent framerate, but even though games do look wonderful, the moment I find my framerate suffering the settings will be adjusted down. I’d rather see a few ugly kills, than alot of gorgeous deaths.
February 5, 2007 at 6:53 pm #44834TurksMeister
ParticipantIve got in to buying external things for my computer, as I am bored of upgrading all the time. So therfore – frame rate over beaurty… as I am beautiful enough already!
February 5, 2007 at 10:55 pm #44835crazy hippo
Participant@Alzir wrote:
Definately framerate over beauty. I’m fortunate enough these days (for the first time ever) to run games at top gfx settings and still have a decent framerate, but even though games do look wonderful, the moment I find my framerate suffering the settings will be adjusted down. I’d rather see a few ugly kills, than alot of gorgeous deaths.
agreed, performance over graphics. a higher frame rate will improve a multiplayer gaming experience far more than graphcs.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
