What is with some gamers?!

I know why alot of CS players do low res, they say it helps them with the head shot because the low res makes the head bigger lol.
 
I run CS:S, Quake and most multiplayer games at 800x600 low because that's what I'm used to and have been playing at that resolution for years. Remember, you can run higher refresh rates when playing at lower resolutions for a smoother experience on CRTs, especially when your FPS is locked at the monitor's refresh rate and doesn't fluctuate (no vsync on). Consistency is important so changing the resolution/refresh will change your sensitivity/movement. I just purchased the Samsung 2233RZ and running 120Hz on a LCD is pretty amazing. Feels just like a CRT. However, when I play single player games, I increase the video settings and play at native resolution.
 
800x600 with low settings....

I'd rather set myself on fire while somebody kicks me in the nuts repeatedly....

Unless you're playing for money, I cannot see how you'd want to crap all over your graphics like that. Is it really worth it for MAYBE a few extra kills?

I couldn't take myself seriously if I spent $500 on a graphics card and $400 on a moniter, and went out and played at the same settings I was 4 computers ago
 
This whole, low resolution make the head bigger malarky...don't know what that is all about...
 
myndcrime said:
800x600 with low settings....

I'd rather set myself on fire while somebody kicks me in the nuts repeatedly....

Unless you're playing for money, I cannot see how you'd want to crap all over your graphics like that. Is it really worth it for MAYBE a few extra kills?

I couldn't take myself seriously if I spent $500 on a graphics card and $400 on a moniter, and went out and played at the same settings I was 4 computers ago
Click to expand...

Again, this only applies to multiplayer games. I enjoy the most performance/smoothness and do not want to experience any frame drops. I don't really care about what the game looks like and nothing can honestly beat the smoothness of 120Hz refresh rate locked at 120FPS. I can see how others like to play theirs at full settings. That's fine and I completely understand that they enjoy the high visuals. My team was sponsored by BFG Tech so we received free video cards and other misc. things. We had to do anything that would allow us to beat our opponents and in CS, consistency is king and I don't want to readjust when changing settings/resolution.

For single player games, I crank up the visuals/resolution.
 
Mr. Miyagi said:
Again, this only applies to multiplayer games. I enjoy the most performance/smoothness and do not want to experience any frame drops. I don't really care about what the game looks like and nothing can honestly beat the smoothness of 120Hz refresh rate locked at 120FPS. I can see how others like to play theirs at full settings. That's fine and I completely understand that they enjoy the high visuals. My team was sponsored by BFG Tech so we received free video cards and other misc. things. We had to do anything that would allow us to beat our opponents and in CS, consistency is king and I don't want to readjust when changing settings/resolution.


For single player games, I crank up the visuals/resolution.
Click to expand...

I understand wanting to win but 800 x 600 dude? All low seriously?

My god that's completely off the chain. These competition ruling bodies need to make a set standard for a certain res and level of graphics. That way evevryone is forced to play the same way and then its only skill that's in question not ones l33t 1999 graphical setting config.

Just wow 800 x 600. Wow.
 
that's annoying. It kind of defeats the purpose of building a high end rig if people are essentially cheating to gain a competitive edge. Turing on the eye candy just handicaps you, which is bs

It really makes console gaming a lot more attractive if you play online a lot
 
myndcrime said:
everybody has the choice to go download aimbots and wallhacks, that doesn't mean that using one is "fair"


I completely understand turning down some settings so the game runs smooth. But once you start running the game at ultra low res, turning off effects so smoke grenades don't show up, etc, it's no longer about your framerate, it's about you wanting an advantage over people who want to run the game on the best settings they can. Also, games should be about how good you are the game, not how good you are at fiddling with settings.

And AGAIN, what is the point of advancing graphics if we all just turn them down so much that it looks like an N64 game?
Click to expand...

No, this is not the same.

The EULA states you cannot modify the game in any way which we all agree to when we install the game. By breaking these rules we've all agreed to you're gaining an unfair advantage.

If you're playing in a tournament where everyone has agreed to a minimum graphics level then your argument might have some credit, in fact a lot of professional tournaments do specify such things, as well as loads of other rules which are not imposed by the game but are expected to be followed otherwise you're kicked from the tournament/ladder.

Most competative games wont allow graphics changes which defeat game rules such as no smoke for smoke grenades etc, for those games that do, this is a fault of the game which is being exploited and should be fixed by the game developers. But a long as both parties can turn off smoke then it's not unfair.
 
I can play FEAR on my rig (sig) at 2048x1536 max settings and stay over 120 fps. I'm not really understanding the whole low resolution gameplay. Like I said previously, if the game is too demanding for your graphics card I understand. To play deliberately at low settings with hardware that could spank the game makes no sense.

On another note, doesn't the video card get bottlenecked at such low settings?
 
Honestly I think most of this applies to CS players and hardcore CS players alot of which have older and dated machine. So even if they wanted to kick up the graphics a little they probably can't. Most are so used to playing with shit rigs that even when they get a new box they dont change the settings. retarded I know but it's how it is.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
This whole, low resolution make the head bigger malarky...don't know what that is all about...
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't, I don't think. Shouldn't anyway. Unless the field of view relative to the monitor's aspect ratio changes, everything should remain the same size.
 
Spewn said:
Because it doesn't, I don't think. Shouldn't anyway. Unless the field of view relative to the monitor's aspect ratio changes, everything should remain the same size.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. Maybe players being blocky is somehow beneficial?

Personally I find hitting players heads a great deal easier with a very high resolution (2560x1600) over a very low one such as 1280x800. I'm a well skilled FPS player but I'm hardly a pro CS player though...
 
dr.stevil said:
that's annoying. It kind of defeats the purpose of building a high end rig if people are essentially cheating to gain a competitive edge. Turing on the eye candy just handicaps you, which is bs

It really makes console gaming a lot more attractive if you play online a lot
Click to expand...


Its not cheating. Its knowing how to get the most out of what you have. On many nicer FPS's, you might see smooth framerates for 95% of the time, but even with the best hardware out there, you will see drops (or spikes, whatever you want to call it), and if you think about what are the most likely situations where you might see framerate drops, its something to best avoid. When you just tossed a smoke nade around the corner, and then a frag in the cover, and there are 6 enemies about to open fire in your area, and its all during an airstrike... YOU WILL SEE A DROP. And its during these moments that you can either sneak up on everyone from behind like a professional with knife and silencer, or you get caught in some crossfire and wait for a respawn. When I dominate a server, its those small things that count. Before my i7, I tried a phenom 2 on a m4a78-e. The chip most likely rocked, but the Atheros LAN controller sucked sooo bad. I was finding myself in a sort of 'interface lag' where I would run & gun (I tend to dash from one cover point to another, wait a little, then dash again when I know nobody is looking), and when people would start to fire at me on my previous nForce board, I would easily duck around the corner by the time the bullets got close. With this Atheros, I was finding myself trying to duck like before, but then I would get shot just as I should have made it, and then my body would show up BEHIND where I last was alive... as in, my computer was leaving my ass hanging out. As it turns out, that Atheros is a horrid LAN controller, pretty much the budget bin chip, eating up a much higher percentage of CPU cycles than most other integrated chips. On the R2Gene here, Im back to that 'guy everyone hates' because Im that hard to shoot.

And no, as you can tell, I dont have a $3000 Dell. Hell, my CRTs are how old? Just an i7-4GHz/Gene, GTX285@750MHz, X-Fi Ti, Samsung F1, and not even a burner (what are those for?!?). I have a single cheapo Asus DVD drive. The giant water cooler, Enermax Rev85+, and Lian-Li case are not part of the 'performance profile. They help about as much as my MP3 player...lol. Okay, the overclocking is good, but not night & day from something on air.
 
So you're saying your LAN controller was bad? That doesn't have anything to do with graphics.
 
The whole 'bigger pixel head' thing isnt new. I cant remember which games are which with this though... Some games calculate your aim based on some real world geometry (bounding boxes), and the resolution doesnt matter (the geometry operates independent of your screen). Some games base it on 'what you see' on your screen, I think it makes it simpler since then it doesnt have to calculate your aim in full 3D, but just your perspective. The lower resolutions also change the ratio of crosshair pixels to target pixels... the crosshairs are thicker so your sweet spot is larger.
 
myndcrime said:
So you're saying your LAN controller was bad? That doesn't have anything to do with graphics.
Click to expand...

Bad controller = eating up more clock cycles on CPU = taking up more of the stack = lag. Your CPU, esp in a SLi setup, is used to route info as well... and if you really start bogging down the CPU with all these things at once, it shows. Lower resolution = less info to move = faster network if you are using a POS non-hardware controller. Its all part of the same can of worms. I suppose what Im trying to say is that even with a sick ass GPU and CPU, you have some controllers on some boards that can really gimp the system. You wont see it with single player since you are only waiting on you, but with LAN you can fall behind.

Oh, and uncapping your framerate = NOT THE WAY TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE. That can really bog up your stack with excessive info that never gets used.

Oh, and before you go assuming Im lowering my rez to some very low atari level, I lower my graphics for gaming from say 1600x1200 to 1280x1024 for smooth play... not this 800x600 crap. Thats just retarded.
 
Last edited:
Get a good controller then, and stop stressing out so much over it. We're talking about VIDEO GAMES HERE. You're supposed to have FUN. Not sitting there worrying about your stack.
 
In the videos from this year's Quakecon tournament I noticed two things:

1) The best, most competitive 1v1 matches I've seen in years. It was impressive, and I've seen a lot of Q3.
2) The spectators doing the filming used SimpleItems and a bunch of other tweaks. This is 2d sprites for items in the map. Instead of a floating 3d model of a rocket launcher you have a red 2d sprite of a rocket icon. And yes that is a built-in feature to Quake3, not a mod or addon. It has nothing to do with framerate, any modern machine gets >500 fps in Q3.

A lot of the competition-level tweaking is about rapid image recognition and avoiding distractions. Hence no shadows, lens flares, brass ejections, picmip 5 (very basic textures), etc. I'm not sure what the restrictions are now for Q3 tournaments, but you really are talking about the difference between E-sport and casual play. Baseball for example has very stringent equipment standards and a lot of money at stake; a little league match or office softball is just for fun and players at that level wont understand why pros go to such extremes of training and preparation for a "game". Bottom line at that level of competition is the gameplay is all that matters. Graphics dont matter at all, its not even a consideration. It doesnt matter what it looks like, you are there to win cash by shooting 10ms faster than your opponent, not ogle at the flare effects.

Problem is a lot of people like to think they are good enough for pro settings, take their clan matches a bit too seriously or want to train that way just in case. Its a bit like buying a flatbed truck if you live in a city and dont actually haul lumber every day. So, since most of us arent pros...crank up the settings. :D

(btw...played some Diablo 2 this weekend. 800x600 on a 1600x1200-native monitor. You get used to it pretty quickly, not that you have a choice in a game that old. After a few hours it looks just fine and plays as good as it ever did. Gameplay > Graphics.)
 
Last edited:
myndcrime said:
Get a good controller then, and stop stressing out so much over it. We're talking about VIDEO GAMES HERE. You're supposed to have FUN. Not sitting there worrying about your stack.
Click to expand...

Hey, this is [H]... telling someone not to worry about their stack here is like telling a fat girl to ignore a cheeseburger. And it pays... I do play for money sometimes with the clans. Its not unusual for clans to put up $500 on a match.
 
That's what I mean, if you aren't playing for money, then turn up your settings, and don't take it so seriously.
 
undertheradar said:
Hey, this is [H]... telling someone not to worry about their stack here is like telling a fat girl to ignore a cheeseburger.
Click to expand...

Beautiful man.

Competative players do this stuff, you have to get used to it, they know what gives them an advantage and they use it because everyone else is going to.

It still takes skill to play theres just less holding you back, it's not as if these people are completely devoid of skill and have to make up for it, most CS players who are playing to compete are very skilled at what they do.
 
In source competitive play I use Caseys Config which literally kills every bit of eye candy. I still play at 1900x1200.
 
I know a lot of guys who have super rigs who play competitive games at low res to exploit larger hit boxes. They don't play all their games at that res.

Sounds like they're more technical than the OP *shrug*
 
maybe some like to record their games with FRAPS and upload them to YouTube, FRAPS right there is a huge FPS hit and YouTube only does 720p, so gaming in 1080p only gives you minimal gain in regards to video quality...

just sayin'...

and yeah, the cheaters abound and I don't understand why, how fun is it to just jump and down with a rocket launcher and an exoskeleton for a half hour racking up kills in S.T.A.L.K.E.R....? I play for the enjoyment and winning really doesn't matter, some of the funnest exchanges are mano e mano with pistolas to see who finally gets the head shot...

;)
 
theNoid said:
I know a lot of guys who have super rigs who play competitive games at low res to exploit larger hit boxes. They don't play all their games at that res.

Sounds like they're more technical than the OP *shrug*
Click to expand...

I think that is the mythology that many believe, but the way that that most games calculates hits/misses/location/damage is done with a discrete geometry system that does not depend on graphics. From that standpoint, making your pixels larger through lowered resolution would actually work against you, since the black boxes that you think are 'complete' targeting rectiles would only be a majority... 49% of that crosshair area could be non-accurate. Likewise, that little black dot you are aiming at that is supposed to be someone's head may only be 50-51% head and the rest might be a complete miss... giving you more misses due to a lower resolution. It really depends on the game, but from what I have read the days of 'optical based' targeting systems ended long ago to prevent varying accuracy depending on the resolution. Otherwise, you might also see more people running at normal vertical accuracy yet lowered horizontal accuracy (since most aiming in a FPS is done from side to side rather than up and down) to gain some sort of benefit based on resolution... as of yet, haven't seen it.
 
FRAPS doesn't cause a huge performance hit. At least, I doubt it does. My only evidence of this is in regard to games with their own FPS counters. The counters are generally about the same with or without FRAPS running. If FRAPS caused a huge FPS hit, it wouldn't be terribly useful would it?
 
Dan_D said:
FRAPS doesn't cause a huge performance hit. At least, I doubt it does. My only evidence of this is in regard to games with their own FPS counters. The counters are generally about the same with or without FRAPS running. If FRAPS caused a huge FPS hit, it wouldn't be terribly useful would it?
Click to expand...

It does if you are recording a movie. I think it drops to 30 fps to capture it. According to the post by wolf-a-rine, he's talking about capturing in game video.
 
dnottis said:
It does if you are recording a movie. I think it drops to 30 fps to capture it. According to the post by wolf-a-rine, he's talking about capturing in game video.
Click to expand...

That makes sense then. It would seem that I took the comment out of context.
 
Meh its mp.. most dont give a rats ass about graphics in mp.. they just wanna kick your ass.
 
A few people mentioned it, but the number one reason I play CS at 800x600 is consistency. I've seen good players play at higher resolutions and lower resolutions, even 640x480 and for them it's all about being comfortable with the settings. As stupid as it sounds, it's kinda like a pregame ritual. Sports are just games too, are you going to get mad at people for spending two hours putting their socks on a certain way when they can just put them on in 5 seconds?

That said, if the person doesn't actually know better, e.g. a brand new computer computer with default settings or there's a way to put socks on in 5 seconds, then it's worth telling them and letting them decide. Don't get angry at people, it's not like you have to play on their settings.
 
Well, they play in low setting for online because you can miss more and hit due to the coding of some games. they get faster response times.

I play games at 1920x1200 if it runs fast enough with my 8800gtx.
 
Dan_D said:
I'd bet you that quite often people will have badass machines, install the game and fire it up without changing any settings. It also boggles my mind how many people run their LCD's at non-native resolutions for general desktop use. It is quite common for me to see that in the workplace.
Click to expand...

Vague said:
I think also, that if yo'ure a pro gamer it's worth your while to build a computer that can play the game you want.
Click to expand...

QFT... both posts.

I don't get it what-so-ever.

Since moving to 1920 res a while back, I simply could not go to anything less... and in order to have the best gaming experience possible, I upgraded my system in order to play smoothly with visuals maxed-out at that res.

I see no point in doing things any other way.

I've also never once noticed any lag on LCD at any res. My headshot counts are still as high as ever, so if people think they're really gaining some advantage in doing/not doing these things, eh... maybe they need a little more practice.
 
Alot of people just don't know any better... they think it works like a console perhaps.
 
Freezebyte said:
The same dipshits who put on 3 foot high $500 spoilers on their $800 Dodge Neons that have rust all over with primed body kits and neon lights from Wal-Mart that think their the hot street shit :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



ahem.. you mean this? :p lol


coyote_spoiler.jpg
 
dnottis said:
It does if you are recording a movie. I think it drops to 30 fps to capture it. According to the post by wolf-a-rine, he's talking about capturing in game video.
Click to expand...

exactly, sure FRAPS doesn't cause much of a change if any when not recording, but hit the recording hotkey and it's a huge hit, even if you leave the fps option pretty much open ended by putting 200fps as the custom rate...
 
The sooner you stop stroking your graphics epeen is the sooner you can buy other things in life. I used to be the same way. Now I have a PC that runs anything I play smoothly. No need for better.
 
dnottis said:
It does if you are recording a movie. I think it drops to 30 fps to capture it. According to the post by wolf-a-rine, he's talking about capturing in game video.
Click to expand...



it automatically caps it so that the frame rates consistant through the whole recording.. otherwise it would be completely unwatchable if your frame rate in game bounced around from 45-60.. thats also why you see a lot of game videos and you can clearly see the video stuttering..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top