Dades wrote on Jul 28, 2010, 10:31:
I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational with me
Oh god, I disagree with you and Im being confrontational...right.
You were the one being confrontational starting with post #32 and again at #35. The person you were replying to wasn't even posting directly at you, just at the people being overly dramatic regarding the AA feature, by being overly dramatic himself...apparently you missed the irony.
There are comparative screenshots linked in the headline that do show a difference if you don't want to listen to me
If someone is having to run the game at a resolution that low, they shouldn't be running AA, so their example is ridiculous to say the least. They would be better off using their vid card power to up the resolution, not enabling AA which isn't even a supported feature. So the screenshot in the linked story I found rather humorous as an example of jaggies at ultra low resolutions. Every game is gonna have bad jaggies accentuated by large pixels at low res, that AA simply cannot fix.
I havent been able to find any high res AA comparison screenshots...likely because as I say, it's inconsequential. What I do find though is plenty of people saying that at decent to high resolutions AA is simply not needed.
To sum up what I'm reading here is that you a) agree it's not a big deal, b) think it's a big enough deal to argue about it's impact on graphics, c) think its a big deal enough to blame Blizzard on it, without actually having first-hand tech knowledge as to why it isn't an option. d) ignore the facts regarding the tech limitation when it was posted.
So yes, when you contradict yourself by saying "it's not a big deal" but continue to argue that it is very noticeable and Blizzard should be blamed for it...I call bullshit on exactly how noticeable you claim it to be @ 1920x1080.