PC Master Race

16728 readers

98 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

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

submitted 2 years 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] 9 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Well a couple of issues. One is size and complexity, pretty low issue since games are already massive and where size is an issue (console physical media) they don't need to be included.

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?

Then we have the problem of lowering details not really being able to solve the problem. A long draw distance can make it still really rough on older components due to memory constraints or ability to juggle X amount of objects. Sure a draw distance slider isn't uncommon but if the game uses said distance like say enemies spotting you from far away you can't lower draw distance such that it impacts game play. Physics and other demanding aspects might also make lowering settings hard or make for a big gameplay impact.

And finally why isn't FSR acceptable to make the game playable? It seems the perfect solution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Another thing to consider is that developers consciously make design choices to adapt to the hardware available at the time, and these are not things you can just turn on and off with settings. For example maybe there's a zone transition that slows the game down on older hardware and in the past they would have added a subtle loading area like a tunnel but that's not needed anymore for their current target hardware. Should they completely change the game to be a bit smoother on 5+ year old hardware? You can get a ton of compatibility with changing settings, but to get the same level of optimization as games made at the time the old hardware was the target hardware would oftentimes mean significantly changing the game itself.

load more comments (7 replies)