3 ms·
StarCraft (1998) remained big, right as every single RTS released after it went 3D. StarCraft II is usually played competitively on low graphics settings, to i
by rollcat 3y ago
StarCraft (1998) remained big, right as every single RTS released after it went 3D.
StarCraft II is usually played competitively on low graphics settings, to improve visual clarity. The game is 13 years old, and on high graphics still looks fine when compared to any modern title.
- ndriscoll 3y agoThe other day when there was a post about Starfield, it was quite striking to me how visually indistinct and cluttered everything is[0], like the people don't stand out from the scenery. The visual technology for Starfield is certainly less primitive (though every single thing looks like it's made out of glossy plastic to me), but I can't help but notice that something like ETLegacy feels much easier to visually process[1]. ETLegacy is also capable of maintaining 333 FPS at 4k almost all of the time if I set the cap that high, even on my now out-of-date GTX 1070. [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=PISGdO_G8dY https://youtube.com/watch?v=PISGdO_G8dY [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=iP6ihgnyHE0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=iP6ihgnyHE0