personal preference
/thread

hz issues, people are used to low res because of bad pz, copycats, bla, bla

everyone has a reason |]

I'm not that bad.

played on 1280x1024 (tft native) for quite some time. and switched to 800x600 recently.

tbh it doesnt look good. the interpolation quite sucks BUT
1) ive started q3 with 800x600 on crt (max resolution for 120hz) and it feels familiar.. ive never gotten used to 5:4 even tho i played >1 year with it
2) i dont know what it is.. but in low resolution everything moves smoother across the scene. since my pc can handle 125fps easily, its not a technical issue. really back in the days i played every fast game in very low res (for example 320x240 on destruction derby) and slow/tacticals as high as possible

Increasing the sharpness setting helps when using a non-native resolution at least with some monitors.

some people have been playing on low resolution for 10+ years, they feel more comfortable on 800*600 or whatever
some (for example cooller) play on r_mode 5 because of the different look of the crosshairs
some ppl still use crts

i played on the native res of my monitor for years, then i tried r_mode 9 for a couple days, never gone back ever since. it just feels better somehow

also a lot of CS players use low res

incredibly many broodwar players too

o rly

yeah i cant ever see them changing tbh. the amont of practice they put in, they can never change anything :|

Doesn't BW have only ONE resolution anyway?

yep

640*480/large/160hz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(you can count the pixels lolz :D)

How many threads have there been for this exact question?

- what mouse to choose
- what sensitivity to use
- what resolution to select
- and what fov is the best

are all eternal questions of Quake never to be answered fully...

wmo, 4x0.1, r_mode 12 @ 120, fov 100

thx goodbye you can c/p this text in your signature now and all the questions will stop

NIENNNNN

I'd play further on 1024x768 but my monitor can handle only 100 hz at that resolution. I played for some years using that resolution and everything was sweet butter but when I realised how 120hz gives you lg boost I switched to 800x600 120hz ;] sucks but my lg is better at least. True story.

i aimbot so 1x1

They're used to that resolution they started using during the crt days when 800*600 was the safest bet to get 120hz on most monitors you'd find during events.

I used to use 1024x768 at 120hz, I upgraded to a better CRT and now I use 1680x1050 at 120hz. I'm not sure what r_mode that is but it is very smooth.

LG hits better, much much better. Even though I got stable 125fps @ 1920x1080 I prefer 800x600 specifically because of LG. I also recommend to turn off hitsounds for LG in order to achieve quicker reaction and snappy "hot knife cutting through butter" feel (note: I still use hitsounds for everything else).

Cooller uses 640x480 because "this is the resolution the game was designed for", he also sets com_hunkmegs to 56 for "improved dodging", although I doubt hunkmegs can affect that.

sounds like placebo.. i played the 1680x1050 at 120 hz as the guy above, and it feels as good as ever, although not as good as 1024x768 on crt, but then again ql is so slow that it hardly makes a difference :o)

it doesn't hit better, it's simply not as precise as 1920*1080 -> not showing you all your tiny misses.

Same debate than low fov vs high fov, people often feel like they hit better lg while they actually see all the mistakes they make with a lower fov.

lal hunkmegs.

placcccebo

1024x768 on 24" wide, like it and used to it, using 16:9 ratio now is instant movement rocketjump and aimfail