Min/Max Graphic Settings in Modern Games

[A Viltrumite of Sorts]

As the decades of PC gaming pass and game graphics continue to improve, the difference between lower settings and max settings is becoming opaque. Even though my GTX 960 is capable of playing most modern games anywhere between medium and (tweaked) max settings at about 90+FPS, I'm beginning to opt for medium settings as opposed to max settings, since in this day in age (especially at 1080p), the closer I get to max settings, the greater the diminishing returns seem to be.

What're your thoughts as the community on this? The graphical gap between low/max graphical fidelity is only getting closer as the years go by, thoughts?

[Jonathan Sensei]

If the gameplay is good, I couldn't care less about the graphics.

[Radene]

Graphics shmapics. As long as what I see fits the general mood of the game, I'm good.

[Mossy Snake]

Graphics matter, but only after gameplay and story, and even then art-style is more important than sheer graphics.

In open world games, I WANT amazing visuals, but gameplay is still more important

In FPS games, player models matter, environments don't

In RPGs, graphics do not matter. Story and gameplay matters most

[mimizukari]

nah, it's definitely there, especially in games that require something like 1060-1080 max while only requiring 660~ minimum, the difference between low settings 1080p vs high settings 4k is very visible.

[Jonathan Sensei]

引用自 Shiki Ryougi：

nah, it's definitely there, especially in games that require something like 1060-1080 max while only requiring 660~ minimum, the difference between low settings 1080p vs high settings 4k is very visible.

But do you really need the most realistic graphics though? I digress. If the game looks good and runs well, the only people who'll care about running a game on max will be the same people who'll think less of others who don't.

[A Viltrumite of Sorts]

Personally I enjoy tweaking my settings to find a perfect balance between FPS and graphical fidelity. But in all honesty, as long as the game looks as the developers intended, or at the very least on par with consoles that also have whatever game I'm playing, then I'm satisfied.
I've only ever known 1080p 60hz when it comes to PC gaming. I prefer a satisfying looking game with an FPS appropriate to the genre. Higher resolutions don't mean anything to me, however a higher refreshrate most defintely would.

[Jonathan Sensei]

引用自 ƑȊŊȈŦǝƖƇƐ 🔵™：

Personally I enjoy tweaking my settings to find a perfect balance between FPS and graphical fidelity. But in all honesty, as long as the game looks as the developers intended, or at the very least on par with consoles that also have whatever game I'm playing, then I'm satisfied.
I've only ever known 1080p 60hz when it comes to PC gaming. I prefer a satisfying looking game with an FPS appropriate to the genre. Higher resolutions don't mean anything to me, however a higher refreshrate most defintely would.

I agree with having a good refresh-rate; I disagree with the console comparison, In my opinion. I don't see the point in caring about how the game looks compared to the console version of said game. That's just trying to keep up with that never-ending console vs PC race - unnecessary.

[A Viltrumite of Sorts]

I see it like this; At the time when I decided to get into PC Gaming, I had consoles that more-or-less had the same titles as the PC did. Considering how much cheaper buying a console typically was as opposed to shelling out 800+ bucks for a PC to play the same games (and exclusives), I suppose I always felt like I had to justify instead spending more money on a PC. But since the 360 and PS3 have just about kicked the bucket by now, and I haven't bothered with any of the current-gen consoles, I've starting chilling when it comes to whether X game is better on Y system.