Graphics vs Gameplay - Page 2

On February 20 2010 05:33 sysrpl wrote:
Are these graphics settings too high:

http://cache.codebot.org/nuke.jpg

On February 20 2010 05:37 viletomato wrote:
This reminds me of the quake 3 days when a lot of players would turn the graphics way down (eg r_picmip 5 basically all the walls just one shade). This would take out any visual detail so that they wouldn't have lighting effects getting in the way of their performance and see their opponent more clearly. In addition, I felt (as a quake 3 player) that I was way more focused on these types of setting. Just you, opponent with nothing inbetween. Even though quake 3 and sc are different games, I can see how many players on the competative level would want to turn down the graphics detail to have that kind of advantage.

On February 20 2010 05:48 Puosu wrote:

go r_picmip 16 or go home plz

seriously though I am a huge fan of customization when it comes to graphics, I'll make sure to get as clear view as possible when I get in.

On February 20 2010 05:57 hoborg wrote:
One problem Low has vs High in terms of readability is that the force fields are much harder to see:
Low:

Ultra:


Might be just one setting you can up to fix that, though.

On February 20 2010 06:07 Virtue wrote:
Ugh are we going to get into the 1.6 debate where people use console cmds to totally destroy their graphics so they can basically cheat by playing the game on lowest possible. Just think of it as the game will be played on ultra at a high level i would hope else why play a new game that looks like a really old game.

On February 20 2010 06:07 Virtue wrote:
Ugh are we going to get into the 1.6 debate where people use console cmds to totally destroy their graphics so they can basically cheat by playing the game on lowest possible. Just think of it as the game will be played on ultra at a high level i would hope else why play a new game that looks like a really old game.