Better graphics or better resolution?

As the title, in a game, if the fps are low, will you opt for lower graphics with best resolution top the best graphics with lower resolution?

 

Higher resolution with lower graphics is what I've chosen. I like as many pixels as possible. The graphics settings are not what makes a game. Look at all the fools playing Xbox with low quality graphics AND low resolution.

 

i like pretty things so i choose graphics errytime

 

Depends on the game but usually resolution wins. Strategy or rpg/mmo games NEED high resolutions, fps games not so much so they can favor graphics.

 

If I'm playing on my desktop, I have both

If I'm playing on my laptop, I don't have enough pixels that it matters.

 

Playing at lower than native resolution creates that blur as if someone smeared some grease over your screen which I hate. IMO I would go with lower settings and higher resolution.

 

It's no more blur than playing at 480p on an old TV, which I'm sure the majority of us have been doing for years

 

I rather play on window mode to get clarity

 

I use both,..although I usually prefer resolution over textures most of the time. Not often that I have to though,.

 

If its a multiplayer game i favor less detail and more resolution; if its a single player game then i favor greater detail at less resolution. In general if i can get both, I have both, otherwise i compromise.

 

if a game is super hard core (only like crysis) i will go as low as 900p to have higher visual effects, but usually i just max out resolution then go highest graphics possible which is usually the highest level of graphics, plus some AA+MS. I have met some people who play games at like 480p and ultra high quality, and some who play it at highest resolution and crap graphics its really up to u.

 

Depends by how low or high resolution you're talking about.
I would opt for lowered settings but at a decent resolution.
If you're talking 800x600 vs 1400x900 then go with 1400x900. If you're talking 1920x1200 vs 1280x720 then 1280x720 should be enough.

 

IMHO, I'm like this :
Resolution - ALWAYS my screen's native ( 1366x768 on laptop and 1080p on my ASUS
ML238H )
Textures, Objects and shaders - ALWAYS HIGH/VERY HIGH. Shaders and textures are sexy :3

This is how I am. I would rather have 25-30 FPS on those settings than 60 woth crappy quality lol.

 

Max Graphics on 1366 x 768.

 

I don't know anyone who plays PC games on a 480p TV. We're not talking about console games here.

I personally prefer to have my resolution as high as possible, even if it means I have to reduce everything else. Native res and all low graphics options still looks better to me than maxed out graphics on a non-native resolution.

 

I have to have native resolution. So I'm willing to turn down gfx to get native res. I hooked up SCII to a 1080p tele and played via OSX and I know the game looks terrible on lows, on a 32" tv @1080p it makes up for it =D screen real estate is so nice. Likewise with WoW

 

resolution. if i cant get 1280 - 800 i go for 1280 - 720

 

Gotta agree with this, I don't know how a game at 1080p with settings at meduim can look alot better then a game at 1400x900 with everything on highest.

I opted for the supposedly infior 1400*900 screen in the hopes I could squeze some extra time out of this laptop.

 

Depends on the machine. On my desktop, I generally trade off a bit of both, because the screen is 1920 x 1200, and my 8600 GTS is an extremely poor card for that resolution.

On the Toshiba, resolution takes priority, then graphical quality. But I don't really play games on te A300 anymore, only Minecraft really. It's pretty much my lug around work and study machine, and a test rig at the same time.

As for the Asus - well, let's just say that it's never met game where it can't do both native and maximum settings, except for Metro 2033, and Crysis if you want to factor in AA.

 

Ive got a 1920 X 1080 52 inch tv, I comprimise a bit of both depending on the game. Although the G73 is up to the task most of the time, stuff like Crysis warhead and Stalker in dx11 can slow it down alot. So with Crysis I tend to do 900p, although 720p is managable too, then most times they are maxed graphics although I looked around and found custom settings that look nice and can keep 900p above 30. With stalker I turn down things like details at farther distance, most times it really doesn't matter, and I turn down stuff like grass.

Comes down to taste, sometimes the native res of you monitor can make it too sharp, but too little and jaggies are really annoying aswell. Perty graphics are really PERRTY though .

 

A highest maxest prettiest settings slideshow is not a game. Neither does a smartphone have anything like a gaming experience.

Therefore the answer to OP's question is 42.

 

i prefer both, i always play with my native resolution, in graphics, that's the thing i tweak out a bit, i measure how much fraps i need for a certain game, turn off vsync and lower some aa to the rate that it doesn't make much of a difference (like BC2, i only have 4xaa, but my rig can run smooth until 32xaa, but i don't see the difference so i send it back to 4xaa) so for me aa is not needed to be always maxed out, as long as the great details is acceptable and have no huge difference in my eyes, then i lower it out.

 

More resolution > more graphics but not always.
I prefer higher resolution then mid details, and no AA if possible.

 

This.

I will never drop from native resolution. Settings are the first to go.

 

Resolution does take a priority. Mostly I try to go with my native resolution and then take care of graphics; but for a few games I do like to look at better textures and draw distance so I bring down the resolution to meet the graphics at mid levels.

 

Might as well ask "how did you lower your settings when you found you could not run Crysis at max??" Well, I ended up lowering the resolution and increasing graphics on high.

 

I run crysis at 1080p with most settings maxed ( textures, objects, and shaders - very high. Shadows on high, post processing low and rest is high ) at 20-30 FPS. I could have better FPS on high, but I love HDR and very high shader detail...

 

It depends what games I'm running, if I'm playing TF2 then I have all settings on high, AA off and run at 1280x720 since settings other than AA, dX level and resolution are the only things that make any difference on that game. On other games I would probably be more enclined to go with medium settings and then max my resolution.

 

I would choose resolution over quality anytime. Native is the way to go. If I'm stuck on low-medium settings, so be it.

 

If it's something noticeable like shadows, then lower res for shadows adds to the immersion.

If it's something like AO or AA, then max res.

 

It really depends. For some games, a lower resolution works just fine for me. For instance, Bioshock or Mass Effect 1/2 at 1440x900 doesn't look bad on my screen even though its native resolution is 1680x1050. I'd rather have it at that res and turn on all the pretty effects

In some other games, though, I favor native resolution, ie, Vindictus.

 

I can max out all of the games I play at my Desktop's native resolution, but If I had to choose, I would choose higher resolution.