Planetside 2: High Graphics or High Frames per Second?

[AThreatToYou]

Originally Posted by RushAndAPush

Could anyone tell me if i can run planetside2?

Specs:

-ATI Radeon HD 4800
-8 Gigs of RAM
-Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz


Thanks.

Probably, but you'll have to play on the lowest settings to get a smooth framerate.

[Tactical Pony]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

I think killing your frames just for some eye candy is one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. Like it or not, you are playing on a team with other people, and when you kill your FPS and die all the time, it effects more than just your enjoyment of the game. Wanna play a game in some passive and uncompetitive way to enjoy scenery, play games where there aren't 1499 other people getting pissed off at your selfishness, like miniture golf or chess in a park.

[MrBloodworth]

PS1 was uncapped frames per second. This was built in to allow elbow room for large battles. At times, my old rig got 200+ Frames, large battles would dip to 50-60.

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I think turning shit off to gain the best advantage possible is probably one of the stupidest things that exist in online gaming. I have settings as high as possible I like my games to look good the way they were intended and it bugs me people turn off everything to gain advantages.

Nice opinion...

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks! I couldn't give 2 shits about AA/AF/Ultra settings - that doesn't interest me one bit. I play all my games on low/off because FPS > Graphics.

It really grinds my gears when people like you whine about players like me who play with low/off settings because YOU CHOOSE to play with Ultra and want to look at pretty graphics - yet complain about the advantages (which you can also have) that we get.

[Phisionary]

I play for highest setting I can play and still have responsive movement. Usually this means blur off (I don't feel they add much to the game's I've played) and low AA, medium textures.

I've been playing BLR with a res of 1440x900 instead of 1920x1200, as the min frame drops just a little bit too low at times, and I can definitely feel it when swinging the camera around. PS2 looks like the screen might get a bit crowded at that res though....

Furthermore I would outright reject the idea that the human eye or brain cannot appreciate motion above 60Hz on a monitor. 60Hz on a CRT monitor would produce a visibly annoying flicker. 60Hz LCD's are just slow enough that we don't see the transitions.

The one thing that video clip shows, besides that 240 res video is useless shit, is that a 60Hz video renders a moving object more than twice as many times as 24Hz. The brain can individually recognize the rendered frames, since it is an integration of the visual field over time, not a discrete frame like a rendering. Besides, threshold of detection for eye response, detection in replayed footage, and detection in a real interactive test, these are all different things. So this theory, that >60Hz has no purpose, hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

Motion blur could help this, but I find that it's usually a trade off between FPS and blur, and the pure FPS gain still does better. Once video cards are powerful enough (others than mine might be) to drive that blur without compromise, it will be a much improved situation. But I think that people will eventually be using at least 120Hz displays, in the not-too-distant future. The 60Hz 'standard' of today is a compromise in itself.

Finally, I severely dislike games where visual options can be reduced to give a discrete advantage (more than simply a smoother display). Bad game design.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by IronMole

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks!

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

[Noctis]

Cutting trees and ither enviroments to have advantages is surely bad game design, but let's focus more on FPS thing, I dont expect PS2 to be able to remove completely certain things.

[IronMole]

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.

So I'm lying, right?

[Duskguy]

still think a balance of 40-50 fps and good or even great graphics is the way to go. assuming of course that you can get those rates to stay steady.

personally i want my game to run 35-40 steadily in a big pitched battle and go up to 50-60 when only a little is going on. so ill be lowering the non essential options while keeping overall graphics and things like render distance as high as possible without the game getting choppy in a big battle.

[Goku]

I do like my graphics, but I will tone them down if needed for FPS games to have a proper FPS. I like to average around 60 FPS. I have upgraded every GPU gen, since I started building my own PC's back in 2005. Going from my 7900 GT -> 8800 GTS G92 -> HD 4770 (side grade for my small case) ->HD 5770 -> 5770 CF -> GTX 560 Ti -> HD 7950. CPU wise gone from an Athlon X2 4200+ -> E8400 -> Phenom II X4 955 BE -> 2500K. I will say CPU's have lasted me longer anyway.

[NePaS]

Originally Posted by IronMole

Nice opinion...

I like to play games because of its gameplay - not its looks! I couldn't give 2 shits about AA/AF/Ultra settings - that doesn't interest me one bit. I play all my games on low/off because FPS > Graphics.

Maybe you should get a decent rig,then you can have the fps and eye candy.

[Envenom]

I didn't drop $500 on a Geforce 580 to go low performance. lol.

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by NePaS

Maybe you should get a decent rig,then you can have the fps and eye candy.

Maybe I shouldn't?

What's the point if I can achieve the FPS I want/need by setting to low/off?

[fod]

Originally Posted by Envenom

I didn't drop $500 on a Geforce 580 to go low performance. lol.

hmm that doesnt really answer the question
graphics or fps?

"low performance" is high graphics settings to me because you get a lower frame rate than low graphics settings or "high performance"

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by IronMole

So I'm lying, right?

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