while the "8x6 rule" may hold true for close-quarter fragging in game such as the Quake series, if you were to play something like Battlefield 2 with long range battles a low resolution would be very limiting. Distant targets that would be quite faint on say 1920x1200 (my BF2 res) wouldn't be visible on 1024 (e.g defending engineers on the Wake Island USMC arty island by sniping gunners on the peninsulae - their heads are only just visible at high res)
Pending a respectable review of the new Chrome I can't say how the cards compare to other budget video solutions like the Radeon x1300 or Nforce 6100 integrated graphics, but I can say that in the past S3's claims have quite exceed what the cards actually do.
i always play fps @ 8x6 ultra low details/textures. it isnt' for things bigger for me. it's to have more fps (i don't want 60 please.) and to have higher refresh rate on the crt monitor. that's to feel less tired after playing.
then you can talk about graphics effects (smoke etc when you can hide)
there are also less "pixels" which can be clicked to say it all.
and the mouse moves different
well i don't want to convince nobody...there are still people who believe 24-30 fps are enough (lol)
i just do it
Comments 26 to 29 of 29
I'm sure that could be arranged - let me make some calls :D
Pending a respectable review of the new Chrome I can't say how the cards compare to other budget video solutions like the Radeon x1300 or Nforce 6100 integrated graphics, but I can say that in the past S3's claims have quite exceed what the cards actually do.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1955728,00.asp
it is on slashdot :)
then you can talk about graphics effects (smoke etc when you can hide)
there are also less "pixels" which can be clicked to say it all.
and the mouse moves different
well i don't want to convince nobody...there are still people who believe 24-30 fps are enough (lol)
i just do it