in other words
with how much slowdown sluggishness lag and other nonsense are you willing to put up just for the sake of pretty graphics ?

and back in the day with how much of that did you actually put up to be able to run a game ?

for me ? i dont put up with that i dont give a damn about purdy graphics or effects if the game runs like garbage
and some times even when you turn it all off the game still runs like shite

yes arkham knight i mean you !

blame him > https://www.gog.com/forum/general/how_low_quality_graphics_and_sound_you_can_accept_for_good_old_games/post35

I'm with the OP. I don't care or need the best graphics ever. Performance, game depth etc are what matters the most to me. These days, I wouldn't put up with a game with bad performance, I guess. Back in the day though, some of them were just badly programmed, so lag was a factor regardless. I still played through those.

I can put up with 30 fps in some games, but I must really enjoy it for that to happen.
On vita, I don't really have a choice.
No way to find out how it runs beforehand and no return policy. :l

Just posted in the other room, but I'll put my big thought here: Hmmm can't help but think how it wouldn't be too hard to write a poker game in Atari800 with basic text graphics that look fairly decent... Assuming BASIC doesn't get in the way.

No, I choose to blame you.

I don't deal with bad frame rate either and will turn off with no second thoughts any AA, bloom, motion blur, depth of field and V-Sync (some of them, I will turn off, even if my fps are good). I might also turn off other visual effects, provided that they don't make the game look worse than the previous generation. If I can't achieve a satisfying image quality along with good FPS, I'll just forgo the game.

Having said that, I still remember playing Stubbs the Zombie to completion, while suffering from seriously bad fps (less than 20), along with input lag on the lowest settings (even though I was supposedly over the minimum requirements). Still not completely sure how I was able to persevere, but I imagine that it was probably because I only had a few PC games at that time.

Graphics I don't care that much about. I'll tolerate bad framerates if I'm enjoying the game, within reason of course. Bloodborne had constant framerate drops but was still playable, the FF15 Platinum Demo seemed to run at 15fps for me, that goes beyond playable.

What bothers me most is inconsistent framerates. You can get used to anything, but if every 10s you get a whole different speed there's no consistency to get used to in the first place. I'll pick a 30fps lock over a fluctuating framerate between 35~75fps any day.

i first encountred oblivion on the xbox
so i didnt had that issue im fine with 30 fps personally
i dont see much difference between 30 and 60 fps

i set things on high now because i got a graphics card that can
( everything high in dirt 2 and the card still turns over at 240 fps i cant even SEE fps that high ) why me ?!

and i always turn of vsync
no idea why i just do

Graphics don't really matter to me as long as they aren't ugly (i.e. really old 3d games or the pixellated mess that appear to be a trend recently) and don't detract from gameplay (i.e. if I can't see what's happening in the game because the dev was too fond of pretty explosions, that's bad).

That being said, the frame rate doesn't matter all that much to me either. People keep harping on about 60 FPS as opposed to 30, but personally I've never been able to tell the difference. Any game that runs over 15 FPS is mostly fine with me.

More SJWs want to fuck with my right and control the fucking forum because you're too fucking stupid to......


Oh sorry, wrong thread.

As long as it's a stable 30, which usually for console exclusive games it is not.
I don't see the difference I feel it. :P

What is the point of pretty graphics when the damn thing is barely functional and it takes forever for the game to load? I don't want ugly ps1 graphics like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bz35OgrOi0

I still want a game that looks decent, but not at the cost of performance. Although, if you make the game fun enough I might let it slide. As long as I'm having fun I can forgive a lot since fun is what gaming is all about for me.

i dont even "feel" it
but 3D effects ( ie the 3D movie fad which seems to be dying down and the 3DS) make me motion sick
so that is probably a part of it

Pretty graphics mean nothing if you cant play the damn game!!!...

I'm not really sure. I'm not going to sacrifice frame rate to play on the highest settings when the regular combination of high&medium settings already runs fine. Neither will I be miffed that I can't run the game with everything on the highest setting.

In the end I want to be able to tune into the game world, and on occasion I have felt that poor graphics detracted from that. For example in LotR:Battle for Middle Earth I fiddled endlessly with the settings until I got the best looking version running at an acceptable framerate. Ditto for the first Crysis.

So I suppose I do care a lot about the look of a game*, but at the same time I can also appreciate the fact that a game can look really good without fancy graphics. For example the attached pics. While today they represent primitive and bare-bones graphics compared to modern games, I still find each of them stunningly beautiful (or perhaps captivating instead). Though perhaps that's just the nostalgia talking. Not that it would matter if it were the case.

* even nethack strangely enough, because I'm strangely put off by Vulture, Ditto for other tilesets for Dwarf Fortress. I find it really weird that the ascii versions look better somehow :P