|QUOTE (High @ Jun 24 2009, 20:54)|
| 1600x1200 on a 19" screen and draw dis' 0|
but then again, why do i bother with trolls.
Ouch. I was just playin. That's why I made the face. Fair enough, though. Sorry for being snippy with it
I play at 1680x1050. I've got a slight bit more horizonatally, but you've got 200 more pixels there vertically. I am quite pleased by it (but am aware of pixels, I admit) Have you seen it run on 2560? Or monitor-sized shots of 2560? Or whatever the max was. I'm tellin ya, it's going to be awesome when thats the standard resolution for games!
@MonkeyMhz: Your post here: http://www.gtaforums...st&p=1059312964
was spot on as well, also an excellent read - very plain-english explanation, there should be no dispute at this point, you nailed it, images and all
@syphonpayne: tell us, which resolution do you play crysis on, and if it is a substantial resolution, can you agree the aa is not missed? I'm not calling you out or getting involved in this, it's just, you play that 0xAA, and it's all made of pixels.
He knows IV is not Crysis, but IV doesnt have AA to compare with. It's really not a battle of opinions, imo (lol). If you refer to monkeymhz post linked here, you'll see basically the truth: lowres+aa means smooth junky looking sh*t, highres+aa means good looking and fine, high res plus aa, cant go wrong there!
But games that are coming to support high resolutions don't need it - it looks clearer than any amount of AA you can add to a smaller screen full of washed out horizons.