EPTGraphics vs Gameplay - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
oob
Sweden630 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On February 20 2010 13:49 wolfy4033 wrote: Yeah it bothers him, that makes us exploiters. dont troll | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
On February 20 2010 12:33 ramen247 wrote: yes but on higher settings, physical problems also arise such as FPS lag in larger battles. I read his OP as "guys my comp doesnt lag on this game on highest settings." With that given, I stand by my statement. If there is LAG, and reducing settings will fix that... no brainer. | ||
|
mykyoyo
United States33 Posts
On February 20 2010 08:04 Virtue wrote: ionno about these people that want lowest settings you're def not playing the game as indented and if anything you just sucked the fun out of the game it's clear when you choose lower visuals to win vs the original visuals that you're only playing to win not because you like the game or anything imo. If the game has included X setting which is easily adjustable by the user, then any extrapolation about "not play as intended" was pulled from your rear and not anywhere intelligence might stem from. If a user has adjusted his graphics settings so that he's more comfortable, be it low or ultra settings, then he's helped himself have *more fun*. If it helps someone win, then it will likely benefit how much fun they're having, because if you haven't been paying attention, people around here like having fun not just be winning, but by crushing their opponent. Imagine how much *fun* one might have if they couldn't select their units properly because of the graphics. You can't, because it would be thoroughly frustrating. On February 20 2010 10:53 Virtue wrote: If everyone plays on the same settings it's fair and it's not a random race to see who can exploit the graphics the most for them. It's an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so you're comfortable? Furthermore, is it an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so they don't slow down your computer? Is it an exploit of the graphics if you adjust your brightness and contrast settings? On February 20 2010 10:07 Virtue wrote: People in this thread make blizzard's artists cry. The same ones that made the buildings and units and terrain and everything else in the game still look pretty damn good on the low setting? If it's hard to see what's going on with the "Ultra" setting, then the Blizzard artists should be crying, because it's hard to see what's going on. It's their job to make the game look fancy as well as clear. Maybe the graphics setting is what this is for, but until that is either confirmed or denied, I think it's an important issue to give feedback on. On February 20 2010 13:52 Virtue wrote: i'm complaining about those who can run high graphics but choose to do other as their motives are what they are and it is to win at all costs which makes them exploiters. Their motive being: I can see now! Hooray... | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
The way i'd think about is like people who run 5mph over the speed limit becuase police can really only ticket at 11mph over the speed limit, it's not that they can't do something it's that they choose to do something. It's the ability to choose that makes it exploiting; you are exploiting the game's graphics to your advantage what the like perfect combo of high and low settings is so you can see everything best ionno but i'm just saying i'd like competition to be like all high settings play the game how it was meant to be. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 20 2010 13:55 mykyoyo wrote: Hi Virtue. I can see here that you're eager for a little buddy, and so am I. So let's cuddle. If the game has included X setting which is easily adjustable by the user, then any extrapolation about "not play as intended" was pulled from your rear and not anywhere intelligence might stem from. If a user has adjusted his graphics settings so that he's more comfortable, be it low or ultra settings, then he's helped himself have *more fun*. If it helps someone win, then it will likely benefit how much fun they're having, because if you haven't been paying attention, people around here like having fun not just be winning, but by crushing their opponent. Imagine how much *fun* one might have if they couldn't select their units properly because of the graphics. You can't, because it would be thoroughly frustrating. It's an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so you're comfortable? Furthermore, is it an exploit of the graphics to adjust them so they don't slow down your computer? Is it an exploit of the graphics if you adjust your brightness and contrast settings? The same ones that made the buildings and units and terrain and everything else in the game still look pretty damn good on the low setting? If it's hard to see what's going on with the "Ultra" setting, then the Blizzard artists should be crying, because it's hard to see what's going on. It's their job to make the game look fancy as well as clear. Maybe the graphics setting is what this is for, but until that is either confirmed or denied, I think it's an important issue to give feedback on. Really how many times do i have to go over this, the topic is for competition settings should be on like high or ultra or something not some special settings so you can get an advantage It's an exploiting because you are exploiting the games graphics to your advantage I'm not talking about the avg joe who running a computer from 2006 struggle to get 30 fps i'm talking about the guy who can play well on high/ultra and chooses not to so he get's an advantage in game. Is it an exploit to stack workers in SC and go over to their base and destory it? It's in the game so it must be legit? really that is what your thinking is to me. | ||
|
Islandsnake
United States679 Posts
In other news holy hell it looks so bad on low lol | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On February 20 2010 10:14 Virtue wrote: Okay would you play any boardgame that had no game art or was drawn by a 2 year old? No that's my logic it makes perfect sense. And playing an 11 year old game vs intensionally crippling the looks is much different. Would you turn up the gamma on your tv when you watch a horror movie so you could see everything better? Imo it ruins atmosphere. I want to weigh in here. My answer is yes. Alot of boardgames do not have amazing art. Checkers. Would I play chess with badly carved pieces? Yup. Because I like chess. How about monopoly without the art? Yup, it's a fun game. The colours don't make it fun. They are a tiny detail. Stratego - no real art to speak off. The pieces all look the same because that's the point - only the back has symbols so each player's positions are secret. Risk. I've played it with plastic pieces that look like cannons, horses, infrantymen. I've played an older version with wooden pieces that are uncarved. Still fun. Oh and when I watched Coraline some scenes were incredibly hard to see, so I needed to turn up the gamma to see them clearly. So  | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 20 2010 14:03 mahnini wrote: i don't think you understand what exploiting means and i don't understand your argument against having people play at their preferred setting. to exploit is to "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" the people's argument that even though your computer can well run the game on higher settings you choose to set up your computer to see the most, how is that not exploiting? And your justification for it is that because all people can run it on low it makes it okay. I'm not talking specifically about low i'm talking about the settings that will make the picture the cleanest to see things which happen to be lower graphics and i'm sure something like higher on particle effects and other things. I'm talking about your intention is to exploit the graphics so you get see things easier then others. What i'm saying is for competition like pro league, tournaments and crap the settings should be like on all high how the game was meant to be played, if it wasn't meant to be played on high ultra why did they bother to put it in there. | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
 I'd probably be inclined to play on high/ultra but hearing this rant go on and on I'm seriously considering switching to low just in the hopes I beat someone who thinks I'm exploiting using it. | ||
|
mykyoyo
United States33 Posts
On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: It's an exploiting because you are exploiting the games graphics to your advantage "It's exploiting because someone can see their units. Nooooo...!!!1" On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: I'm not talking about the avg joe who running a computer from 2006 struggle to get 30 fps i'm talking about the guy who can play well on high/ultra and chooses not to so he get's an advantage in game. Nobody has said that adjusting the graphics gives any advantage other than changing how the units look. On some settings it appears that the units are easier to see to different people. Hilariously, the low setting seems advantageous, which would be totally available to mr. avg joe. If this is so, and it is, then avg joe and the guy with the GTX295 are still on a level playing field, no matter how much they exploit their default user adjustable settings. On February 20 2010 14:01 Virtue wrote: Is it an exploit to stack workers in SC and go over to their base and destory it? It's in the game so it must be legit? really that is what your thinking is to me. You're comparing a unit related stack bug in SC1 to a graphics related setting in SC2. Think about this a littler harder, but not too hard. Or at least, not as hard as I am. Come on Virtue, we'll get through this together! I can feel it. | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On February 20 2010 14:12 mykyoyo wrote: Man, you're fun. We should party sometime. "It's exploiting because someone can see their units. Nooooo...!!!1" Nobody has said that adjusting the graphics gives any advantage other than changing how the units look. On some settings it appears that the units are easier to see to different people. Hilariously, the low setting seems advantageous, which would be totally available to mr. avg joe. If this is so, and it is, then avg joe and the guy with the GTX295 are still on a level playing field, no matter how much they exploit their default user adjustable settings. Lol yeah. And also, a few pages earlier note the poster who said they found sc1 harder to play after playing TFT for a while. So evidently it is a personal preference | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
I'm not talking about the avg joe but for like tournaments and crap (that aren't on-line based because who can seriously verify that) Although i do frown upon the guy who chooses his settings(he can well run it at higher settings or w.e) so he get's the best view of things doesn't it seem cheap to you, no shame eh? | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
 edit: Actually dw I'm just kidding . I understand what u mean about wanting everyone to play with the same settings. That was my first thought as well. But after hearing some good arguments against it and the comparision made to light/dark settings I feel it's fine. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
obviously if some graphics setting allows you to see the cloaked units blur more easily, for example, this is something that needs to be fixed by blizzard and is not the fault of any graphics setting. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Also low isn't perfect some spells don't show up as good as on like ultra I feel tournaments should all be played with the same graphic settings which i would hope would be high. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
| ||
