PC Low Settings Screenshot Thread
- Thread starter DodgyGeezerFella
- Start date
I wonder if it has a noticeable effect on the framerate, because it *looks* like there's very little removed.
MaddenNFL64
Member
The worse the graphics are, the more the developer actually gave a shit.
Some of these games, the graphics dont even change much.
Some of these games, the graphics dont even change much.
sdjhfkdfasjhgklsdfjglhkdfjngkjnfbdg
Heh. What's funny is. The low setting screenshots of Alan Wake, are no longer accurate. As a patch just hit the game, and here's something from the patch notes.
Alan Wake v1.06 release notes:
* Added a “Very Low” graphics setting to enable the game to run on lower performance GPUs. This disables MSAA and grass (that’s dependent on it) and disables fading between LOD levels.
* Fixed Alt+Tab crash on some systems.
* Fixed a very rare startup crash.
* Fixes some cases where the game started to main menu but users could not select any menu entries. This was caused by the keybinds.xml being corrupted.
* Fixed some cases of handling custom My Documents paths where game could crash if that was mapped to the root of a drive.
* Fixed the minor DLC1 “black cubes in the mirror” graphical glitch.
* Please see our forum for up to date troubleshooting and update information: http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?t=7759
EDIT: Actually. Just noticed there's only American Nightmare shots up at the minute. American Nightmare got patched at the same time, But it doesn't seem to have received a "Very Low" settings mode. I'll throw up some Alan Wake shots soon, if no one beats me to the punch.
Alan Wake v1.06 release notes:
* Added a “Very Low” graphics setting to enable the game to run on lower performance GPUs. This disables MSAA and grass (that’s dependent on it) and disables fading between LOD levels.
* Fixed Alt+Tab crash on some systems.
* Fixed a very rare startup crash.
* Fixes some cases where the game started to main menu but users could not select any menu entries. This was caused by the keybinds.xml being corrupted.
* Fixed some cases of handling custom My Documents paths where game could crash if that was mapped to the root of a drive.
* Fixed the minor DLC1 “black cubes in the mirror” graphical glitch.
* Please see our forum for up to date troubleshooting and update information: http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?t=7759
EDIT: Actually. Just noticed there's only American Nightmare shots up at the minute. American Nightmare got patched at the same time, But it doesn't seem to have received a "Very Low" settings mode. I'll throw up some Alan Wake shots soon, if no one beats me to the punch.
Seraphinianus
Banned
Says more about scalability than anything. Shittier a game looks, the more likely more people are able to enjoy it because it'll actually run on their machine. I consider it a great accomplishment when a good looking game can scale down and look a couple generations older. No sarcasm.
It's easier to support fewer options. Are you saying otherwise..?
I'm not arguing with them. I'm just saying, we already have about 8 posts in this thread explaining the exact same thing. I think people get the point by now.
I think it's in response to the many people in this thread going "wow that game still looks great at the lowest setting" as if it's an impressive feat.
The real question is how low that 'low setting' actually *is* - and the best benchmark I can think of for that (and it's really *very* imperfect) would be to compare FPSes between low and normal.
I need to see this. Screenshots, stat!
Of course, but until we get framerate benchmarks visual quality is the next best thing. If the game looks close to how it looks at high settings, it's not a crazy assumption to assume it runs about the same.
Shit mountain at last! Looks like shit...
I_D
Member
The screenshots in this thread are all at higher settings than what I game at.
I'm still running 800x600 in some games on my trusty x800pro.
Chronicles of Riddick
Playable settings (20fps)
Almost lowest settings (50fps)
On it. I'll have some up in about 5-10 minutes.
This thread = DennisK's red pill.
EmCeeGramr
Member
so
say i found my old piles of cd-roms
if i were to do soldier of fortune II, would the gore options be considered "low settings" or not
say i found my old piles of cd-roms
if i were to do soldier of fortune II, would the gore options be considered "low settings" or not
Yeah I wasn't even allowed to run these benchmarks on my old 9800ati card/athlon machine.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Decals are fancy extras, up there with Trilinear Filtering.
blackMamba1187
Member
Call of Duty
blackMamba1187
Member
Call of Duty 2
blackMamba1187
Member
Portal w/comparisons
EmCeeGramr
Member
i can't find my other cod2 disk
Yep.
It's awful how a lot of these games look barely different at low settings than at high settings. If you had them as thumbnails, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's the sign of a lazy console port or very very poor PC scaling support.
What's worse is how people here praise games for looking close to the full settings when put on the lowest ones. That's terrible!
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
But there are games that scale well, and look good on lowest settings thanks to the art design. Like The Witcher 2.
Spazznid
Member
Yeah, I love how some people think that when a game looks good on low settings, it's good. That's BAD. It means the developer didn't optimize the game. High-Low settings aren't some standard. If a game says Low and it doesn't look "Low", then the game is probably still on relatively "High" settings, the developer just didn't make the game very optimized for lower end PC's.
Some developers have no intention of lowing the possible graphics settings. To do so would "Shade them in a bad light" so to speak. I love it when the game can look like total garbage. That means more people can play it. And that also means the developers care about their customers. Valve is a very good example of a developer that cares.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Diablo 1 was just stuff like colored outlines on selected sprites, Diablo 2 had actual 3D stuff like lighting and perspective on the sprites that you could turn on or off.
This isn't inherently true at all. Hence some dude who's probably never played Max Payne 3 was complaining about Rockstar "not giving a shit" when it came to optimization with the game because it still looks good on the lowest settings, despite the game being playable on a god damn 8600 ffs.
EmCeeGramr
Member
It'd be interesting to see Low-Mid-High comparisons. We see Low-Max comparisons all the time, but that middle range setting is what most people are (probably) going to be playing on, and it'd be interesting to see what kind of sacrifices they made to be 'just right.'
You could have a game that looks like shit that plays like shit, you could have a game that looks good in low and plays much better. All depends on how well they optimized. Screenshots are just screenshots, and they can't tell the whole story themselves.
You could have a game that looks like shit that plays like shit, you could have a game that looks good in low and plays much better. All depends on how well they optimized. Screenshots are just screenshots, and they can't tell the whole story themselves.
Similar threads
- Poll