Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Dec 2012 23:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 544793
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-11
Or people who don't want to mess with graphics settings...
I may be stupid, but on most PC games, I never managed to hit the balance between getting a decent visual quality and speed. When I had just said "that's it, I nailed it, I am good now", immediately afterwards the game would throw a level with much higher-that-usual detail at me and I would lose FPSes (i hate it when this happens, it ruins the virtual reality feeling, I can't believe most PC gamers are fine with their games suddenly going choppy, then back to normal again).
So, most of the time, I decided to stay on the safe side and run my PC games at a lame resolution and with most settings to "low".
Essentially, the only way to escape the settings hell is to spend a bucketload of money every now and then on upgrades...
Instead, on consoles, the developer (who really knows how much detail each level has) knows exactly what graphics settings are good for the hardware, and can even optimize the levels themselves (read: remove useless fluff that only bogs down the hardware).
In plain English, on consoles, if it loses FPSes, it's developers fault, not mine. I like that.
Edited 2012-12-12 11:19 UTC