- Mar 24, 2005
- 2,055
- 9
- 81
Hey, all.
I've always been fascinated with folks' willingness to spend $300 or more on a PC component almost exclusively devoted to not just the playing of games, but the quality of displayed graphics. For instance, Battlefield 2 seems to have very weak system requirements (you can get an adequate card for ~$50), but it is often cited as necessitating 7800GTXs (for maximum enjoyment, apparently).
But how far do graphics go? Can you not enjoy a game if it is not realistic? For that matter, are even the best graphical games even close to realistic? Why not just play these games at low settings?
Forgive my ignorance. The most graphically-intensive games I play are LotR and Star Control (the originals--not sequels).
I've always been fascinated with folks' willingness to spend $300 or more on a PC component almost exclusively devoted to not just the playing of games, but the quality of displayed graphics. For instance, Battlefield 2 seems to have very weak system requirements (you can get an adequate card for ~$50), but it is often cited as necessitating 7800GTXs (for maximum enjoyment, apparently).
But how far do graphics go? Can you not enjoy a game if it is not realistic? For that matter, are even the best graphical games even close to realistic? Why not just play these games at low settings?
Forgive my ignorance. The most graphically-intensive games I play are LotR and Star Control (the originals--not sequels).