What do you like better?

[tigersty1e]

AA would be about 2x.

What would you pick?

 

[n7]

High quality + 4x AA?

Depends on the game, but most likely i'd turn off AA to keep things @ HQ.

 

[Kromis]

High Quality

Screw AA!

 

[m21s]

I would rather have HQ over AA

Games I play your usually too busy running around shooting things anyways to notice a few jaggies.

HQ FTW!

 

[soydios]

HQ > AA

 

[swtethan]

HQ +AA


cause i can?

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: swtethan
HQ +AA


cause i can?

Owned

 

[aka1nas]

I'm used to AA enough that it bothers me to play a game without at least a token 2xAA to smooth things out during motion.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I really dislike no AA. Usually I sacrifice something like ultra high amazing shadows for med. shadows and 2xAA. Then again, I'm gaming at 1280x 1024 so I don't have to forfeit too much IQ wise for decent performance.

 

[Sniper82]

I can't see any difference with or without AA other than a performance hit. I am glad I don't see a difference as I never need high end video cards. But I do want everything else HQ. I can also do without shadows for the most part if they cause a big hit in performance.

 

[Matt2]

Me loves AA.

I can't stand jaggies. I wish I couldnt tell the difference.

Whenever I have to sacrifice AA, I feel like my eyes are being poked with the jaggies.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I can't stand jaggies, but the perf hit for AA is usually 10 times worse than shadows or texture.

I generally go with HQ + AAA however

 

[Regs]

Jaggies? What is this, 2001?

I haven't seen jaggies in a long time at 1600x1200. I'd take HQ over any filtering anyday.

 

[agathodaimon]

I can hardly tell a difference when I enable AA.
Maybe there's an initial "ooo" factor when you first load a game, but you don't notice it when you start playing.
To me, it's not worth the performance hit.
I'd much rather see all the details, then all the details smoothed out a tiny bit moving at half the FPS.

 

[chizow]

High quality + high resolution for sure over lower resolution + lower quality + AA. AA is nice but I definitely prefer the eye candy from maxed out textures/settings and high res.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

HQ>AA

 

[nitromullet]

Can't play games without AA... Just can't do it... I try, but I can't. Then again, I really don't like low resolution textures either. Some shadow effects that have a very high performance hit aren't even all that great, and these can certainly be sacrificed... Soft shadows in FEAR are an example of this. You really have to weigh it out on a game-to-game basis what eye candy can be sacrificed if necessary.

Originally posted by: Regs
Jaggies? What is this, 2001?

I haven't seen jaggies in a long time at 1600x1200. I'd take HQ over any filtering anyday.

It all depends in screen size. The pixels in a 24" 1920x1200 LCD are the exact same size as those on a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, so the possibility of seeing jaggies is still there. Now, if you run 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT then I guess I could see what you mean.

 

[Fraggable]

HDR + AA + HQ...

But if it came down to one or the other, HQ over AA. However, 2XAA is a big difference over nothing and doesn't make much of a dent in performance.

 

[CP5670]

I like smooth motion more than anything else, so I often turn down both to get good framerates. In general though, I would take the game's graphical options over any AA, except for some effects that cut down on the performance a lot (shadows are a common culprit here).

 

[mooncancook]

Seeing the difference between Oblivion running at 16x10 with HDR + no AA and HDR+AA (after the patch), I prefer to have AA whenever possible. Can't say about higher resolution like 19x12 though.

 

[s1rwilliam]

why not low quality with 16xq aa

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Can't play games without AA... Just can't do it... I try, but I can't. Then again, I really don't like low resolution textures either. Some shadow effects that have a very high performance hit aren't even all that great, and these can certainly be sacrificed... Soft shadows in FEAR are an example of this. You really have to weigh it out on a game-to-game basis what eye candy can be sacrificed if necessary.

Originally posted by: Regs
Jaggies? What is this, 2001?

I haven't seen jaggies in a long time at 1600x1200. I'd take HQ over any filtering anyday.

It all depends in screen size. The pixels in a 24" 1920x1200 LCD are the exact same size as those on a 19" 1280x1024 LCD or a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, so the possibility of seeing jaggies is still there. Now, if you run 1600x1200 on a 15" CRT then I guess I could see what you mean.

Good post.. It's all about the nature of the game and how well some advanced characteristics are implemented.. I agree with the DPI statement as well.. Though @1600x1200 with my 20.1' sometimes I can live w/o AA.. But as I said it depends on the game..

 

[imported_Imp]

I've gotten use to no AA having used a pretty low end system before my current rig. Now I just jack things up, leave AA off.

 

[Ackmed]

Depends on the res. I game at 1920x1200, so I can do without AA if I have to, depending on the game. Some games look horrible without AA, even at such a res. BF2 is such a game. So for that, I would lower the settings, to keep AA. Otherwise. 1920x1200 is generally high enough not to have too many jaggies. I do hate them though.

 

[kmmatney]

I pretty much don't notice the jaggies once I get into a game, I'd take nicer scenery (HQ) over AA. If I had a better video card, I'd probably implement a 2x AA if possible, though.