The great debate

The great debate.

Would you sacrifice graphics for silky smooth 60fps?

Depends on the game.

Absolutely I would.
Graphics for me reached "Good Enough" status at some point around the late PS2 era. Everything since then is a bonus.

of course. most ultra settings have such a minor visual difference its a waste of frames.

Yes, and I don't understand why more games on console don't have the option to turn off or turn down superfluous effects that oftentimes look like shit to begin with.

Yes, every time.

Always

always

Certainly not.

There's no debate to be had.

What debate? Everyone just uses the best looking settings that allow a good framerate with no drops. That's the point of being able to change the settings.

This so much. I do not give a fuck about shiny messes of textures.

Give me sharp polygons and smooth animations anyday. 60fps PS2 games are still a fucking joy to play. Even people I know who claim to not be able to see framerate differences admit that games like rachet and clank and jak and daxter feel amazing to play and they dont know why.

pcfag for 20 years now, I'll always adjust settings to reach 55-60 fps in any game

When I cannot adjust it low enough or its just too ugly/losing too much fidelity, then its time to upgrade my PC

I can still enjoy some console games that can't do this, but those are mostly story based ones or just ones that don't lean hard on gameplay elements.

People who play 30fps locked shooters with a controller are basically animals in my mind.

Yes.

Hell, the only thing I'm really fussed about in terms of presentation is that it had to look 'clean'-- sharp textures, AA, etc. Hell, I wish they'd remove half the random crap they seemingly at random sprinkle over the environment if it meant better performance. E.g. If they cut down Bloodborne's obsession with tomb stone down to half to improve frame rate, it would probably achieve the same look and feel.

I have to, my pc is shit.

>'ll always adjust settings to reach 55-60 fps in any game

nigga uncap that shit. if you aint reaching 100+ fps then it's time to upgrade

Neither, I want to play a shitty game with shitty performance so I can complain about it on the internet and feel justified in my shitposting.

Why do things like this not exist for consoles?

Depends on the game, more recent games look worse at lower qualities than older games at best quality in terms of just style and shit, high res stufff scales down horribly

theres hardly a point going above 60 on 60hz monitor

with that said I have a 110hz capable monitor now so that is actually what I do, however not many games benefit that much from it and I only have a midrange card now so non-shooters stay at 60~

Native monitor resolution > FPS > Graphics quality

ask Horizon shill

because all console games need is to be pretty in marketing material

The refresh rate of my monitor is 60 Hz, so I'd like the frame rate of the game to match it. That's all. If the frame rate goes higher, I'll turn the graphics up.

For multiplayer always. High fps at native resolution is a must...but i do like it pretty so i pay up every two years or so

silky smooth, i guess

because this what happens when you turn off all the filters

>literally two different games
You ain't fooling no one.
It's a rule in filming;
Filters do not add to an image - they ALWAYS take away. No exceptions to this rule.

I don't have to.
Fug.

>Filters do not add to an image - they ALWAYS take away.

what if you wanted to shoot a noire film? i guess black and white filter takes away the theme I guess.

That image is from dualshockers showing the massive lengths RAD went to to cover up the textures. Its a prime example of the over reliance the industry has on shaders.

you know you don't need a filter for black and white right?

How is graphics = Quality?

Everything but texture resolution.

I'l take 30fps instead of PS1 era blurry garbage.

are you serious? would you rather look at a game at low settings or ultra?

Yes.

>Would you sacrifice graphics for silky smooth 60fps?
I sacrifice graphics period. More content, more performance, faster development.
Graphics fags are the cancer of video game manufacturing.

a high resolution, regardless if the textures are shit is always important

>singleplayer game=highest settings
>multiplayer game=lowest settings

I'd be fine if graphics never evolved beyond PS2 level in terms of texture quality, effects, geometric complexity etc. and instead games kept their smooth edges and framerates.

I think Zone of the Enders 2 HD (post-fix on PS3) is a good example. It's a PS2 game and the effects/graphics are all PS2-level, but the framerate and edges are nice and smooth. It works fine because the game has a good art style to begin with.

Playing at 30 fps on pc makes me motion sick now. I need a solid 60. Even occasional drops to 45-50 break the immersion.

Absolutely.

Graphics seem kinda pointless to me as a justification to own a game because they will always end up going out of date at some point. I'd rather have a game that feels good to play at release as well as 10+ years down the line.

Yes. I was able to tell what the fuck I was looking at while playing golden eye for fucks sake

Unironically this
>game's light so bright it blinds you unless you tune graphics down

Yes.
I really don't care about graphics that much, as long as it functions well I can play it.

Always.