PC Master Race

14226 readers

1 users here now

A community for PC Master Race.

Rules:

No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No NSFW content.
No Ads / Spamming.
Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.

Notes:

PCMR Community Name - Our Response and the Survey

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How low should graphics settings go? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lately we've been talking about games not performing well enough on current hardware. It's had me wondering just what we should be asking for. I think the basic principle is that components from the last 5 years should be adequate to play current-generation titles at 1080p60. Not at max settings, of course, but certainly playable without resorting to DLSS and FSR.

It makes me wonder: is it really so much to ask? There are games from 10+ years ago that still look great or at least acceptable. Should we expect new games like Starfield to be configurable to be as demanding as an older game like Portal 2 or CS:GO. If the gameplay is what really matters, and games of the 2010s looked good then, why can't we expect current games to be configurable that low?

From what I've seen, users of the GTX 1070 need to play Starfield at 720p with FSR to get 60fps. What's better? Getting 60fps by playing at 720p with FSR, or playing at 1080p with reduced texture resolution and model detail?

It shouldn't even be that hard to pull off. It should be possible to automatically create lower detail models and textures, and other details can just be turned off.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

A bigger one is what does it say about the product? People are already using low settings disingenuously to say X game is ugly and not up to par, a potato setting would just exacerbate this and from an art standpoint do the developer really want to stand behind such a gimped product?

To clarify, I'm not saying that games should design for the lowest level of hardware, but they should make it easier for people with lower tier hardware to adjust the game to run better. Some people might use it disingenuously, but I really think people will see right through that if the potato setting became common enough.

You made another point about lower details not being enough. In cases where it isn't possible to improve performance without sacrificing gameplay, I think developers should put gameplay before making the game playable with older hardware. Its not about demanding all games be playable on a mid-range machine from 2010, its about asking developers to make an honest effort where possible.

As for FSR, I don't think its a full solution since it still uses the same model and texture quality as the lowest setting (if not higher), which could mean higher VRAM use than needed. I'd rather see FSR paired with downscaled textures and simplified models.