Question About Games & Screen Resolution

hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

up until last week, i had a 32MB Radeon AIW card (old card on my new
system, P4 2.8E), and I played Madden 2003, NHL 2004, NBA 2004 all at
1280x1024 resolution..... the games played just fine, no stuttering and
smooth play.

i have an AIW 9600 now with 128MB, and I'm sticking with that
resolution....

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max out
the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY crappier
than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to play (EA Sports)
just not 3D-intensive games?

maybe i could get some thoughts/opinions on this issue. i've never even
contemplated running a game at less than 1280x1024! i've been following
threads on some of the new games (Doom 3, farcry etc) and I see people
talking about playing them at 800x600 when they have a 9800 card?!? does
it really depend on the game and not the card/computer specs?

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:12 -0500, Good Man wrote:

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

I nearly always play at 1024x768 with FSAA and AF. The framerate hit
isn't worth the miniscule amount of noticeable extra eye candy a
higher resolution would provide me.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:30:12 -0500, Good Man wrote:

hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

up until last week, i had a 32MB Radeon AIW card (old card on my new
system, P4 2.8E), and I played Madden 2003, NHL 2004, NBA 2004 all at
1280x1024 resolution..... the games played just fine, no stuttering and
smooth play.

i have an AIW 9600 now with 128MB, and I'm sticking with that
resolution....

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max out
the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY crappier
than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to play (EA Sports)
just not 3D-intensive games?

maybe i could get some thoughts/opinions on this issue. i've never even
contemplated running a game at less than 1280x1024! i've been following
threads on some of the new games (Doom 3, farcry etc) and I see people
talking about playing them at 800x600 when they have a 9800 card?!? does
it really depend on the game and not the card/computer specs?

To me, there's a huge difference between 800x600 and 768x1024 in the
way of quality, but I see virtually no gain by moving up in
resoloution. I have a good viewsonic 19" monitor, and I believe the
limiting factor is eyesight (My kid says he can see a bit of
difference, I can't).
If a person is using a 17" or (god forbid) a 15" monitor, those higher
resoloutions will benifit them very little (if at all, providing they
are supported in the first place).
It _seems_ to me that some games take a harder performance hit from
going up in resoloution than others, so it is also depends on what
they are playing also. I've never played any of the games you listed,
but I seriously doubt you could play farcry or UT2004 at 1280x1024
with no slowdown on a 32meg radeon. In all reality, you would probably
have to drop to 800x600 for farcry to be playable with that old of a
card (maybe someone here can give an idea if that's right or not).
Also, there's alot of graphics options in many games, so a person may
prefer low resoloution/higher settings than the opposite.
As far as playing D3 at 800x600, it _could_ be that that person's
eyesight just isn't well enough to see the difference, or that their
eyes are more strained than most by lower framerates. You also can't
rule out something else in the system slowing things down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You should start drinking prune juice and KY jelly cocktails right now,
that will make things a lot smoother.
-Felatio Love

On 8/22/2004 11:30 AM Good Man brightened our day with:

does
it really depend on the game and not the card/computer specs?


Download the Far Cry demo and try playing it at 1280, 1024 and then at
800 and see what you think is acceptable.
That should answer all your questions. Some people can tolerate a game
being laggy, jerky and slow and will over-extend their gaming
resolution, most people like fluid gameplay and are willing to play at
standard resolutions.

EA sports games are about 10% as graphically intensive as Doom 3 or Far Cry.

--
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men

Steve ¤»Inglo«¤

Good Man wrote:
hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

up until last week, i had a 32MB Radeon AIW card (old card on my new
system, P4 2.8E), and I played Madden 2003, NHL 2004, NBA 2004 all at
1280x1024 resolution..... the games played just fine, no stuttering
and smooth play.

i have an AIW 9600 now with 128MB, and I'm sticking with that
resolution....

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max
out the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY
crappier than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to
play (EA Sports) just not 3D-intensive games?

maybe i could get some thoughts/opinions on this issue. i've never
even contemplated running a game at less than 1280x1024! i've been
following threads on some of the new games (Doom 3, farcry etc) and I
see people talking about playing them at 800x600 when they have a
9800 card?!? does it really depend on the game and not the
card/computer specs?

Although I can play most games at higher resoultions I don't like it because
if there is any text to read it makes it too small on my 17' monitor.
1024x768 is about right for me. Even playing Dues Ex (I just started it
over again) at 1280x1024 (highest my monitor supports) I find myself leaning
into the monitor whenever anything is written on the screen cause I can't
read it.

What size monitor are you running? I got a 21" and I agree with your theory
but if it were a smaller monitor then there wouldn't be as much point. I
personally prefer the crisp look of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 to the blurry
look of 1024x768 FSAA.

On the other side of the scale, console games are very popular but they
connect to TV's that are very low resolution compared to computer monitor.





"Good Man" wrote in message
...
hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

up until last week, i had a 32MB Radeon AIW card (old card on my new
system, P4 2.8E), and I played Madden 2003, NHL 2004, NBA 2004 all at
1280x1024 resolution..... the games played just fine, no stuttering and
smooth play.

i have an AIW 9600 now with 128MB, and I'm sticking with that
resolution....

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max out
the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY crappier
than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to play (EA
Sports)
just not 3D-intensive games?

maybe i could get some thoughts/opinions on this issue. i've never even
contemplated running a game at less than 1280x1024! i've been following
threads on some of the new games (Doom 3, farcry etc) and I see people
talking about playing them at 800x600 when they have a 9800 card?!?
does
it really depend on the game and not the card/computer specs?

1024X768 is the best resolution for most CRT monitors. People should be
using CRT's with at least 85 Hz refresh rates, if not 100-120 Hz. If they
use a CRT (many are using LCD's now days, which have issues of their own).

Your 9600 video card will NOT play a game as visually intensive as DOOM 3 at
1280x1024, even with all of the games extra visual goodies turned off. It
does NOT have enough graphics processing power.

--
DaveW



"Good Man" wrote in message
...
hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

up until last week, i had a 32MB Radeon AIW card (old card on my new
system, P4 2.8E), and I played Madden 2003, NHL 2004, NBA 2004 all at
1280x1024 resolution..... the games played just fine, no stuttering and
smooth play.

i have an AIW 9600 now with 128MB, and I'm sticking with that
resolution....

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max out
the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY crappier
than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to play (EA
Sports)
just not 3D-intensive games?

maybe i could get some thoughts/opinions on this issue. i've never even
contemplated running a game at less than 1280x1024! i've been following
threads on some of the new games (Doom 3, farcry etc) and I see people
talking about playing them at 800x600 when they have a 9800 card?!?
does
it really depend on the game and not the card/computer specs?

Good Man wrote:
hi there

i was just wondering why people bother to play games at 800x600, or
1024x768, when their computers are totally new (2.5Ghz+) and they have
128MB videocards?

You have to notice two things. There are two needs or types of gaming:
multi- and singleplays. When you plays Doom3 on your own computer then
you are very happy with cool fx's and maybe high resolution. But when
playing in Internet, you need damn good FPS or little better. B-) You
rise your visual effects down/off and tweak a lot. You need to cheat ass
much ass you can to see your enemy far away etc. and that your screen is
scrolling smoothly so that your aiming works in 100 %. Good aim = you
live and are on the top of the list. Bad = you are dead man. You born,
shoot with your pistol and dead again..

So, when you play singleplay you buy good display card. When you play
multiplay you buy good CPU and line/connect to Internet: xDSL etc.

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions? is it just to max
out the FPS? don't games at 800x600 (even with AA and AF) look WAY
crappier than 1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like to
play (EA Sports) just not 3D-intensive games?

This AA/AF systems depends... When you use high resolution there is not
so bad need to them. They are for 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 screens. But
this resolutions are from multigamers screen and they do not of course
use them. They lower FPS. So, who really needs AA/AF? I think no-one.

"Good Man" wrote

so why would someone play at a lower resolutions?
is it just to max out the FPS? don't games at 800x600
(even with AA and AF) look WAY crappier than
1280x1024 with no AA/AF? or are the games I like
to play (EA Sports) just not 3D-intensive games?

Hell yeah. Try Doom3 using the same settings as you use
in your simple sports games and you'll see that a Radeon
9600(Pro/XT) isn't any beast that can run every possible
game with max eye candy :-)

Thief3 for example, simply doesn't run smoothly in
resolutions above 800x600 (9600pro 128mb) even if I
minimize all details etc. So yeah, I'm using such a small
resolutions as 800x600 and 1024x768 because I don't
want fps to suffer too much. 1024x768+2xAF usually
gives good fps in most other "simple" games.

Secondly, I don't see a reason to use bigger resolutions
than 1024 because I just have a 17 inch CRT-monitor.