Planetside 2: High Graphics or High Frames per Second?

[Boone]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

No, but people have a tendency to live in a self sustaining bubble.

A lot of games out there are bought/played that aren't the best in the graphic department but excel at gameplay.

[soadnathan]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

People say this, but its never true, or we would still be playing MUDS. FPS in particular, drive discrete video game hardware.

[MrSilentF]

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by MrSilentF

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

I am one of the people that like perfomance over graphics, because i have a badish graphics card i play on lowest settings, which actually still look awesome compared to my 5+ years gaming on Xbox and Xbox 360, i only joined the PC race this year when i got to university. So i hope they choose playerbase over graphics, or heavily optomise the game so it can look awesome if you want it to, or be fast if i want it to.

[Azarga]

-Whats your opinion about Frame Per
Second impact on gameplay?

60fps is good, 30fps is also fine. I see no point going higher than 60fps, but also I think no graphic fluff can justify playing on <30fps. (I played Morrowind on something like 8fps and enjoyed it, but that is the single exclusion)

-Are you going to lower your settings even
if the game runs smoothly? And have you
ever done this before in other games?

Absolutely yes. First I will disable environment shadows leaving only character/vehicle shadows. Then set grass density to lowest, disable if possible. Disable weather effects. Disable motion blur and all shinies. All the above is done regardless of the games performance. If all runs smooth and I can enable some of this fluff without harming my fps, I still won't.

After that I will check games performance, if fps is within acceptable range, then I'm done with graphic settings, if not, I'll begin lowering texture resolution and the like. Draw distance is a holy cow and not to be lowered until there is something else left to lower.

[Ghostwithbroken]

Well, thats the difference between hardcore competitive gamers, and hard core single players/casual gamers.

I will always cut the detail level in order to have my FPS highest as possible.

You can always do some spray and pray marvels with 30 fps, but sniping, and taking the right shot takes nothing but skill wich needs to be supported with some smooth FPS performance.

I just don't want to play some kind of slideshow eyecandy, and I think that SOE knows what to do with their engine from examples like bf3.

[Dkamanus]

I'd say I go for graphics. Though I do have a tendency of playing in lower resolutions due to my monitor (1280x1024), and it gives me an advantage of being able to turn almost everything up without sacrificing FPS. If I have to kill GFX, normally I'd lower considerably the AA, Blur (which is totally unnatural in games anyway), maybe some post processing. But shadows, grass and stuff? Nop.

The reason for this is that, while it is very distracting, there'll be a time when the distractions will become more common, depending on how long you play the game. You actually start to understand the mechanics, and adjust accordingly.

[bjorntju1]

I'd rather play at 60 FPS than have great graphics in MP games. A low amount of FPS just puts me at a disadvantage.

[Katanauk]

Well . . . err . . . something . . . that's poorly optimized doesn't make it the best graphics, but does heighten its demand in terms of system specs . . . which seems to impress some people . . .

[MaxDamage]

I have no magic disposable income, I built this PC with blood and sweat for Planetside!

There are many within competitive gaming who take great pride in tweaking their client side configs for maximum efficiency and absolute minimal detail for performance and the visual edge, I used to be one of them in Quake III Arena.

No point arguing with them, each to their own.

[Boone]

Originally Posted by MrSilentF

This thread is stupid. All I see in here is people with disposable incomes who can spend that type of money on high powered machines. What about the common man with his above average PC or average PC? Does anyone care about them?

Many of the potential planetside 2 players have machines that play Planetside very well. However, Planetside2 so far has been lagtastic on many machines I've heard from so far

So the real question is, does Planetside staff care more about a bigger playerbase or prettier graphics? Seeing how this is Sony, I don't see it going towards playerbase as they are generally terrible when it comes to people. I hate to badmouth a great company but that is one of it's major flaws; it does not care much about it's consumer

Where was I going with this?

Lag or FPS drops? Completely different. The above average PC should be fine for PS2 (I'm thinking something like 560Ti should run Medium) that is a shot in the dark though and pure speculation, and that's the reason there are going to be testing for months to iron things out.

[Dkamanus]

Originally Posted by Boone

Lag or FPS drops? Completely different. The above average PC should be fine for PS2 (I'm thinking something like 560Ti should run Medium) that is a shot in the dark though and pure speculation, and that's the reason there are going to be testing for months to iron things out.

Shouldn't we try to base ourselves on other game engines to try to get a base for the Forgelight one? I mean, cmon, people saying that, for instance my PC

- i5 2500k 3.3 Ghz Intel Sandy Bridge
- 8 Gb of 1600 Mhz DDR3 Ram
- Radeon HD 6870 1ghz

would make a MMOFPS like Planetside 2 run on medium is quite the tale. These configurations could run Battlefield 3 on a very smoothly manner, if you take AA of the equation, which is by far, one of the most demanding effects on GPUs available (going from nothing to 2x gives you a slight FPS drop).

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).

[MaxDamage]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).

Negatory. People exaggerate.

But the fact is, the big money titles used to crush most peoples average PCs.
Keeps money going into hardware advances, which gives developers more scope - the cycle that made PC gaming so great in the first place.

The titles would be promoted well in advance, and people knew to upgrade. Console titles helped stagnate this. The bar has become only as high for PC games as the current gen. dated consoles reached.

Planetside pushes out of that, and in doing so pushes some folks out of their comfort zone.

Yes it's sad that some people can't afford to upgrade, but that logic is what leads 'boffins' and communists to promote cloud style computing/gaming - they think we will end up with essentially, screens, modems and interfaces.. with all major processing done remotely (and all power/information/'private' information stored remotely, conveniently accessible to whatever authorities and corporations are granted access in the small print).

That might be OK for third world countries, not for Maxy.

[Ghoest9]

I love people who play at 30 fps - because they are easier to kill.

The reason is NO ONE ever has a consistent 30 fps. IF you are getting 30 fps in normal combat that mean youll have 40 50 or 60 in light combat.
Inconstant FPS makes it hard for you mind to react to what its seeing.

If you have a normal monitor refresh rate of 60 then you need to be playing at 60 FPS in large majority of combat if you dont want to be at a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Shouldn't we try to base ourselves on other game engines to try to get a base for the Forgelight one? I mean, cmon, people saying that, for instance my PC

- i5 2500k 3.3 Ghz Intel Sandy Bridge
- 8 Gb of 1600 Mhz DDR3 Ram
- Radeon HD 6870 1ghz

would make a MMOFPS like Planetside 2 run on medium is quite the tale. These configurations could run Battlefield 3 on a very smoothly manner, if you take AA of the equation, which is by far, one of the most demanding effects on GPUs available (going from nothing to 2x gives you a slight FPS drop).

I don't believe PS2 will be AS demanding as people are saying (OF COURSE, MEGA ULTRA would make most PCs blow anyway, considering what people are speculating).

Since you havnet ben playing the game you really shouldnt talk.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

silly thread, I'll have both lmao.