1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I must be missing something: Spell it out to me!

Discussion in 'PC Games' started by Ricochet J, 16 Feb 2006.

  1. Ricochet J


    Joined: 29 Jun 2004

    Posts: 12,906

    Okay. When people say
    "Oh I can play so and so game at 1280*1024 full AA and full AF"
    Fair enough. But what's the difference? I've been playing CoD2 and other games at max at 1024*768. So to see what the buhaha was about I switched to 1280*1024. The game looked exactly the same, the only difference was it was a slower on FPS. I don't get it!

    Furthermore I used play my games with a cheapo opitcal mouse. That broke on me so I replaced it with a ball scroll mouse. And to tell the truth, it works perfectly. No lag, no issues. Three buttons. What more can I ask for? So whats the advantages of a "higher DPI optical mouse"?

    Thanks alot :)
  2. Freeman


    Joined: 24 Jul 2004

    Posts: 5,564

    Massive difference IMO.

    I can see it.
  3. thefranklin


    Joined: 5 Aug 2005

    Posts: 292

    How much better it looks can also depend on your monitor. More pixels=shaper image, that just makes sense, doesn't it?
    If you want to test it, get diablo 2 and run it at the two resolutions you get, you will notice a difference defintely. its just the two you switched from wasn't as drastic as a change, specially on say a 17" monitor.

    Now for the mouse question: The higher the dpi, the higher the sensitivity is. Your mouse is set at a certain sensitivity, so when you move your mouse xx for the the right, your cursor moves xx to the right on the screen. With higher dpi mouses, you get more cursor movement compared to wrist. Now that is changeable in game, but most (if not all?) higher dpi mice allow you to change the settings in game with a button on the mouse.

    But frankly, we just like to be able to put big numbers by stuff we own. My 2000dpi mouse works with my 3 400 000 000 Hz computer and lets me move my 400 000 000 000 bytes (or 3 200 000 000 000 bits) around. Pretty soon we will be able assign performance numbers to anything and compare them.
  4. DaveyD

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 19 Jan 2003

    Posts: 12,647

    Location: Warwickshire

    More pixels on the screen meaning you see a lot more detail on the screen.

    Think about when you're looking at pictures on a computer / website, it's always nicer to see them bigger after clicking a thumnail as you get a lot more detail on the screen. In games you'll see more detail on objects the same distance away comparing different resolutions. AA does a lot more for 1024x768 than for 1280x1024, as you're decreasing the size of the pixel, making it less obvious of jagged edges of models, which comes to my next point, jaggies. You'll get far less jagged edges on a 1280x1024 res than 1024x768, though would be limited with full AA on. On a 1280x1024 picture, you get 1.6666 times the number of pixels you would do for a 1024x768 size picture. It's all down to personal preference at the end of the day. Some people don't mind a lower res, some people have to go for it due to it looking pap on native resolutions on a TFT.

    Higher DPI optical mice are more geared for the hardcore gamer for more accuracy when playing games that require high precision / reflex aiming. Sure you can use a cheapo mouse, but you've got a better chance with a better mouse for quick accuracy. Again, this really can be down to personal preference, but I always prefer my MX510 over a cheapo optical mouse.
  5. HangTime

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 25 Oct 2002

    Posts: 28,607

    Location: Hampshire

    A lot of people playing in non-standard resolutions like 1280x1024 are probably using TFT monitors, which don't downscale to lower resolutions very well. So good performance in that resolution is important to them.

    As for mice, by your own admission, you had a "cheapo" optical mouse before. Try a proper expensive one and you might tell the difference. Early optical mice like the MS Explorer in particular were a bit rubbish because they would lose tracking when moved very quickly.

    You also say your mouse only has 3 buttons, that's not enough. My mouse has 10 functions (8 buttons plus wheelup/down) meaning I can bind more things to it in games.
  6. chopchop


    Joined: 14 Jun 2004

    Posts: 6,118

    high dpi mice are usefull because you get smooth movement of your cursor/xhair.
    eg, use a standard ps2 ball mouse in cs, pick the awp, zoom in and move about, then double zoom and move about, you will see that you can only move in increments and not be able to aim at something you want to hit.

    as for using high resolutions, well all it does is make the objects appear less jaggy and makes everything smaller. its done only for looks. it does not make you any better at the game, it will make you worse.
    hence why you use 800x600 for multiplayer FPS games, because its easier to kill people.
    Last edited: 16 Feb 2006
  7. Curio


    Joined: 14 Mar 2004

    Posts: 8,024

    Location: Brit in the USA

    I agree with the OP to a large degree.

    On my 17" monitor there's absolutely no point in going above 1024x768/4xAA because it looks no different and just runs slower. Of course on bigger displays the jaggies are going to be more noticeable. But on any screen there comes a point where the law of diminishing returns sets in.

    As for the mouse, yeah, I've found no major difference between all the mice I've owned. The old ball mice are a pain when they're dirty and start skipping and sticking. But in terms of accuracy, not much to talk of. I got an MX510 for Xmas and the cheapo Creative optical I had before was just as good, although not as comfy.
  8. me227


    Joined: 30 Sep 2004

    Posts: 5,387

    Location: Belfast/Edinburgh

    I've got a cheapo optical mouse but can't really comment on better ones as i've never tried them, but my cheapo one does the job and I like it.

    Also i've never really played a game above 1024*768, I have a TFT screen and people talk about native resolutions and i'm not sure if this applies to all TFT's but i've never noticed anything in mine.

    Also I usually don't put AA or AF on in games. :o

    The only difference I see is in the FPS, I don't notice all that much difference but it's not like it's doing me any harm, i'd rather be not fussy as that means i'm with in moderate hardware in recent games.
  9. <Dubz>

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,976

    Location: Swindon. =)

    i went from a cheap 400 dpi mouse to a duel 800 dpi and the differance was amazing, even more so now i'm using a 2000 dpi razer.

    Screen res i would agree if you didnt use a tft, for 17 and 19 inch the native rez is normally 1280 x 1024. Due to the way a TFT works it's quite visible to not use the correct resolution.

    I also have never really bothered with AA etc, i mainly play fps games and i dont notice unless i stand still.... which isnt very often.
  10. Dutch Guy


    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 24,563

    Location: Amsterdam,The Netherlands

    With a CRT the difference might be small but I have a 19" TFT and because the native resolution is 1280*1024 there is a big difference between that and 1024*768