The issue of how well you can see is more related to reticle design than magnification. If the reticle is useable at lower magnification (6-10), higher magnification does nothing positive for you unless you are shooting past 1000 yards. How many people should even be trying something like that on game? Certainly not me.
The reticle isn't the issue.
There are a lot of people, especially at Rokslide for some reason, who judge other's equipment needs based on their own perception and previous experience. I was guilty of that for many years, especially hunting in areas with similar terrain, soil, and veg.
There are places here in OR where you can see deer antlers well at dang near a mile with good 8x binocs (green wheat fields) or at least get an idea of structure based on the beams depending on the resolution of the system.
But travel a bit east to the high desert and you may struggle to see elk antlers at 600-800 with the same 8-10x binocs and definitely have a hard time with deer antlers at 400-500 due to the coloration of the soil, rock, and veg. They simply blend in, and almost vanish. More magnification helps, or certain contrast or color cast in the optic.
Also factor in low light, glare, or dirty air!
You may say that a riflescope is not for viewing, and that is true. However, when you flop down on the dirt to shoot you may need to quickly get on the one single buck that you picked out in your spotting scope.
If you can barely see antlers with 8x or 10x binocs, how will a 6x scope do better? The deer might be browsing, moving, and not sitting around waiting to be shot! If there are multiple bucks, you need to locate the desired buck quick or they may crest a ridge and be gone.
I have better than 20/20 vision and had a heck of a time keep track of a buck at ~500 with Swaro 8x42. My 10x SWFA was certainly no better.
The reticle was not the issue.
