Overwatch: Why the low-res texture resolution?

Mouse latency.

In overwatch's engine, turning the textures from high to low noticeably improves your aim response time. I imagine if they had upped the maximum texture resolution it'd actually cause a problem.

>>381200103
What the fuck? I don't even play Overwatch, but how is that? like just fucking what?

Like, shit like that isn't intended right? meaning their engine is fucking broken?

Stopped playing after Season 2, consider returning to it. Is it worth it or has the game gone to shit?

>>381200940
apparently textures effect mouse latency so I'd say it's a broken game and to stay away

>>381200856
>>381201085

FPS affects mouse latency (in all games), so higher textures = lower FPS = higher latency.

>>381200103
complete bullshit

>>381200856
Almost every game is like that where running the game at sub-200fps reduces mouse response time, just like turning on vsync does.

Some engines, like quake live, are designed around fixing these problems, Q3 and QL specifically run flawless at 125fps, all of the counter strike engines also didn't have this problem, but most modern games do not optimize properly for aiming response. This is why "cinematic shooter" games like bioshock feel like shit to play on PC.

>>381200940
I started replaying it recently and I'm enjoying myself. Playing ranked is advised if you want well constructed teams (providing you're not gold or less)

>>381198081
to be able to sell it to the masses who have money but toasters

>>381201085
>>381200856

you seem quick to hate on this game considering the fact that you dont play it

Also textures are fitting the art pretty well, it's made to age well like Tf2

File: 1482555968281.png (256KB, 800x1077px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 800x1077px

>>381200940
The game is a lot more balanced now than at launch but it still has it's issues.

Lucio and Reinhardt are still required on every map for example, despite Blizz trying very hard to change that by reworking one hero and adding a substitute teacher for the other.

>>381201407

CSGO absolutely has this issue with m_rawinput 1. CSS/1.6 did not.

It's due to the engine and the way it handles mouse input per frame. If the input is locked to the frame you will get more input delay at lower FPS. If it is not locked, you will get no delay but generally much worse graphical experiences (tearing, juddering, peak/trough FPS slowdowns etc).

>>381200940
Nothing really changed.
Some minor balance tweaks here and there.
Sadly the cheating issue on PC is still not fixed. Smurfing is the new norm.

People keep asking but Blizzard keeps ignoring.
(It would need prime matchmaking (ala phone number account verification); CS:GO like Overwatch; and of course, anti-cheat. even if it's off-the-shelf, it's better than nothing. Jeff himself admitted that they use the report function to ban cheaters.)

>>381200103
Textures barely affect FPS, if at all, they affect VRAM. With so low quality "stylized" textures OW uses you won't notice the difference in FPS at all even if you're playing on a toaster. Are you new to PC gaming and just read all the memes or what? Or you're one of the guys who think they can distinguish the 10ms difference?

>>381201718
Season 2 is far after launch though.
Some major changes like Reaper/Roadhog/Mcree fix is on the way though.

>>381198081
First Blizzard game I take it? Their shit is always designed for toasters first and their textures are always blurry low-res garbage. They tend to get away with it though due to their excellent art direction.

>>381200103
I played on both but could not notice any difference. Textures does not cause any load on your GPU either, only takes up more VRAM.
Though I only played ESEA.

>>381198081
So everyone can play it on toasters. EA did the same shit to textures and even going as far is gimping gameplay for Sims 4.

>>381201509
This, how can you be so stupid OP?

>>381201831

I play pro CSGO, and played pro CSS. 10ms difference is significant.

Average human "touch" response is 150ms, visual response is 250ms.

10ms = 7% or 4% difference (i.e. significant).

>>381201195
Higher res textures only affect your FPS if you don't have enough VRAM and you have to start swapping. If you have 8GB of VRAM and high res textures take up 6GB then lowering texture quality isn't going to give you more FPS.

>>381201872
Well now you mention it. But other Blizzard games are isometric, top-down and whatnot, you cannot really see characters or detail that clear. Here even if I just play any character, I notice the blurred weapon textures and the other stuff. I mean it would not cost them a cent, except bandwidth. Hell, if it uses 1GB of VRAM now, even the XBone/PS4 could take it... ?

There is also 60sec prep time, so even though consoles use HDD and have longer load time, any HDD can load things up in 30sec.

>>381201674
Sorry your shit game is shit.

>>381202007
That's why PC has OPTIONS- to CHOOSE

>>381198081
Blizzard mostly make online games now and they know how to make them well. The aesthetics of their games are designed so that no matter what your graphics settings are, the game will always look more or less the same. This is a very good thing, as it gives more players access to the game, and it keeps the competitive scene fairer as you don't gain any significant benefit for running the game on lower settings. Many other games do this, including Counter Strike.

>>381202096
Try playing a Blizzard game at 4K and you will notice it. Played a bit of D3 about a month ago and it looks like somebody threw up on my monitor.

>>381202549
Your point is basically that lowering details helps players.
But that is already the case with Overwatch.
1) Pros already play on LOW details because you have less bushes, effects, visual clutter.
2) Texture resolution would be only visible up close, where it does not matter in terms of competition. It really is just details. Textures DO matter in games like Quake 3 and CS:Source back then, where you could literally have simple walls and shapes instead of detailed textures. But you cannot achieve that in Overwatch. (And the less you have, the better.)

I would play the game on LOW preset, high characters, and ultra textures.

File: 1463468927764.gif (2MB, 320x362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x362px

>>381202554
>he bought a 4k monitor instead of a 240hz monitor

>>381202772
To be fair, 4K is easier to reach than 240FPS in every game.
And the fluid motion is only usable in a few games, like CS:GO or Overwatch. But 240+ solid FPS in Overwatch?!
Meanwhile you can have beautiful 4K 60FPS graphics in _every_ title, and a huge desktop.
(not him, just saying)

>>381202742
Have you played Overwatch? Because the difference is EXTREMELY negligible. Pros will do anything they think will help them win, including buying fucking gaming chairs.

And Quake 3 and Source are very old games, before these things were understood better, CS:GO no longer does this.

>>381203067
I am pretty sure you meant your reply to the guy I replied to.

>>381201718
>Reinhardt
>Mandatory
>At this present time

Hay bronze

>>381203925
Right. It's S76 now and Mercy.

>>381201195
>>381201407
>>381201674
No, I know all that. I was saying that because OP seems to think it's noticeable, which would imply the engine is fucked. I know FPS affects mouse latency, it's just that if you have a decent graphics card the latency isn't noticeable, though it still does exists, yes.

The way OP worded his post makes it seem as if it's at least a game breaking problem and not some sub 10 ms latency issue.