Slowtrain Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 But you did get why I think it's weird, right? Well, I am assuming that you believe games should look as photorealsitic as possible and that if someone doesn't shafe that view it's weird. I'm just guessing though. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Oner Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Because you're weird, but you think others are the weird ones? Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13.
Purkake Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) But you did get why I think it's weird, right? Well, I am assuming that you believe games should look as photorealsitic as possible and that if someone doesn't shafe that view it's weird. I'm just guessing though. I believe that you'd want a game to look as good as possible while still running at a decent framerate, as close to the developer's original vision as possible. This has nothing to do with photorealism. If I crank Prince of Persia's settings up it doesn't get more photorealistic, it looks more like a watercolor painting, for example. Edited November 1, 2009 by Purkake
Slowtrain Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 But you did get why I think it's weird, right? Well, I am assuming that you believe games should look as photorealsitic as possible and that if someone doesn't shafe that view it's weird. I'm just guessing though. I believe that you'd want a game to look as good as possible while still running at a decent framerate, as close to the developer's original vision as possible. This has nothing to do with photorealism. If I crank Prince of Persia's settings up it doesn't get more photorealistic, it looks more like a watercolor painting, for example. I've tried running games on slightly higher settings from time to time. The difference is pretty minimal. Either way it still looks like a computer game. Just smaller. If I drop down to 800*600 though it does start to look more blocky than I like. Although if there's no choice then running games at as low as 320*240 is fine, such as XCOM or Daggerfall. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Purkake Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 You're just conservative while I reach for the skies.
Slowtrain Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 You're just conservative while I reach for the skies. I have old eyes. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Purkake Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 We aren't getting any younger. How much longer till that direct neural interface, damn it?
WILL THE ALMIGHTY Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) Oh boy I can't wait until my vision is augmented. Edited November 1, 2009 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"
Purkake Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Wearing sunglasses all the time is going to be totally sweet!
Masterfade Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 My friends think I'm weird because I've never hooked up my PC with my 55" HDTV after spending $20 or so extra for a gfx card with native HDMI output. But I blame Galaxy for not supplying me with a free HDMI cable!
Pop Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Slowtrain Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 lol. Do I even want to know? Probably not. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
alanschu Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I'm a 1024x768 gamer too. Though I have a CRT. Otherwise I'd use a native resolution of my monitor. Even at 800x600 I have to look for aliasing though. I'll notice it if I'm scanning a horizon or need to look at the model edges. But that's rare I find.
Purkake Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 CRTs are the devil! And I though I was behind the times when I switched to LCD back in 2005...
alanschu Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I like variable resolutions, and at the time it was significantly cheaper. WHen I bought my CRT, I couldn't afford an LCD monitor that could do 1600x1200
Purkake Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Well, they're dirt cheap now. You can get a 24'' 1920x1200 one for like $200.
Slowtrain Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I feel so antedeluvian with my vanilla NEC lcd. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Hell Kitty Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I play most everything at 1920x1080. Went widescreen sometime earlier this year, replacing my the old CRT I had for about 8 years. I love my slim, sexy LCD.
Hell Kitty Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Steal one from work, I'm sure Bio have loads of them lying around.
Killian Kalthorne Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Alan works at Bio? "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now