We have a scale, and on one end is 'amazing graphics at 1FPS' and on the other is 'shitty graphics and no performance issues whatsoever'. Most people will find a happy medium, but I'm curious about where that happy medium is for most people. Obviously this is theoretical since sometimes you can have shitty graphics and performance or its opposite.
I will always have PC games at the lowest graphical setting where there are no performance issues whatsoever, or just the lowest graphical setting if that's not possible. The exception to this is draw distance in large, open games and other issues which noticeably affect how visible some things are.
I kind of assumed that was the norm for a long time (like I do with a lot of things I assume are the norm) but over the years I've been exposed to more people who are closer to the other end of the scale than me. So now I wanna know to what extent I am/was wrong.
Btw, I'm not looking to debate about what setup people 'should' use. But if you want to elaborate on your reasons, feel free.
I will always have PC games at the lowest graphical setting where there are no performance issues whatsoever, or just the lowest graphical setting if that's not possible. The exception to this is draw distance in large, open games and other issues which noticeably affect how visible some things are.
I kind of assumed that was the norm for a long time (like I do with a lot of things I assume are the norm) but over the years I've been exposed to more people who are closer to the other end of the scale than me. So now I wanna know to what extent I am/was wrong.
Btw, I'm not looking to debate about what setup people 'should' use. But if you want to elaborate on your reasons, feel free.
![[Image: superbuuelectricityne4.jpg]](http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3128/superbuuelectricityne4.jpg)
Bra Wrote:People are dumb, essentially.