Are there any recent games when changing graphics settings from high/very high to ultra actually makes a notable difference?
Either I just got bad eyes or just don't know what to check but I see no differences with modern games.
>>343406537
No.
It's a serious thing with most console-origin multiplat games these days, that started quite a while ago. Some games LITERALLY look almost identical on both Low and High. CS:GO is one of them.
Pic very related, Crysis 3.
>>343407342
You do realize that the difference might very well only be visible in motion,right?
>>343407895
it seldom is.
You have way more time to analyze the differences in still images, actually.
Just look up some setting comparisons on Youtube. CS:GO's texture quality literally does not change no matter what.
>>343406537
Total War has very noticeable changes. Don't play much else besides those and VNs, so I don't know of any others.
It's not just you OP. It's the climate of the times. Every major game that pushes modern hardware today is a console multiplat. These games are developed with basically one target spec in mind: console hardware. This means that when it comes time to port the game to PC, all they do is crank up the bullshit numbers on things like shaders and lighting effects that don't make drastic changes to the overall scene imagery. Yet it still taxes the hardware insanely high. It's a win/win for the hardware manufacturers as it justifies new component generations running faster than previous ones without developers needing to actually work harder to make Ultra settings that mean anything.
The only games that will have a huge difference from Low to Ultra will be PC exclusives, or games that were PC exclusives and then got ported to consoles after. An example is Crysis. Low vs Very High is night and day difference. Because they specifically targeted PC and know that there is a range of hardware that would run it on, and needs a wider range of visuals to support it.
thank god Croteam is still a friend of master race
>>343409271
Makes me not so bummed that I got Gigabyte Meme70.
>>343409679
>tfw Talos ran surprisingly smooth on edited Low settings on 1.5Ghz AMD A4 laptop
>>343406537
Also the fucking framerate.
I'm on a peasant gaming laptop (670mx). New Doom was 1080p Ultra settings for me by default (top kek). I was gettting 15-20FPS on average (you know, console framerate). Turned all the settings to low and FPS went up 20-30. WTF lmao. Graphics looked almost the same. Had to turn it down to 720p / high - finally hit 40-50fps.
>>343409271
I still think Crysis is one of the best looking games almost 10 years later. I can max that shit out but games today are chugging no matter what and they look fractionally better. I blame lazy developers.
There's also law of diminishing return. You need a ton more power for graphics to look marginally better.
>>343406537
Fuck this monster. I'm going through Doom 2 for the first time and I swear to god
>>343408486
This image is bullshit. I played fc3 not too long ago and my pc is kinda bad so I messed with settings a lot trying to find best quality-performance, low there doesn't look anything like in your picture, water is much worse, vegetation is nonexistant. Point is difference between low and high is quite massive, and it's much more noticeable in motion on decent resolution. This doesn't have to do anything with how much detail you're able to absorb looking at still image, it's about how many points of view you have constantly moving around your character and camera which allows you to view things better (since graphics are, duh, 3d).
>>343410806
>I still think Crysis is one of the best looking games almost 10 years later
true.
it also has better physics and level of environmental interaction than a good majority of modern games.
it's also mindboggling that games still tend to use pre-baked lighting. I thought we were past that thing already in 2004, even more so after 2007, when Crysis and STALKER came out, but nope.
>>343411197
Because pre-baked looks fucking mint for minimal performance cost.
>>343411058
you're gonna love its Doom 64 version!Spawns TWO Lost Souls at once!
>>343411185
played FC3 on PC just once, tried all different setting combos. The game really did not look that different on Low vs High, at least on DX9.
>>343411321
True, when done well.
However, when they mix in those dynamic character shadows, that just clip through everything and overlap over the static lightmaps... it just looks lazy.
Hell, my old WinXP machine with P4, 1.5GB RAM and Geforce 6600GT 128mb could already run STALKER SoC on DX9 full dynamic lighting @ 1024x768, 30fps, back in 2007, and it looked amazing back then, still looks great today. I just refuse to believe that current-gen machines and western AAA devs can't achieve the same.
>>343411197
That pic is amazing. By comparison heres Far Cry
>>343411541
Meatball daemon is always true daemon.
>>343411552
>By comparison heres Far Cry
you seem to have posted a wrong picture, since that is from Far Cry: Primal.
Here's the FC.
>>343411058
TNT Evilution likes using these things in the last third of the IWAD or so. Irritating when you have a rocket launcher.Stand right in front of it and it can't spawn anything.
>>343411197
fucking EA and consoles had to ruin this series.. the original engine was more advanced than the ones employed on Crysis 2 and 3
>>343409679
Too bad SS3 was dogshit
>>343411632
Stop doing this, you're hurting me ;_;
>>343406537
It lowers the FPS to give it the more cinematic realistic feel
>get 1440p monitor
>pixels are dense enough that anti-aliasing is no longer necessary in most games
>>343411923
>Too bad SS3 was dogshit
your face is dogshit.
SS3 was fucking GOTY, and far better "Doom4" than the crap we got.
can't wait for Sam 4.
>>343412318
I want more Talos Principle.
Try lowest settings with textures on ultra and 16x Af. those settings make the most difference to image quality but barely even affect performance.
>>343412318
yes, look at that masterful level design
>>343412318
are you that 16:10 anon who posted the far cry 2 threads a while back?
>>343412318
SS3 was shit until the last few levels
>>343412318
I'm a guy who loves Serious Sam, and yes SS3 was dogshit. It's a rushed amalgamation of failed projects that doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. Only the later levels are good, but it's a slog to get to, and adding reloading was a horrible decision. If the game had more polish it could have been far better. New DOOM is polished as fuck and far more fun. A better return to form than SS3.
