PC Gaming: Why Do Low Settings Look OK Compared To Older Games?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- ► Watch the FULL Video: • DF Direct Weekly #169:...
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry CZcams: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry Merch: store.digitalfoundry.net
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry
► Follow on X/Twitter: / digitalfoundry
It’s the “low” that throws people off I think. If it was called “efficient” or something like that, more people would be ok with it.
Certainly the case for power efficiency. Which loads of people seem to dismiss for desktop but idk if a game is good enough at 60 with a gamepad and looks fine then what do I need to be driving my power bill up for? Let-alone heating my office & revving up my case fans for negligible difference in what I'm seeing.
@@InnuendoXPcan’t relate to this at all. give me graphics so good my eyes bleed power be damned.
Call it high frame rate mode and people would use it exclusively.
RE Engine games often have a "prioritize performance" mode these days. I think that kinda fits this
don't sugar coat "low settings" by calling it "efficient", because efficiency is just a by-product of turning settings off.
because if you play like WoW Classic with a gt1030 on 1080p high settings, it is still going to look better and be more efficient than a lets say gtx780ti on 720p low settings
Looking forward to the day we'll say "ray-tracing used to be so heavy!" Shadows used to be that for over a decade.
For some people on the high end this is already the case. I'm playing through Avatar (a game with RTGI) on unobtanium settings, and thanks to upscaling and FG this game is pretty much running at 100+ fps at 4K. Same with Alan Wake 2. It wont take THAT long before mid end cards will have a good time dealing with ray tracing. Maybe even 5000 series already.
Yeah, even without frame gen I set Avatar to have a 100FPS cap just to keep the GPU quiet.
That's only at 1440p in-game max, not unobtanium settings, but also it's on a 5 year old CPU and a 4070 super, which isn't that expensive (as GPUs go nowadays)
Likewise, Alam Wake 2 and Cyberpunk can be maxed out at playable frame rates even without frame gen.
If your using FG and up scaling to get a good frame rate, the yes it’s still heavy on your system. It’s just faking it and your loosing picture quality(resolution )and responsiveness (frame time). You maybe happy with the results but the statement still true, it’s costly to performance.
@@mmremugamesmm it's still heavy, but it's not "so heavy", with a current card. Remember, these are maxed out settings
Paying 1000$ to nvidia for fake frames and water ponds
Most low setting these days keep textures on a perceived okay quality, and shadows tend to remain on, those two alone can make the visual makeup that old "low" would completely change.
Games like rdr2 dont they nuke the textures
I do appreciate that low shadows does not = "no shadows" these days. "Some shadows" as a baseline minimum is acceptable under the circumstances.
Some games on low look better the high is clear to see what going on. 😂
@@xtr.7662 rdr 2 textures look bad even on high only ultra textures are useable in that game
Due to texture streaming, games can already have textures with effectively unlimited resolution. With "low textures" the streaming is just more aggressive probably.
Arguably, there shouldn't even be a texture quality setting, the game should just use the optimal quality for the available amount of VRAM.
I wish we still had ways to force ultra low potato settings, i remember back when low spec gamers channel used to have actual advice on this stuff it looked almost magical seeing super simple and blocky versions of AAA games...
Tldr more AAA games should have a PS1 model fidelity mode :P
Yea it's a shame he changed his whole channel direction and for some reason deleted all his old videos
@@bnbnism They're actually still on his channel, just unlisted and in playlists. I rather like the new stuff and I totally understand why he stopped
@@dinokaiser Why did he stop?
@@zaandam0172It became harder to make potato settings work due to obfuscation devs make/anti cheat and games becoming really demanding.
It's called 720p with FSA on Ultra Performance. Actually some games have custom resolution scaling and give you a slider to use, I've played around with 10% (so 1080p image upscaled from a 108p internal rendered image, I guess). Can't really tell what's going on, but it DOES run a lot faster!
Crysis on low settings looked so bad it looked like a hybrid of a ps2 and early ps3 game with some ps1 textures and non-existent lighting.
versus Very High which looked godlike and still somehow looks REALLY nice even today.
GTA 4 looks like absolute ass on low settings also.
@@ImGonnaFudgeThatFish I think its because Crysis was basically the 1st bigbudget game designed with future high end pcs in mind and not held back at all by consoles. I vaguely recall an interview where they stated the highest settings were actually designed to take advantage of future PC hardware that hadn't been released at the time. And this makes sense, I had a flagship 8800GTX GPU back in 2007 and it could only run the highest settings at 1024x768 at around 25fps (sometimes dipping below 20fps in the most demanding moments). It ran rendering techniques not seen on consoles until PS4/X1 arrived (like parallax occlusion maps).
Crysis actually turns off physics effects on low, too.
Introducing Crysis, the PS3 version. Haha. Terryfying experience.
Alan wake 2 looks insanely good even on low
Does it run much better than Medium or High settings?
@@Moshugaani yes
@@Moshugaani Not worth playing, in my opinion. Wait until you upgrade your system and play other games instead.
@@eduardobenassi3072 how do you even know what system he has ?
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat That was just a logical assumption, mister dragon guy. I don't need to explain it do I?
I like using low settings sometimes to save power or keep my pc from getting too hot. Mostly the hot thing. Summers are brutal
Same here also in my experience, frame generation also helps reducing temps.
that and capping framerate at 60 helps very much.
I use them and a fan to keep me from getting to hot, my computer is brutal.
Y'all gotta get air conditioners especially people in EU with how climate change is making every year hotter and hotter
I just don't use it xD
My life is on low settings :(
Same bro. MGD setting in hard these days.
Fr
So it goes smoother?
Happy for you!
Don't worry, we're all living in the matrix, once you unplug its the same res for most folk except for us short sighted.
Same. But hey at least GTA VI is on its way.
Holding onto GPUs: Until two months ago when a lightning bolt fried my entire PC (despite having a robust UPS), I was still rocking my i7-6700K and 980Ti from December 2015.
Now, unfortunately, I'm on a laptop-based mini-PC with a n 11900H CPU and no GPU, it's about one-tenth as powerful as the almost decade-old machine I recently lost.
On another note: lightning can destroy your computer and all its components regardless of what UPS / surge protector you have.
As far as graphics, as you approach "reality" your cost of computing becomes asymptotal. It takes more and more compute to do less and less noticeable improvement -- and getting to "reality" requires infinite compute (and would barely be noticeable on-screen).
That last paragraph should be on a sticker on every PC sold, the large majority of gamers simply don't grasp that concept.
Sorry about your PC dude.
So basically getting to photorealism is the same as approaching the speed of light: impossible as you get closer to speed of light you need exponentially more energy.
I've also once had my PC wrecked due to lightning, i think i lost my psu and i definitely lost my mobo because of that. CPU, gpu and storage was fine though.
Thankfully my power outlet protection thing (idk the name) tanked a lightning strike once and I only had to replace that but it's scary seeing your PC freak out like that lol
Whats this power outlet protector thing? Would love to get one. Building a pricey rig rn, thanks! @SaintGGod
Diminishing returns is probably the biggest factor. The best looking games now generally don’t look much better than the best of a decade ago. The biggest resource hogs now are resolution and special effects like over the top particles and Ray tracing that add very little to the image quality.
Don't forget the pores and tiny hair on faces.
The biggest resource hog is NOT resolution
ratchet and clank in low settings still looks amazing on pc. im surprised my 10year old pc still run it without issues.
Yeah, ratchet and clank runs great as long as you have an SSD and keep ray tracing off. Ray tracing still has occasional drops below 60 with my 4070super.
@@JordanJ01 finished the game on a hdd strangely fsr3 doesn' t work but lossless scaling does. so the game was 60fps all the way through on my gtx980.
@@TailslolYou need to upgrade. You might as well be playing on a PS4. DF themselves explains the issues that specifically Ratchet and Clank will have on a HDD. You enjoy lag and audio desync, etc ? They were even using high end processors and GPUs for the tests and it was STILL junk…and that would be because an HDD just doesn’t cut it anymore. And I’m sure your “10 year old PC” doesn’t have anywhere near as good of other components, as their test rigs. So I’m sure the experience was absolutely terrible. You need to at least get yourself a SATA SSD.
@@Master_Nate I agree that they should get an SSD, but there is no need to tell someone else that their experience was actually terrible.
@@jemandetwas1 I’m willing to bet it was though 🤷♂️ The majority of people are completely oblivious to performance issues and things like stutter. This is something I’m starting to realize more and more. And I think developers/ publishers (more so the publishers / head honchos / suits) realize it as well…and it’s why we continue to see releases that are actually absolutely broken and shouldn’t even be being sold. Like Jedi Survivor. There’s no fixing the game / it STILL isn’t fixed like over a year later. Yet people will still shill for that game / say it was good / say it deserved GOTY / call it “fixed”….when it absolutely is not. It’s complete junk. A product that doesn’t work as intended / advertised, or as expected by players.
I’m going to say the experience was likely terrible, because it most likely was. I personally cannot tolerate / excuse things like stutter, and I certainly couldn’t tolerate the major issues like audio desync that DF brought up about using an HDD on Ratchet. Because that’s not how the developers intended you to experience the game. It’s quite literally ruining the experience. The game not being meant to be played on a HDD, is also quite literally why it didn’t release on PS4 / PS4 Pro…which ran on HDDs. The game is meant to be seamless when using the rifts (the namesake of the game), and I believe even a SATA SSD caused little hitches in the loading. Buddy with the 10yr old system wasn’t even using one of those (1TB SATA SSD is like $70-$100 CDN these days, 500GB would likely cost this person less than the cost of a single game). Instead of getting Ratchet, they could’ve got an SSD that is going to help EVERY gaming experience in the long run.
Again, most people just don’t understand what a “good” experience is. No game developer actually wants their game to lag / have audio desync. You think movie directors would like random frames to freeze in their films ? Enjoying a big cinematic battle in the new Avengers movie, but suddenly the fight pauses for a few seconds…and when it unpauses, the audio doesn’t match up ? 👌 And to have that supposedly built right into the movie ? No, that’s not how they meant for you to experience it. Well it’s the same for video games.
If THEY had fun, fine. But it was still most likely an objectively bad experience.
I started PC gaming at low settings in Half-Life 2.
On a Riva TNT 2 for me. My mind was blown that it could even run.
Shadows should always be low. Never off, just low. Has anyone ever seen a shadow in real life, they're blurry as hell.
You should increase your shadow resolution
Low shadows aren't always more blurry though, often they're horribly blocky which does not reflect real life at all.
But there is a reason say soft shadow settings are often more demanding then regular shadows. Because yes, real shadows are blurry but on low settings they don't realistically cast shadows. I'm not saying that low setting shadows looks bad but they do not look how real shadows behaves .
Yeah except shadows on low a lot of the times don't have their render distance seperated. That's the problem.
The one setting that really annoys me is anisotropic filtering, changing visuals settings lower with a preset or even more annoying selecting the highest option preset available may leave it at 8x instead of 16x. This settings is pretty much free these days even at 16x and has been for years now, even on low powered devices like the Steam Deck it makes sod all difference. So why in the hell is this even a user selectable option anymore, just set at 16x as default and be done with it.
Yup, it makes no sense. Even as far back to the late 2000's 16x AF had very little to no performance cost.
Every effect does something and use some resources of hardware, but the significance of course depends on how each game is made and optimized.
When performance is already good enough, there's generally no reason to leave it out as said, I agree it has less impact than most other effects. But that some impact still exists. When I play a game where my system barely meets the recommended specs for, I am looking for different ways to ease the GPU and/or CPU load, to get from an almost 60 FPS to mostly 60 FPS. That includes reducing or disabling AF to shave off those valuable extra microseconds, if I'm not happy with other alternatives like removing all shadows completely or lowering refresh rate to 50 or 30 FPS.
@@RadioactiveBlueberry While your second paragraph is technically true, in practice, I have never seen so much as a 2 or 3% difference in framerate going from x16 to off. That would be one singular frame at 50 Hz.
Low end GPUs and entry point performance overall are A LOT higher now than they were. Because of this, a bit better (visual wise) low settings aren't a problem. For example : Alan Wake 2, if you want to you can play it on card that was released 5 years ago (RTX 20-/GTX 10-series (NV), or RDNA1/Vega GPUs).
However the same time for GPUs from Crysis (2006), would mean playing that game on GeForce 3 (Ti) or Radeon 8500 - very much NOT possible thing to do.
Again, vast majority of GPUs currently sold are simply powerful enough to not need visual potato graphics to run 2024 games well (which brings less "optimization needed" issue along with it, but that's besides the point).
Especially now that we have DLSS/FSR/XeSS and arguably FrameGen.
I played Elden Ring at launch for around 160 hours on a high end PC with everything set high, I had a great experience and the cost was about £36/$46 for electricity. I played Dying light 2 during the past few months and racked up 180 hours on a mini pc with a iGPU 780m, settings on very low and FSR set to performance (solid 60 FPS on a 1440p monitor, slightly soft but still impressive) , this cost around £3.40/$4.36 in total electricity and I had a brilliant time. The game still looked great to me, low settings in modern games are visually good and if anyone is having financial difficulties then low powered PC's are a viable option and you can game at a very low cost, about 15-16p for 8 hours in the UK.
yup, something that shouldn't be overlooked for sure. A great tip for people struggling financially and/or in poorer regions.
it's usually just textures and shadows that look bad on the lower settings, maybe geometry/object LODs if the game lets you tweak those. The rest like shaders, lighting etc you might be hard pressed to pick out the differences unless it was running side by side against the higher settings.
Pretty much this, yes. Shadows, textures and harsh LOD transitions/pop-in are the most noticeable.
i always prefer to use ultra textures even if rest of my settings are on medium or high
@@KhizarKhan2001 Same.
The double edged sword of "It looks amazing even on low" and "It scales terribly on old hardware".
Fear 1 is horrific on potato. The shadows and lighting contributed a lot to the atmosphere. It needed to be played on max.
The good part is that any pc can now play F.E.A.R. on max, and eveyone should experience it at least once.
On Steam Deck, I've made a habit of comparing the visual impact of every setting and figuring out the point of diminishing returns. For example, basic ambient occlusion will greatly improve the image, but a more advanced form of AO will demand more GPU power while hardly noticeable on a 7" display. So I settle for the lowest AO, etc. Combined with a moderate frame limit, you get impressive results out of a very limited device. Certainly better than going with presets.
I use a 1080ti still.
I can play any game in 1440p, 60fps, with some ultra settings and some medium settings. Shadows and ambient occlusion get set to medium instantly. But mostly a 1080ti can utilise higher graphics settings under 4K resolution and be fine with it, even on modern triple A titles. I know it's out of date now, but if you don't need RT and PT and all the fancy realism graphics modes that people usually don't notice in game and just screenshot it, then you are good to go on any mid-range card as long as you don't want 120+hz frametimes.
not true at all.
@@cossgamer2530 npc has spoken.
I just noticed that Dachsjaeger has a really cool Marcus Fenyx type scar on his right cheek.
I personally only agree partially. While it's true that low settings look pretty good nowadays, i also think the performance impact between lower and higher settings often are not that great. At least thats my experience.
Currently playing Control on an ancient gtx 750ti and the game somehow runs reasonably well on low, and it looks ok which is the most impressive part.
"Yes it's ok to use low specs"
This was always the case. Not even 1% of steam users own a monster PC.
Yet more people own a 4090 than the most popular amd gpu.
Around 25% of Steam users own a better PC than current consoles.
Sounds like you missed the point of this conversation. They're talking about low specs relative to a time back before Steam even existed, when using the "Low" preset had a very different impact on the visuals of the game - often times breaking the image entirely.
It was *not* always the case that it's okay to use low specs. That, and why exactly things are different now, was the whole topic of the question asked in this clip.
@@rahulpandey9472 My 2018 laptop PC can't run Sonic Forces even on low settings. My Switch can.
@@dudujencarelli A gtx 1050 ti can run that game over 100 fps, 1080p, maxed out. If your laptop can't then it's your fault for buying a poor product.
By the way, what are the specs of your laptop?
There was a website for intel HD gaming that listed compatible games for the old integrated CPU graphics.
I remember trying out a config file for Team Fortress 2, I think the goal was to get a high frame rate at full resolution.
It basically made every 3D model about 5 triangles. It was the craziest looking thing I'd ever seen, I've no idea if anyone actually played the game like that 😂
I personally think that especially with Medium the difference to Ultra is so small I need to look at diff screenshots.
Really depends on the game.
Pretty simple; the leaps and bounds of 1999, 2004, 2011 etc have turned into far more iterative progression.
The last big leap was ps2 to ps3 everything else is iterative
@@xtr.7662 no. Let’s not forget that the ps3 generation was viewed through a sub 600p soup at times at around 20-30fps. While yes what was being rendered became less startling in relation to the leaps, well, we weren’t allow to see it through the blur and low frame rates! I’d say the step up to higher frame rates and higher resolution/resolution quality for non-pc gaming was one of the final “big leaps”.
@@xtr.7662Lol no, ps3 gen was awful, ps4 era graphics is the leap.
7:00 Dreamcast Halo would’ve been a crazy back in the day! Though I imagine it’d be as troubled as the Half Life port
As with all games....quality depends on the skill of the dev.
Wasn't Half-Life ported to the PS1? I mean, if the game can run on the PS1, it could've certainly run on the Dreamcast.
I just wish that benchmarks included games ran at low settings. As someone with a 240hz laptop, I usually crank the settings down to get as much FPS possible.
It's mentally difficult for me to use low or even medium after splashing so much cash on expensive components.
I also come across games so badly optimised, there is barely any fps difference between low and high settings.
This is why consoles are still so popular cheap entry and you don't have to think about graphics options you get what you get and most of the time when you think about how much it costs you accept it perfectly.
Once you realise how diminishing high and ultra settings are, you won't feel bad. I just upgraded my gpu, and maxing out forbidden west visually looked identical to the optimised settings on my old gpu. The biggest change was the framerate increase. The only real ultra settings these days are ray tracing, like how RT or overdrive in cyberpunk actually matters.
@@gamingedition5165but modern games are blurry as fuck in console lol
@@Alcatraz760Yeah but u still can play at high settings not maxed, saves you fps in general.
When it comes to graphics settings I always turn DOF, Grain, and especially that edge darkening off. It's not meant to be a literal camera(Most of the time) so DOF and Grain make no sense. And I don't understand the point of darkening the edges of the screen so it's just a super weird setting.
I keep on wanting to expand GI to Gastro-Intestinal instead of Global Illumination.
Or AI to Artificial Insemination?
Aren't we thinking about this backwards? In like 2009, I could buy a mid GPU that could have basically all, or most modern releases on highest/ high setting for a cheap price. A "mid" GPU these days is so much more expensive compared to then. It seems the best cheaper option is an old "mid" GPU. Playing on highest settings today is just so demanding, and playing on low is also quite demanding, playing on low seems relatively way more demanding today than 15 years ago
Agreed. And I think it's because "low" doesn't mean much these days. It exists because particle effects and lighting often gets dramatically reduced (and these are pretty expensive effects with sometimes margincal effects on gameplay in the grande scheme of things). But also, you just don't see lower poly assets anymore. You don't see much lower geometric detail, or if you do, it's only mildly reduced on low. It's usually textures going lower or just reducing resolutions, or basically things that the renderer can do with absolutely no input from the artists or anyone else. Mostly automated in the engine the game runs in. We used to have low settings be actually made by tools and artists and put into the game, hence the PS1 looking visuals you could achieve on older games.
You clearly don't remember how 2009 was.
I'm still playing on a Geforce 970m and I've only had a couple of games that I couldn't really play.
Basically there's more opportunities to scale now. We've got way more effects running, at higher resolutions, LODs are displayed to higher distance, shadows too.
So there's a lot of things we can scale down or turn off without having to resort to high-impact options like turning off shadows.
i remmember my suffering with the GForce 4 MX 64mb. EVERY GAME was like "Minimum requirements: a GPU with 32mb (except for MX line pf cards, sorry lad)"
For me... providing textures and ambient occlusion is set to a decent standard the rest can get to fuck. (Legion go) on my desktop howevever i usually remove AA if needed only as even TAA or MSAA can lead to a haze around objects.
Interesting topic.
Medium is what I'd usually consider the baseline of maintaining the artistic vision. From what I know, a lot of multiplat games on consoles use a mixture of medium and low settings when compared to PC (at least that was the case during the 8th gen).
At the same time.... there are SO MANY settings now that many people don't know which have high, low or no cost involved.
F.E.A.R. is another example of low settings ruining the intended look of the game by the developers. They look horrendous. The game loses a lot of its creepy atmosphere.
I think medium to low settings mixed up is ok these days .
Hellbalde 2 looks great at medium settings as well .
It is also dependant on the engine. UE usually can scale down while still looking good. The forza horizon 5 engine is also very good and very performant. But frostbite in general is very poor. It not only kills fps but also adds on HUGE amounts of latency and input lag - which in driving games make driving very unpredictable.
I feel like the ultra settings are is mainly to provide the extra fidelity for higher resolutions like 1440p or 4k.
I will always run shadows on medium and anti aliasing at max. Anything after is usually not worth it with the hit to performance. Re4 Remake looks amazing with mid to low settings and runs at a constant 144fps on my 3070 at 1440p
I remember playing through Plague Tale: Requiem on the lowest settings 900p and the game looked great. We really don't need to sweat so much about graphics.
Turning everything down BUT keeping anisotropic filtering antialiasing and post processing like bloom or godrays can still keep your game looking pretty damn good and it will give your a boost of +40fps
i've always been a medium settings gamer, and yeah games really did start looking a lot better at lower settings in the last few years. it also feels like lowering settings doesn't boost your fps as much as it used to, which would make sense since you're not turning everything off anymore, but i think that has more to do with the fact that low-mid range gpus have been stagnated and just overall bad performance-wise
I remember trying to get quake 3 arena to run decently on my compaq presario... A staples computer... I had to turn lighting to vertex rather than have light maps at 640x480, which was a huge downgrade and made the game look totally different... Unless.... I pushed the minus button on my keyboard and shrunk the screen, which allowed me to turn everything up and play in a very tiny square on my monitor. Just wanted to tell that tale if we are talking about potatos and taking desperate measures in trying to get things to run...
I turned Hellblade down to Medium as my RX570 didn't like High. At 1080p on a TV from 6 feet away I can't tell the difference.
Been using lowest to mid settings all my life 😅 games still look good and its really impressive how well optimized a lot of modern games are.
This is true, but I'd like to see a video discussing 2010s games on ultra vs 2020s games on low. I think that games like Metro Last Light looks and runs way better than many 2020s shooters on low, Starfield a great example. This also means that games used to be optimised way better than they are now.
I'm gaming on an i7-920 with a GTX 1050ti, and I play games on High or Ultra. Of course these are all old and/or indie games, of which I have more than enough in my backlog. If I can't run it on High and have a good time, on the backlog it stays until I get a new system, whenever that happens (October 2025 at the latest, given Win 11 support ending.)
I would agree with all that but with medium settings :)
1440p/60-120FPS/120Hz/High Settings. That’s my preference, I’m on 4070 tho. I can’t run CyberPunk Maxed with RT or PT it’s 30-45FPS. Low settings are def noticeable when you play on a 75 inch tv.
I wonder how BG3 would run/look on my laptop since it's in the low settings margin and not recommended
I personally think that graphical presets should not include upscaling, EVER. The low settings should look bad and flat for the sake of the people with older/slower PCs to run them, with Medium looking okay and High doing everything you would want and be the definitive way to play. Ultra can continue to be left as the settings for future hardware or high-end hardware of the time.
It's disappointing how many games don't make Ultra look noticeably better, and Low looks too good. I've been playing MW3 and XDefiant on Low (Textures on Ultra still) , after I played them at max setting initially, and on Low it basically just makes the shadows either look blocky or just not be there, and the AO and reflections are gone, some slight degredation to the density of grass and stuff too, but it's not that big.
Im a humble man i played the hole alan awake 2 on low sdtings with graphics preset low setings but not erverything is set to low somethings are in medium,low,high it looks stuning. With dlss on quality and 60 fps or above 90% of the game. With my rtx 2060.
as someone who has always preferred framerate over visuals, i have no clue what this is about.
in fact i feel like this is a recent thing, now that photorealism is plausible in games and lowering settings might put thing just on the far side of the uncanny valley. but maybe that's just me since i've been gaming since the 8-bit era, when a port of a game might not even remotely resemble the original game.
Starfield low settings 😢😢
How about console settings, why it is so hard to do this on the menus
PC gaming has that stigma that EVERYONE has to have the latest PC parts & be high end. For some reason everyone thinks if you play PC, you play every game at max settings, 4K & Ray Tracing.
But I allways tell people you CAN upgrade your Hardware every year... or you wait 5+ years. I rarely upgrade. I basically upgrade in a similar time how console generations work.
I currently have a 3070, & yes 8GB vram sucks because Devs get lazy, but it's fine. I can see myself using that a few more years.
And the stronger the Hardware, the longer it can last. (As long as it doesen't break ofc).
Marketing has to market. That including CZcamsrs there’s a reason they’re always throwing 4090/4080 in everyone’s faces. Despite the fact that less than 10% has those premium cards
According to steam data most people are still using the 1650 or 3050
So... Yeah not everyone Is playing on max settings, its stupid to asume all pc players have a monster pc
I’m running a 2019 MacBook Pro with a 256gb Bootcamp partition. It’s hit or miss with current gen games but works on low usually. I’m hopping onto a PS5 as soon as GTA drops 🤘
8GB of Vram sucks because people allowed Nvidia to get away with it and continued buying their products.
8GB of vram is not a dev issue, it's an NVIDIA issue. The first 8GB cards were released in 2015, it's not dev's fault that they though VRAM would increase in a decade.
I played Alan Wake II on PC and even on my RTX 3060 (which I believed can do anything) I had to set every single option to the lowest and use DLSS from like 600p to my monitor's 1440x900 so I could have these "almost 60fps" most of the time. And it looked like the best looking game I have ever played. I was thinking like, if it looks like THIS on low, how the hell it looks like on Ultra High? But that's something I will never learn.
I've been commenting a lot on videos about PC game settings, suggesting that developers should add a "Console" preset (like some Sony PC games have done). This preset would offer settings similar to consoles, balancing visuals and performance. Gamers could then adjust these settings based on their hardware.
The reason for a console preset is that it's usually the best-balanced version from developers, optimizing both looks and performance. Many gamers see low or medium settings and think it means bad graphics, leading to complaints about poor optimization.
The lowest settings and the highest settings do look different, but not drastically. Gamers often skip low settings because they assume it's not worth playing, missing out on the fact that low settings can still look good. On the other hand, when they see console footage online, they think consoles are running higher settings because it looks great, even though consoles have weaker hardware.
i have 7500f 32gb 4800mhz and a 1660 super, i always play on 1080p low, my tip is, to always turn off depth of field, blur, motion blur, and anti aliasing, and i cap my fps to 60, it looks good to me imho, and im not upgrading my gpu anytime soon.
i remember late 360/ps3 titles like Far Cry 3 and Battlefield 3/4 having low settings that were actually BETTER than the console versions. and able to run on really low end hardware.
The only settings I use on low are DOF, CA and Motion Blur. xdd
That's the best thing about FrostBite engine, it looks good even on low
Another commenter just said the opposite about FrostBite...
Maybe it's time we added an ultra low setting that we reserve for the lowest of the low ugly settings that the 7-10 graphics cards can still play. I played Alan Wake 2 on low and was confused because it looked really good. Robocop Rogue City and even from a few years ago, Ghostwire Tokyo both of which I'm playing now look good on low
I only replaced my GTX970 (with a 4070ti) about six months ago.
I love low settings so much that in Yooka Laylee i turn on the N64 graphics settings haha i wish more games did cool shit like that
It is also to achieve the highest fps possible, now that 120hz monitors are more common
Did someone just *Mocked* the Dreamcast!??
How DARE You
Control on low with a 40hz cap via special K makes that game so scalable.
Which game was is back in the day that would do "Good Better Best" for graphics rather than low medium high
Guild Wars 2 on low looks like WoW.
Would like Control to get a fix update on PC.
What fix? There is an unofficial developer patch that adds a ton of things. From great HDR, to improved raytracing and Dlss.
@@gavinderulo12 Maybe an official of that patch 😀
@@batzraph708 it's really easy to install. Alex even made a video on it last year or so.
Low is especially still decent on CRT monitors
I always lower shit that I don't notice i stead of spending a shitload on rigs
"PC Gaming: Why Do Low Settings Look OK Compared To Older Games?" Because they are not low enough.
I believe it mostly depends on the engine and how advanced tech they are using. Like demon souls and lords of the fallen. 1st game looks much superior and has solid 60 fps compared to 2nd game which seems to run at less than 1080p
Crysis on high settings reminds of modern games on low settings. And crysis looks good even today. So if you can play crysis on high settings with no issue and have a graphics card modern enough to run the latest graphical frameworks then you can play games at low settings.
Sometimes low can look a bit ropey. But in almost all games medium looks great.
There are people out there who think games that look the same at low and max is a good thing. Most modern games look pretty good on low settings what isn't exactly a good thing. Sure going too low is going to make the game look garbage for like 3fps increase but more options never hurt for those who need it.
It really depends on the game. Alan wake 2 sees large performance improvements when going down to low, while still looking amazing.
Except Elden Ring, Elden Ring on low settings looks extremely bad lol.
The settings barely make a difference
What a stellar scar, probably from a naughty blade
There are low settings?
Low settings on Fallen Order
The Last of Us on PC was so bad at low at release! It's way better now though. Looks great on Steam Deck now even with some settings on medium.
I was shocked when i saw the native PS5 App of CONTROL still uses Low Settings. But still looks very good
Depends on resolution if your playing on 720p you wont be able to make out higher quality details anyway.
For some games, I just put on low settings so I could see whats the hell is happening
modern low settings have high textures in the characters and textures with the size of ps3/360 on the background and less to none visual effects. the worse looking is still the shadows. so they look good. 👍
High settings on old games looks better than low settings new games.
This must be partly a generational thing. Was speaking with some of my work colleagues the other day. Most of us (old-timers) can remember only short windows in our entire lives where we owned PCs with a spec able to run contemporary games with "ultra" settings at high framerates. "Medium-high" settings has always been the reality, at best, while "ultra" was almost always aspirational. I played 55% of all my games on Steam Deck last year according to the Steam statistics, so I'm very glad to see that "low" is finally viable. But I find it strange to see some people complain that their [insert specs here] system can't run [insert game here] at "ultra" settings at 60fps+. Just expect to turn some settings down and get on with it... has that not always been the way?
I'd say Medium these days is a pretty balanced preset. High and Ultra rarely offer anything that'd make them worth losing almost 30-50% of frames.
Because the only thing the industry seriously improved over the past 10 or i dare even say 15 years were ray-tracing, 60FPS and resolution, you can drop all of these to low and still have a fully enjoyable experience that's still aesthetically pleasing. In the old days low meant lower poly counts, meant lower detail, crappy textures etc
Don't forget mortal Kombat One on switch exists!
That's a low setting disaster
PBR may be responsible for making low settings still look good.