EPTBest graphic settings for optimized play?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 197942
Romania151 Posts
| ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
| ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
| ||
|
WeRRa
378 Posts
At least this is what MKP said at this stream. | ||
|
HeeroFX
United States2704 Posts
| ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
On January 21 2013 00:12 WeRRa wrote: All koreans play on medium settings, cause then you can spot the invisible units the best and still have a good performence. At least this is what MKP said at this stream. Yes this is what I was looking for. Do you know the specifics of the settings to see invisible units? Sorry if my post didn't make much sense. I want to know the best settings to see invisible units such as observers and burrowed roaches! I do not care if the game looks pretty, I much rather play on the lowest settings but I won't be able to see cloaked or burrowed units easily | ||
|
TAMinator
Australia2706 Posts
| ||
|
AicyDC
United Kingdom67 Posts
| ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
Regarding the optimal visual setting; I'd recommend just go with whatever your computer can run optimally and you like the best. Let's be honest here it's not like the (alleged) increased visibility of cloak units is something that will make you go from Silver to Gold. I mean no offense whatsoever here, I merely want to stress the gain is almost non-existent, thus I would recommend just going with whatever you are most comfortable with rather than something that will perhaps win you 1 more game in a 1000. | ||
|
Grooovey
Germany11 Posts
| ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
| ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
| ||
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
many people including pros play with these settings | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On January 21 2013 00:06 Mahanaim wrote: It varies by what you mean by "optimized." Want the most eye-appealing? Highest settings. Want the units and the terrain to look completely different so that you can easily spot enemy units? Lowest settings. A lot of misinformations have been spread on this issue, most notably by commentators such as Tasteless and Artosis. I've been to a few LAN tournaments and watched quite a lot of tournament streams. I've pretty much never seen any semi-pro/pro with low settings. Fact is, the game has been optimized for medium settings + play. With low settings, it is impossible to feel as well the flow of the game nor spot invisible units. | ||
|
imPermanenCe
Netherlands595 Posts
 I think it's partly subjective as well. Some people can spot things better with different settings. I also think the lowest settings suck with cloak. But why do you care for such precise settings? Do you have problems with lag that you can't play on somewhat above medium settings? If you only care for cloak/burrow, just try the average medium setting and be done with it, I don't understand why you want exact settings. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On January 21 2013 01:32 SiroKO wrote: A lot of misinformations have been spread on this issue, most notably by commentators such as Tasteless and Artosis. I've been to a few LAN tournaments and watched quite a lot of tournament streams. I've pretty much never seen any semi-pro/pro with low settings. Fact is, the game has been optimized for medium settings + play. With low settings, it is impossible to feel as well the flow of the game nor spot invisible units. Hmm time to try medium I suppose, although low with ultra shadows and effects has the most blatant invisible shit ever (because you have decent quality on the invis stuff contrasted with absolutely shitty terrain :D). | ||
|
kiy0
Portugal593 Posts
| ||
|
WeRRa
378 Posts
On January 21 2013 00:24 kuruptt wrote: Yes this is what I was looking for. Do you know the specifics of the settings to see invisible units? Sorry if my post didn't make much sense. I want to know the best settings to see invisible units such as observers and burrowed roaches! I do not care if the game looks pretty, I much rather play on the lowest settings but I won't be able to see cloaked or burrowed units easily Well his settings are simply texture quality on medium, graphic quality on medium and unit portrais on 2D for a little bit better performance. He said most koreans play like this, cause you can spot invisible units the best. He said it somewhere in the Prime stream, cause TtPiG asked him there, cause most foreigners seem to play on low settings and MKP answered it looks shitty and you can't spot invisible units with low settings. | ||
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
| ||
|
Dirkinity
Germany409 Posts
| ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 21 2013 02:22 Whatson wrote: LOL good luck spotting burrowed units on any setting. Maybe ultra. You can spot invisible units pretty easily on low anyways, the new texture settings make it so easy as long as they're moving even a little bit. Usually it's an observer I'm looking for and they are always above your army, so just zoom in and out to check if its there then scan and let the marines do their work | ||
|
llIH
Norway2143 Posts
The graphics don't even look bad. It is crisp with no unnecessary glare as well. And of course the frames are smooth. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On January 21 2013 01:19 kuruptt wrote: Again people I don't care what looks best to me. I just want to see cloaked and burrowed units easier without going to super ultra high because I feel as the lower the settings the more responsive it is. So I want to know the best way to do this. As stated from many people in this thread koreans use mostly medium settings! The hybridic settings from existor is something like this. Need more input and conclusive information! I'll just say this: If you're playing a video game and passing on the most aesthetically appealing graphics for any reason other than "my computer cannot comfortably run the game at that graphics setting", you're doing it wrong. The goal of a video game is to get sucked into the game world, not to marginalize the art design so it gives you a better chance of winning. | ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
On January 21 2013 05:58 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'll just say this: If you're playing a video game and passing on the most aesthetically appealing graphics for any reason other than "my computer cannot comfortably run the game at that graphics setting", you're doing it wrong. The goal of a video game is to get sucked into the game world, not to marginalize the art design so it gives you a better chance of winning. Casual perspective on a competitive game. | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On January 21 2013 05:58 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'll just say this: If you're playing a video game and passing on the most aesthetically appealing graphics for any reason other than "my computer cannot comfortably run the game at that graphics setting", you're doing it wrong. The goal of a video game is to get sucked into the game world, not to marginalize the art design so it gives you a better chance of winning. maybe if you're playing for screwing around rather than getting better... maybe | ||
|
Comadevil
Germany214 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PVppgIw.png) settings. U can reduce effects still if u want. It looks good but there are not so many effects which distract you | ||
|
deo1
United States199 Posts
Basically, what SSAA does is render the entire scene (textures, geometry and all) at 2, 4, or 8 times the default resolution. It then averages the color of all of the pixels at the higher resolution that fit in the same area as the pixel, and uses this color in the downsampled image that gets displayed. The result is a crisp, clear, ultra-smooth image without artifacts or blurring of other cheaper anti-aliasing methods (e.g. FXAA which is an image post-process, or even MSAA which only works on polygons). I think in the world of pro play where every advantage matters, more teams should look into ultra high spec PCs that can do this kind of fancy processing. Combine SSAA with one of the custom graphics settings like in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=350426 and SC2 can be super crisp and clean. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:08 MichaelDonovan wrote: Casual perspective on a competitive game. Lol. Let's replace all the in-game models with crudely-shaped, single-color, low-poly game models, because that will make them more visually distinctive and easier to manipulate towards positive ends. That will make the game more immersive. Do you know how much of an idiot you sound like? On January 21 2013 06:10 zhurai wrote: maybe if you're playing for screwing around rather than getting better... maybe You play the game (and all games) because it is supposed to be enjoyable. Satisfying, visceral visual feedback should be a chief goal of any good real-time strategy game. If you are lowering the graphical settings for the purpose of "getting better", you are doing it at a detriment to your own enjoyment of the game. This is something that really should have stopped when players were doing it in Quake III Arena, or Unreal Tournament, or whatever game community pioneered it. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:30 MichaelJLowell wrote: Lol. Let's replace all the in-game models with crudely-shaped, single-color, low-poly game models, because that will make them more visually distinctive and easier to manipulate towards positive ends. That will make the game more immersive. Do you know how much of an idiot you sound like? You play the game (and all games) because it is supposed to be enjoyable. Satisfying, visceral visual feedback should be a chief goal of any good real-time strategy game. If you are lowering the graphical settings for the purpose of "getting better", you are doing it at a detriment to your own enjoyment of the game. This is something that really should have stopped when players were doing it in Quake III Arena, or Unreal Tournament, or whatever game community pioneered it. Some people just don't care that much about the graphics - after all, it's the actual gameplay that should be most interesting in a game, the graphics only serve to make the gameplay more pretty to look at. For instance, people still play Brood War despite it using 2D sprites, because it is a very well designed and balanced game. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:47 -NegativeZero- wrote: Some people just don't care that much about the graphics - after all, it's the actual gameplay that should be most interesting in a game, the graphics only serve to make the gameplay more pretty to look at. For instance, people still play Brood War despite it using 2D sprites, because it is a very well designed and balanced game. Aesthetics (graphics, sound, music, narrative and worldbuilding) are all a justification and extension of the game mechanics. Visually-appealing aesthetics may not be necessary for a great game, but they make a good game better, and there's plenty of examples within the real-time strategy genre (Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, Commander and Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Supreme Commander) to justify that. The salaried players may be lowering all of their game settings in order to enhance their performance, but they do it because their job is to play the game at the highest level possible. They play the game for reasons completely different than the typical player, and it has nothing in common with amateur, recreational play. There's no reason to deny yourself a visually-appealing game because you're more preoccupied with the final outcome of the game than what's happening during the game. | ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:30 MichaelJLowell wrote: Lol. Let's replace all the in-game models with crudely-shaped, single-color, low-poly game models, because that will make them more visually distinctive and easier to manipulate towards positive ends. That will make the game more immersive. Do you know how much of an idiot you sound like? You play the game (and all games) because it is supposed to be enjoyable. Satisfying, visceral visual feedback should be a chief goal of any good real-time strategy game. If you are lowering the graphical settings for the purpose of "getting better", you are doing it at a detriment to your own enjoyment of the game. This is something that really should have stopped when players were doing it in Quake III Arena, or Unreal Tournament, or whatever game community pioneered it. Casual indeed. Most people that play sc2 play it for competitive reasons. When money is on the line every edge counts and most people don't play sc2 for the "nice graphics". Including me, I was playing on low before because it was much more responsive and less distracting for me which generally made it more fun to me. Don't get me wrong I have a beastly computer that can max out this game no problem, I just much prefer good settings to see invisble units better to give me an edge even if it looks shitty. Fortunately, most people in this thread recommend the same exact settings in the Hybridic thread which makes the game look AMAZING while maintaining all the benefits of easy eyeing of cloaked units. Right now I have this: Texture: Ultra Shaders: Medium Shadows: Medium Models: High Effects: Ultra Can we all agree this is the best settings right now? Again, don't care about looking the best I just care about best setting invisble units! | ||
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
I also didn't get to try effects that much either, but for now I am leaving that on low until more testing and whatnot. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On January 21 2013 09:13 kuruptt wrote: Casual indeed. > Commits his time and energy to becoming good at one single video game, a slightly-above-average RTS. > Describes himself as a "low silver player". > Calls other people casual. On January 21 2013 09:13 kuruptt wrote: Most people that play sc2 play it for competitive reasons. When money is on the line every edge counts and most people don't play sc2 for the "nice graphics". Thank you for not reading my post. This was addressed. The grand majority of the people playing this game will never taste any level of play where "I gotta win this tournament so I can feed my family" trumps visually pleasing graphics. You are included in that group. The sooner you recognize this, the more interesting your game experience will be. | ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
On January 21 2013 05:58 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'll just say this: If you're playing a video game and passing on the most aesthetically appealing graphics for any reason other than "my computer cannot comfortably run the game at that graphics setting", you're doing it wrong. The goal of a video game is to get sucked into the game world, not to marginalize the art design so it gives you a better chance of winning. Lowering the graphics so you can see something important better is exactly the same as lowering graphics so your computer can run the game "better". The fault lies with the art designers, not the end users. Secondly, how does any of this apply to other games such as basketball or darts? It's not about getting sucked into another world, but allowing your mind to forget the current one by fully focusing on something else. Playing the single player campaign on highest possible settings or playing competitively on low can both do that. | ||
|
johnny123
521 Posts
Let me clarify by first saying. Starcraft 2 is a way more CPU bound than GPU bound in regards to delivering the best performance possible. Everytime i see somebody write . i play on all low except for models set to high. I just sigh because that accomplishes nothing basically if the cpu is your bottleneck ( more than likely the cpu is the bottleneck for most performance issues people face playing this game) If your system can play the game when models are set too high. It makes hardly any difference in performance. Let me explain what i mean . Take idra for example. A while back he said his reasoning for playing on All low settings was that it increases performance. What i have to say about that is, Its not the graphic settings that are causing performance issues. ITS THE CPU BOUND nature of the game. sc2 doesnt require a powerful gpu by any stretch of the imagination. You can play this game of integrated hd 3000 hd 4000 intel graphics . My point is, idra's performance increase comes from the fact that the cpu settings are set to low under very intense times of the games where tons of units are on the screen. If idra puts all high graphic settings on high and sets all the cpu settings on low. He will see no performance issues at all. The graphic card will deliever its full potiential because sc2 requires hardly any gpu performance. If you have a processor that is an i5 or a latest i3. You actually will never be cpu bottlenecked under intense battles. Therefore if you graphic card was made in the last 5 years and costed atleast $75 dollars. You can run this game in ultra with absolutely perfect frame rates. The biggest settings that have impact on cpu performance? -setting models to high ( yes that sounds wierd, but it also has impact on cpu) -setting game physics to high -having reflections on. ( sc2 is pretty good about telling you what setting taxes what). If at the start of the game you experience a huge boost in framerates and as the game goes along, you see those frame rates start declining. Believe me it has nothing to do with the graphical settings. To keep the performance strong, turn down the cpu only setttings ( that includes setting model quality to low as it affects cpu as well) So for the guys that have medicore graphic cards, and i5 processors. Stop turning down your graphics to low. As your computer is FULLY capable of delivering solid performance the entire game. Use a cpu monitoring program such as CORE TEMP to see how loaded your cores are during the game. If any hit 100% start turning down CPU settings. Dont bother with turning down the graphics as it will make minimal difference. My point is, Just make sure you know what your bottleneck is. If the bottleneck is the cpu, It makes no difference to turn down your graphic settings. As it will still slow down when all settings are at low. If the bottleneck is the gpu. Then only turn down the graphic settings. You can go ahead and leave the cpu settings on high. | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
I wanted to be able to see cloaked units, burrowed units easier, AND have models high so I can see what kind of unit is warping in, as it warps in for vs protoss. Wings of Liberty: All LOW settings including Low shaders, Models on High. Everything else on LOW. Hots does not allow low settings for shaders and another one, for models on high, as they are tethered. So I increased the 2 settings so I can have models on high, but I see a frame rate drop because it if, from the high frame rate in WoL I enjoy. | ||
|
CPTBadAss
United States594 Posts
It seems like Medium is a setting a lot of pros like but I'm just guessing. I don't know what people like and I think it's a bit subjective. | ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:06 MichaelJLowell wrote: > Commits his time and energy to becoming good at one single video game, a slightly-above-average RTS. > Describes himself as a "low silver player". > Calls other people casual. Thank you for not reading my post. This was addressed. The grand majority of the people playing this game will never taste any level of play where "I gotta win this tournament so I can feed my family" trumps visually pleasing graphics. You are included in that group. The sooner you recognize this, the more interesting your game experience will be. I am an silver player in sc2 yes, because this is only my FIRST week of sc2 ever. It does not mean I am not competitve and successful in OTHER games where I play to win. Sorry if winning isn't fun to you and you play these games for graphics. All your posts reak of casual. It makes no sense to me why you wouldn't want to get an edge in a video game where winning is EVERYTHING, not "nice graphics". Do you have fun losing? Also, using greentext outside an anime anonymous forum on TL.net. Enough said. Please don't post your casual input in a competitive sc2 forum. | ||
|
Ksquared
United States1748 Posts
| ||
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:30 MichaelJLowell wrote: Lol. Let's replace all the in-game models with crudely-shaped, single-color, low-poly game models, because that will make them more visually distinctive and easier to manipulate towards positive ends. That will make the game more immersive. Do you know how much of an idiot you sound like? You play the game (and all games) because it is supposed to be enjoyable. Satisfying, visceral visual feedback should be a chief goal of any good real-time strategy game. If you are lowering the graphical settings for the purpose of "getting better", you are doing it at a detriment to your own enjoyment of the game. This is something that really should have stopped when players were doing it in Quake III Arena, or Unreal Tournament, or whatever game community pioneered it. your really arguing this on a starcraft website ? MichaelJLowell from my perspective your the idiot silver or not Kurrupt is spot on here ! | ||
|
rezzan
Sweden329 Posts
except TEXTURE QUALITY and EFFECTS as shown in this picture Here. this way u can easily spot observers ghosts and Dts, especially if its on creep and your zerg. and it gives even more performance, i can play on Extreme gfx but i prefer this | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
On January 21 2013 06:30 MichaelJLowell wrote: Lol. Let's replace all the in-game models with crudely-shaped, single-color, low-poly game models, because that will make them more visually distinctive and easier to manipulate towards positive ends. That will make the game more immersive. Do you know how much of an idiot you sound like? You play the game (and all games) because it is supposed to be enjoyable. Satisfying, visceral visual feedback should be a chief goal of any good real-time strategy game. If you are lowering the graphical settings for the purpose of "getting better", you are doing it at a detriment to your own enjoyment of the game. This is something that really should have stopped when players were doing it in Quake III Arena, or Unreal Tournament, or whatever game community pioneered it. I am a casual player dicking around and I would take the crude graphics in a heartbeat. I don't care about immersion and I don't care about shiny graphics. | ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:06 MichaelJLowell wrote: > Commits his time and energy to becoming good at one single video game, a slightly-above-average RTS. > Describes himself as a "low silver player". > Calls other people casual. Thank you for not reading my post. This was addressed. The grand majority of the people playing this game will never taste any level of play where "I gotta win this tournament so I can feed my family" trumps visually pleasing graphics. You are included in that group. The sooner you recognize this, the more interesting your game experience will be. Don't fucking greentext outside of 4chan. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:14 DusTerr wrote: Lowering the graphics so you can see something important better is exactly the same as lowering graphics so your computer can run the game "better". The fault lies with the art designers, not the end users. I will agree that Blizzard is at fault for even giving players that opening. Would I still pursue that choice? Would I pursue, for instance, a glitch which crashes any match and gives me an instant win? No. I'll pursue the choice that makes the game the most appealing to play. Part of that is trusting the developer's artistic vision and not tampering with their vision as outlined in the "optimal settings". And in reference to a lousy framerate, people lower their graphics settings because a bad framerate actively compromises the game experience, and a substandard game experience is better than what we would today consider to be "unplayable". (The days where people would tolerate ten frames-per-second have long, long passed.) The minute gains that come with being able to more accurately discern the outlines of invisible units are mental blocks in the player's head. On January 21 2013 10:14 DusTerr wrote: Secondly, how does any of this apply to other games such as basketball or darts? Just like in athletics, the act of performing and playing is the means to making the scoreboard go up, to the goal of winning. It is not the other way around. The act of pleasure is derived from playing, not winning, even if winning can be fun. On January 21 2013 10:31 kuruptt wrote: Do you have fun losing? In StarCraft II? For me, losing stopped being fun roughly two years ago, when it was obvious that the game was fundamentally flawed in the single-player game modes and unplayable in the team game modes. However, amazingly enough, winning stopped being fun around roughly the same time. When that happened, I did what any intelligent video game player would do: Found better real-time strategy games to play. On January 21 2013 10:31 kuruptt wrote: Also, using greentext outside an anime anonymous forum on TL.net. Enough said. Please don't post your casual input in a competitive sc2 forum. > "casual input" > has been playing starcraft ii for a week > thinks he knows more about RTS games than someone who has been playing them for 20 years On January 21 2013 10:42 ToguRo wrote: your the idiot Lol. I'm out. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
For example, if you think graphics performance doesn't matter or the graphics should be at the highest settings to "realize the designer's intention," try maxing out with units under the Mothership cloak with Ultra everything. It doesn't matter if you have a 5 GHz CPU. Your FPS will be at 10's. That's after the patch that Blizzard tried to lessen the performance tax. Hell, why not add 8xSSAA and get a 30" monitor to immerse yourself in the SC2 universe.. at ~30 FPS. xD | ||
|
kuruptt
Canada168 Posts
Edit: I just read the guys quote and it says he is known as a "troll" Don't know why I didn't see this before =D "the best way" to play sc2 and to see everything clearly.. is to Have everything set to LOW except TEXTURE QUALITY and EFFECTS as shown in this picture Here. this way u can easily spot observers ghosts and Dts, especially if its on creep and your zerg. and it gives even more performance, i can play on Extreme gfx but i prefer this I still have doubts about effects doing anything to cloaked units. I will have to test it more for this option. The best option as I have tested to see cloaked units is to have everything on low EXCEPT texture quality shaders and models. This is detailed in the Hybridic settings thread. I really do need to test effects though. I am just leavnig it on low right now until someone can come and show me that effects make a good enough difference. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
| ||
|
Ettick
United States2434 Posts
On January 21 2013 11:26 MichaelJLowell wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 21 2013 10:14 DusTerr wrote: Lowering the graphics so you can see something important better is exactly the same as lowering graphics so your computer can run the game "better". The fault lies with the art designers, not the end users. I will agree that Blizzard is at fault for even giving players that opening. Would I still pursue that choice? Would I pursue, for instance, a glitch which crashes any match and gives me an instant win? No. I'll pursue the choice that makes the game the most appealing to play. Part of that is trusting the developer's artistic vision and not tampering with their vision as outlined in the "optimal settings". And in reference to a lousy framerate, people lower their graphics settings because a bad framerate actively compromises the game experience, and a substandard game experience is better than what we would today consider to be "unplayable". (The days where people would tolerate ten frames-per-second have long, long passed.) The minute gains that come with being able to more accurately discern the outlines of invisible units are mental blocks in the player's head. On January 21 2013 10:14 DusTerr wrote: Secondly, how does any of this apply to other games such as basketball or darts? Just like in athletics, the act of performing and playing is the means to making the scoreboard go up, to the goal of winning. It is not the other way around. The act of pleasure is derived from playing, not winning, even if winning can be fun. On January 21 2013 10:31 kuruptt wrote: Do you have fun losing? In StarCraft II? For me, losing stopped being fun roughly two years ago, when it was obvious that the game was fundamentally flawed in the single-player game modes and unplayable in the team game modes. However, amazingly enough, winning stopped being fun around roughly the same time. When that happened, I did what any intelligent video game player would do: Found better real-time strategy games to play. On January 21 2013 10:31 kuruptt wrote: Also, using greentext outside an anime anonymous forum on TL.net. Enough said. Please don't post your casual input in a competitive sc2 forum. > "casual input" > has been playing starcraft ii for a week > thinks he knows more about RTS games than someone who has been playing them for 20 years On January 21 2013 10:42 ToguRo wrote: your the idiot Lol. I'm out. >using le meme arrows >not on le 9gag I facepalm hard whenever I see people do this You do realize that TL has a quote function already, don't you? Or maybe you could just reformat what you are going to say to make it actually make sense on this forum? Oh wait, that would take time and effort, and we all know that TL is a low-quality forum where nobody cares enough to put any time and effort into anything.+ Show Spoiler + it's times like this when I wish I could sage on TL lol... OT: I personally use medium because it is a really good balance between having the game run well and having the game look good, which is actually a pretty huge part of the game for a casual player like myself. Also, the difference in how the game looks is honestly not that much when you compare how medium looks vs how ultra/high look, especially if you keep textures at ultra. Low looks like shit though lol... I also have a pretty decent computer (2500k @ 4.2ghz and 2 6870s) so I can't say putting my settings to low gives a good enough performance increase over medium, especially not enough of an increase to make up for how bad the game looks when you put it on low. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5356 Posts
| ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:06 MichaelJLowell wrote: > Commits his time and energy to becoming good at one single video game, a slightly-above-average RTS. > Describes himself as a "low silver player". > Calls other people casual. Thank you for not reading my post. This was addressed. The grand majority of the people playing this game will never taste any level of play where "I gotta win this tournament so I can feed my family" trumps visually pleasing graphics. You are included in that group. The sooner you recognize this, the more interesting your game experience will be. greentexts on TL :/ Personally I play SC2 for the competitive aspect, I expect to win nothing monetary wise for the game but get sheer enjoyment out of the competition with others; I don't derive my fun from playing the game like a casual, I actually get enjoyment out of knowing I have improved and am winning where before I lost before. If low graphics settings achieve that then low graphics settings I will use. | ||
|
llIH
Norway2143 Posts
In addition it gives better fps which helps me to micro in intense battles. | ||
| ||
