1920x1080@60hz is good enough. 120hz is nice, but not that important. What's important is a good art direction. Not graphics, art. And as we know, the people making decisions at big companies hate art.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
47 points (96.1% liked)
me_irl
8187 readers
1194 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ray tracing can change how the game plays, though it's rare (mostly Control). Seeing guys coming in a window reflection is awesome.
If i never switch to 4k, I can never know what i am missing
That's exactly it. I find most "improvements" do nothing but change my definition of what "normal" is, making the new thing feel just as normal as the old thing did, and making the old thing feel worse, without any real change in my level of satisfaction.
If i have the chance I limit the fps to 60 and 30 if times are tough, I know this is totally unplayable to some
I used high resolution high refresh rate display, compared to my own monitor. I do miss high refresh rate, but dont really care about resolution.
I want >95 PPI and as large monitor I can get. 60 Hz in most games. A select few 120 Hz. Neat graphics can be cool. But I am happy with performant games with less graphical fidelity.
Old PC sales guy susseptable to being bribed to sell you a PC.
That path tracing ray tracing stuff never did anything for me tbh. I will say high fps is nice tho :3
I did video game QA. Ray/path tracing looks good, when the light source occlusion is good. Otherwise you end up with pixelated shadows that look worse than standard lighting