Do you accept medium settings?

[paperfist]

Pretty much has to be high settings for me

Same, but I'm starting to re-think this. Last year I think BC2 and Dragon Age were the only games I played that really benefited from have a nice system. This year BF3 and Skyrim are gonna be the same situation so spending money on upgrades is starting to be a diminishing returns concept

 

[MehmetN]

Always plan my rigs to go like this:

Mainstream high (as bought) --> First upgrade up CPU or GPU (may CF) with the other one OCd --> Second upgrade up the other one --> rinse / repeat

Around the second upgrade rig becomes medium. Each upgrade time I check to see if the technologies (or the socket) my MoBo supports has any future and decide depending on cost/performance increase.

When I first build it I want it to be able to absolutely kill any recent games but then I settle for mid range. I'll second the idea that med-high is (almost always) meh while low-mid is a very different story.

Cheers...

 

[bononos]

In the past maybe not... but now med settings looks pretty darned good.

 

[Wyndru]

I ok as long as the framerate isn't shitty. It doesn't have to be amazing looking, I just need the res to be where I like it and run smoothly.

 

[Raduque]

My system is generally capable of handling everything on High/Max (except crysis) with AA off.

 

[zerogear]

Medium settings are for bums, hah.

 

[Red Storm]

Depends on the game. In singleplayer games I like to take advantage of nicer graphics since I'm usually playing at a slower pace and I like to see the pretty effects. In multiplayer games the smoothness is more important to me, so I'm more willing to turn down settings.

Currently I game on a laptop with a lowly Intel 3000 though, so I have no choice but to turn the settings down. It plays Starcraft 2 at medium settings so I'm not complaining.

 

[biostud]

No, if I could, then what would cure the upgrade itches.

 

[Ben90]

Depends on the game. In FPS I usually turn everything down to minimum - or at least close to (r_picmip 7 in QL, for instance). I absolutely have to get as high a framerate as possible on a constant basis or it annoys me - one of the reasons why I bought a 120hz monitor also.

This completely. Some settings however get maxed such as draw distance and whatnot. Basically turn everything unnecessary off and what gives an advantage on.

 

[Via]

Interesting question.

When I first started PC gaming back arund 1999 I had no problem with lowered settings, and it remained that way for many years.

But I can't accept them anymore. If I encounter a game that won't run smoothly I begrudgingly turn down certain settings one click at a time. Some people don't have an issue turnnig off DoF in Metro 2033; I think the game is much less compelling visually with it disabled.

Thinking back - it might coincide with buying a larger monitor for the first time a few years back. My early PC gaming years were all done on a 15" screen, and less detail is harder to notice at that size.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Depends on the game of course. How important is the details/background/artwork? In an RTS/Turn Based then I don't give a hoot about graphics quality.

 

[AstroManLuca]

If I have framerate issues, I will look up the game online and find out which settings have the greatest effect on performance or the smallest effect on quality. I find that shadows are often very demanding but setting them to the lowest setting (that isn't "off") doesn't make a huge visible difference. AA is another really demanding one; it has a pretty noticeable visual effect but I'd still rather go without AA than have low FPS. Whereas there are a lot of settings that barely affect performance even if you turn them all the way up. It also depends on your setup; things like the number of decals (e.g. bullet holes) that remain visible are more demanding on your CPU and RAM, whereas other settings tax your video card.

Also, I prefer native resolution + medium settings over lower resolution + high settings. I got Crysis recently and at 1080p, I can run it acceptably well with high settings, and I prefer that over dropping the resolution in order to get decent framerates with ultra settings.

The other thing is for multiplayer games, I'll turn down the graphics a lot more than in single player games. I keep Crysis at higher settings than BFBC2 for this reason.

 

[Ichigo]

After getting a 120hz monitor, I need a minimum framerate of 60. Anything less and I notice and it pisses me off.

I'm fine with low-medium settings because they're relative. High in one game might not look as good as another game's medium, so it's meaningless to me.

But seriously, I have no idea how I was content with 30-60fps back in the day.

 

[Qbah]

The only thing I am willing to compromise on is AA. I hate small draw distance, low res blurry textures. As long as a game runs 30+ it's perfectly fine for me (provided it looks very pretty). Though I'd love to use SSAA in every game too (shimmering, line crawling - hate those!). That or MLAA.

Luckily my system allows me to play games I bought until now this way.

 

[IGemini]

On my main computer, I'll opt for highest settings at native resolution (1920x1200), which it can usually handle w/o AA/AF for something like Crysis. I settle for playable, which is around 30fps. For games I know it'll handle like DA:O or the Witcher (not 2), I'll use MLAA in addition. I don't really do multiplayer that much anymore.

I'm not opposed to "consolizing" PC games on lesser hardware. As an experiment for a friend of mine, I tried Crysis on medium on a really old PC with an X2 4200+ and a Radeon 4850 on my Samsung (1366x768). It was smoother than I thought but was still CPU-bound, and probably could've used more memory. A decent C2D could've handled it on those settings. I had a worse time binding controls for the gamepad.

 

[Keeper]

I like to prolong upgrading as long as possible so there is actually a significant difference in quality when I do decide to upgrade. Keeps my wallet happy.

This. I love playing as much as the next person. BUT the GAME needs to grab me. Playing on medium... Sometimes Low Medium (Where you can turn some individual options off) is SOOOOOOO OK.
So much better on the wallet. I'd rather save that cash to go out, to go away or hey..... Even get anotehr game.

Same lines. I dont have a Blue Ray player. Seeing the DVD is just fine for me. YES, when I go in and watch that "Watch Repair" Blue Ray that Best Buy is always running, or that "Coral Reef" one that is always running at Costco... I go WOW that IS impressive.
But in reality, poping in the DVD of Sons of Anarchy or MAd Men...
DVD is fine. Was my viewing it dimished becauseI watched DVD? No. It wasn't.

 

[dpodblood]

Back when I had no money as long as I could play on minimum settings with a decent framerate. Now that I can afford to put together a half decent machine I always like to max or near max out the settings, and always go with native resolution. If I must bump down the settings AA, and shadows are always the first thing to go.

 

[BurnItDwn]

As long as I can run at my native res (currently down to 1920:1080 since my 1920:1200 monitor died) I am fine with lower quality settings ...

That said, I don't care about 60 fps, I just want smooth looking, which means constant 30fps is fine ... (but if it drops down to 25fps even for just a second, that is NOT COOL)

 

[Kristijonas]

I'm used to playing with Nvidia 8400GS. Played many laggy games with lowest settings and even lowered resolution... Then bought GTX 560Ti but was a little disappointed because I hoped that highest graphics look better in games. So I sold the card and now I'm using integrated sandybridge graphics and that's completely enough for me All that matters to me is resolution and framerate. Maybe that's because all I play is RPGs and strategy.

 

[Ns1]

I'm part of the "all settings on low to maximize FPS" camp

probably a leftover from the celeron366 days.