It's kind of what it says right? You value the superficial aspects over more substantive things like characters/gameplay etc.
Caring about graphics and those things doesn't make you a graphics ****** IMO. Caring about graphics at the expense of or being less charitable towards gameplay/character ideas (devaluing them because they're not flashy enough) would I guess.
I think the major factor of being a 'graphics wh*re' is when you start saying certain games are the best, purely because of it's graphics. For me, the Order 1886 comes to mind as being such a great looker, but the aesthetics are a bit bland and the gameplay is extra bland.
1080p, 60fps.
I'll go 4k when I can afford it.
Really, does it matter to play Fifa 14 and COD on 200 FPS or 30 FPS?
You get a serious change from 20 to 30 FPS, then a minor change from 30 to40 FPS, then above 40 FPS is hardly noticeable.
Really, does it matter to play Fifa 14 and COD on 200 FPS or 30 FPS?
You get a serious change from 20 to 30 FPS, then a minor change from 30 to40 FPS, then above 40 FPS is hardly noticeable.
Depends what game you're playing. Games which rely heavily on reflex, muscle memory, input latency and reaction times (RTS, FPS, MOBAs, etc) do benefit from having higher framerates in the competitive scenes.
Moving from 30fps to 60fps also just makes things look more fluid. It may not be a necessity but it's a quality of life thing. If you have the hardware to make it happen, why not?
Depends what game you're playing. Games which rely heavily on reflex, muscle memory, input latency and reaction times (RTS, FPS, MOBAs, etc) do benefit from having higher framerates in the competitive scenes.
Moving from 30fps to 60fps also just makes things look more fluid. It may not be a necessity but it's a quality of life thing. If you have the hardware to make it happen, why not?
I'm downloading its 720p mode right now. It takes near one hour. Thanks anyway.
Really, does it matter to play Fifa 14 and COD on 200 FPS or 30 FPS?
You get a serious change from 20 to 30 FPS, then a minor change from 30 to40 FPS, then above 40 FPS is hardly noticeable.
There is an enormous difference. This whole idea that there isn't is like some loony conspiracy theory.
Alright 30 FPS is less smooth. But there will be a border where you won't notice the +-10 FPS gap anymore. It maybe is 50 FPS or higher.
I'm not.
N64 graphics were glorious back my day. Compared to all the other old consoles I grew up on anyway.
But nowadays we're over run by young gamers (which I don't blame them, not their fault they were born in the wrong generation) and older people who didn't get into gaming until the 2000s and they are almost all graphic elitists, unfortunately. Perfect Dark, Golden Eye, Hexon... maaan.
Alright 30 FPS is less smooth. But there will be a border where you won't notice the +-10 FPS gap anymore. It maybe is 50 FPS or higher.
I'm quite happy that I put my monitor in a distance that I actually need glasses for 100% sight. But 95% is cool. I don't realize how crappy *.jpg files are and I don't get bothered with less than 30FPS motion pictures!
TB when he talks about FOV sliders and 60 fps for hours
My GTX 970, I guess.
My GTX 970, I guess.
They are nice, aren't they?
/smug
My GTX 970, I guess.
Is there GTX 960 for us poor people?
My GTX 970, I guess.
a GTX970 makes you an idiot who paid money for a product which doesnt have the announced specs (VRAM, memory interface, L2 cache; f*ck you nvidia). no offense, i own a GTX970 too 
Is there GTX 960 for us poor people?
there is also the AMD R9 280(X) with 3GB VRAM instead of only 2. already 3 years old, but imo the better deal.
I found this sad news for you 970 owners:
http://www.pcworld.c...r-in-specs.html
a GTX970 makes you an idiot who paid money for a product which doesnt have the announced specs (VRAM, memory interface, L2 cache; f*ck you nvidia). no offense, i own a GTX970 too
there is also the AMD R9 280(X) with 3GB VRAM instead of only 2. already 3 years old, but imo the better deal.
AMD R9 280x is better than GTX 760. That's quite good for me. But I need to read GTX960 specs...
edit: Yeah, 2GB ram is just too low for 2015.
Modifié par Arian Keraunos, 22 février 2015 - 03:33 .
I honestly dont care id love some older titels like Wild Arms to come back. im more init for Enjoyment than graphics.
thats not exactly "new", it is known for weeks now.
The 3.5 GB thing.
Honestly not a really big deal unless you like to turn filters up or use a large resolution (1440p or 4k). Most people on reasonable AA/AF settings at 1080p won't reach 3GB on their VRAM for the majority of games, let alone the 3.5GB needed to trigger the issue.
That said, the R9 290X represents decent value, being a good $20-$50 cheaper than equivalent GTX 970 models. Crank up a small overclock and you've got equal performance with a few extra tenners in the pocket.
The 3.5 GB thing.
plus the "1,7MB instead of 2MB L2-Cache" thing plus the "224bit-MI instead of 256bit-MI" (which results in 196GB/s instead of 224GB/s memory bandwith) thing.
Honestly not a really big deal unless you like to turn filters up or use a large resolution (1440p or 4k). Most people on reasonable AA/AF settings at 1080p won't reach 3GB on their VRAM for the majority of games, let alone the 3.5GB needed to trigger the issue.
some recent games can reach 3,5GB without using insane settings.
a GTX970 makes you an idiot who paid money for a product which doesnt have the announced specs (VRAM, memory interface, L2 cache; f*ck you nvidia). no offense, i own a GTX970 too
I know, but I couldn't afford the 980. It's still a beast of a card.
some recent games can reach 3,5GB without using insane settings.
*shrugs*
I've got an R9 290 and will probably crossfire if the R9 300s don't come out by the time I build a new rig later this year.
Not my problem to deal with. 
Retour en haut