Motion blur off.

I have no idea why so many games think we need to have the sides of our movement covered in butter

Performance > graphics. The only time I turn graphics up is in games that are meant to be atmospheric where graphics play a huge part. Otherwise, I prefer more clean barebones look so I can experience the core of the game as efficient as possible. Needless stimuli distract.

Capped FPS 60. My monitor have max 1600x900 res. I just don't see what the big deal is about 4k res. I prefer performance over graphics. I usually turn down shadows or off depending on game.

First time I saw motion blur in Arma 2, I didn't like it so I automatically turn off motion blur. Also in realistic mode in arma2 you get hard head/screen bobbing, Especially on motorcycles. That was ridiculous.

Newest video techs seems to be about dark occulsion shadows? or ray tracing something [quake 2, hehe], so I don't see why I should care.

I will always choose performance over fidelity and turn motion blur off.

I prefer modern games aesthetics over a retro look but I also prefer a slightly cartoony game or cell shaded look over photorealism.

Games like World of Warcraft, Darksiders 2 and Borderlands 2 look better to me than Assassin's Creed Origins.

But really it depends on the game and what art style fits the game.

I am fine playing games from the VGA graphics days and onwards.

With that said, I hate seeing retro-graphics games being released today, but that has less to do with the graphics themselves and more with the fact that we keep ignoring the present and glorifying the past. I would like us all to enjoy the fruits of the present so we can be someday be nostalgic for these days instead of remaining nostalgic for the 80s and 90s for another 20 years.

As for specific graphics options, I don't often tinker with them because I noticed that I can go as low as I can and still enjoy the game most of the time. Of course, turning off Shadows completely for example would actually impact my enjoyment, but even then... I'd take a shadow-less game over another pixelart game any day. Again, this isn't about pixel art and the artists behind them being bad, but just about the fact that we just keep regressing rather than progressing. In the 90s and early 2000s, we were excited about a game like Unreal that pushed the boundaries. Now, we're more excited that a game is "just like my favorite NES game" in every way.

So yeah, give me a chunky looking 3D game that at least tries to use modern technology instead of another pixelart game any day. Or ffs, at least let's move to the early 2000s era of early 3D games. Right now, we're still making games like it's 1992.

Except that early 3D looks worse than the 2D games of that era.

Also, I think I prefer colorful graphics over grainy "realistic" graphics. (One problem with Morrowind, for example, is the lack of color.)

I prefer not too graphic graphics :P

I think, whatever the resolution, colour choice, contrast, and art/presentation are most important to me. For example, I thought that Oblivion had better graphics than Skyrim, because there was sharp, yet subtle, contrast amongst objects in the game; I though this was most indicative inside the Alyeid ruins. There was a heady atmosphere of darkness, desolation, of times long past; you could feel the dark. But, the contrast between the glow of the lighting-crystals and the murk was significant; and, I thought the Alyeid art was very good. For some reason, I didn't get the same effect in Skyrim, e.g. the dreughr ruins, dwarven strongholds, or even Blackreach; everything seemed mottled and less defined, less distinct. And I didn't think the art-work was not as impressive as earlier titles; it seemed, more or less, what one would expect in a fantasy RPG. And Morrowind had better graphics than Oblivion, because the overall art was cutting-edge and spectacular, and clean lines and contrast amongst objects. Really, the more I think about it, I guess it really comes down to artwork, regardless of resolution; am I off the mark here?

I also choose performance over graphics in any game, any day... You know how it goes on sundays...
There are only a few games were I do care about graphics, mainly driving games. For exemple, Dirt Rally, I use high anti-aliasing because of the very rough car edges get my attention from "driving"... Since the car is on the screen most of the time I find it important... Fast paced games, I really don't care about visual "quality", like FPS, since static images are very little time on the screen... There is a reason why most competitive CS-GO players choose to play with lower settings...

Motion blur make me sick, although I can see it work, smoothing the jerkiness, on some console games were the frame rate is extremelly low and input lag is unbelievelly high. People who don't care about performance will just get used to and play, we probably all have been there at some time.

Style > visual fidelity, don't care if it's retro, modern, futurist or any other style. If it plays good and is responsive (responsivness is a must for me) it's ok. There are some games that seem to want so much to show it's style that are harsh to my eyes and somewhat difficult to perceive game play (some over saturated games come to mind).

Some indie games choose retro look, not only because it seems to be a trend but also because of cost.

Games like "Super crate box" is so responsive that the retro and simple style are very enjoyable.
"Dead cells" may be pixelated but the style overcomes the lack of resolution and is quite enjoyable as well.
"Super Mario bros" is a old game, and I played it to death when younger but can't enjoy playing today due high input lag. The same thing happen to Street Fighter V when it came out, was pretty much unplayable despite the better look graphics compared to SF4


Edit: as a last exemple Zelda Wind Waker, running on dolphin even with native resolution looks so freaking amazing even today, due the style, not fidelity.

Really depends on the game, but I tend to prefer a more realistic look. I still want fantastical environments and stuff though, I get annoyed when a game is supposed to be fantasy or sci-fi but basically looks like my backyard. Oblivion for example never impressed me, because despite its great woods/trees/etc. for the time it just looked like where I live, it had no artistry or uniqueness to it. Morrowind and Skyrim were both way better at that.

For settings and stuff I mostly leave everything on at max, but I turn off motion blur and sometimes turn off depth of field depending on how it's implemented. If it's just distant blur then it's fine, but if they blur everything around characters in cutscenes and whatnot I turn it off, can't stand that. It's not a movie with a camera lens, it's a game that is supposed to be my perspective through my eyes.

Also today's AA solutions are often so bad and blurry I would rather no AA at all.

Max settings those were the days.

Personally Win10 ruined PC gaming for me.
Won't be able to play CP 2077 without win 10 :(

Oh well, gotta move on to other hobbies I guess.

I always love to push games to the max and enjoy the eye candy while experiencing the story, stuff like crisis will always be more immersive when maxed out compared to low or medium, takes some of that feel away. but when it comes to older games like sega genesis and so on I never care about that cause of era that was set at that time.

It's hard to explain but I expect games to be there best for each era and enjoy it at it's fullest, if that makes any sense :)

Which is very sad. I mean, people shouldn't be SO judgemental over others' tastes. Plus if you can actually make argument why one style/design is more preferrable than others (which sadly isn't always the case with people who denounce one graphic over the other) that can be very useful critisizm.

Well, it depends. Sometimes, when I need to understand how objects situated in space relative to one another, or if there are some details, text description is not as good as simple picture.

Agreed. (See my example about many of Square's PSX RPGs having that issue. In fact, the only one I can think of that does not, not counting ports and remakes, is Final Fantasy Tactics. (Of course, I haven't seen every PSX Square game, so there may be other exceptions, but I expect them to be somewhat off-genre like FFT is, perhaps Chocobo games?)