What are some modern games where the graphical settings actually make a big difference between at least "medium" and...

what are some modern games where the graphical settings actually make a big difference between at least "medium" and "ultra" getting tired of this shit

Other urls found in this thread:

tweakguides.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Do you play games for graphics?
Go watch a movie or something.

Ultra is the best that they can afford with the fps budget that they have. Anything less just turns off some shader settings and what not. The days of having different models for low setting died the moment it became a thing. I don't understand your complaint, you want your potato to be able to handle the game at low?

Ultra looks like shit there. Shadows aren't nearly that sharp in real life. High is the most realistic.

If you play any game other than a MUD/MUSH/MOO you're a giant faggot hypocrite.

Shadows should not be CRYSTAL CLEAR in most situations.

You are the scum ruining games faggot

Games nowadays do have shitty settings. It's amazing how much stuff you can pull off through an autoexec file. People go to insane lenghs to run demanding games in ultralow settings on laptops and toasters.

You couldn't possibly be any more fucking wrong.

depends on what you mean "medium" and "ultra".

Ultra is sometimes just "High" without memory restrictions.

You'd have better luck going directly to tweakguides.com/ and figuring out what settings to manually adjust in a config file.

I've never seen shadows done well in videogames. There is never a distance factor in shadow rendering, it's always "sharp as fuck" or "blurry pixely garbage" for all shadows, irrespective of the distance of the object itself. How demanding would that be?

>implying I spend money on game apart of buying them
Hey I didn't knew he Lumière brothers where here! How's the projecting going?

Serious Sam and The Talos Principle.

...

StarCraft 2

A good deal more demanding than uniform shadows. The shader would have to account for the distance between the edge of the polygon that casts the shadow and the surface of the polygon that the shadiow is cast upon along the entire edge of the shadow. And then you have to account for shadows in the presence of multiple light sources, shadow opacity (which would depend both on the distance between the object and the surfave, and also on the size of the object), any kind of diffuse lighting etc.

Lighting in graphics can be don in two big ways. One is to render for each light source thousands upon thousands of light beams, calculate where they hit and if it bounces(say it hits a mirror or a shinny surface). This takes a lot of computing power, and it is impractical in video games, but it is done in movies, where they shoot the movie, render the light scenes, wait a few hours/days and get very realistic lighting. In vidya they use techniques that mimick the real thing(such as Gouraud shading), the advantage is that it is much faster to process, but it is not as realistic. Perhaps in 20-30 years the average consumer will have computers fast enough to process lighting using the first technique and guaranteeing at least 30FPS.

you dont want it to make a difference, you want more fps while looking the same, maybe just slightly worse
unless its shit optimization ofcourse
but if you can pull this off, its good work

*same is max quality here

Fuck off consolefag

texturework, lighting and level design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having some stupidly sharp floating leaves on a now muddy-in-comparison looking texture.

i, too, am getting real tired of this shit

The worst offence is when the settings can really make it look noticably shittier and yet impacts the performance in no way. What is the point of 4-5 quality settings when all it does is make the game look shitty but doesnt get you more fps?

That just means you're dealing with a game that is horrendously unoptimized.