I'm not sure what settings you're referring to. If you are talking about resolution, it depends. The normal choices these days seem to be HD (1920x1080), 2.7K (2704x1520), and 4K (3840x2160). If that is the case, HD is perfectly fine even for large screen TVs. You'd see the difference in a side-by-side comparison, but HD will still look fine.
There are some advantages in shooting at a higher resolution, even if you plan to output in HD. It gives you the flexibility to crop significantly in post without losing resolution. It also gives you a somewhat better looking image even after you downscale it. But there are disadvantages as well. It eats through batteries faster to record in higher resolution. It is also harder to edit your videos. The files generated are bigger as well.
Do some test shots and play with them. See how they look on your devices. See what it is like to edit them.
Another setting you might be considering is frame rate. You can choose between 24 (most movies), 25 (common in Europe), 30 (most TV), or 60 frames per second. A lot of people wanting good looking video choose 24 fps because it is more "cinematic". Don't do that. Yes, it does look more cinematic if you are skilled and understand what you are doing, but it is easy to screw up and make it look bad. For example, you need to be much more careful about your panning speed when you shoot at a slower frame rate or your image will look jerky. My advice is to stick with 30 fps. If you want to shoot something that you plan to slow down, go to 60 fps or your devices slow-mo mode (usually 120 or 240 fps).
You may also be thinking about the compression algorithm and bit rate. Generally speaking, H.265 will give you a better image than H.264, all things being equal, but it will be harder to edit. Higher bit rates generally give better image quality, but it is a trade-off between storage space and quality gains.
As someone that primarily shoots stills but sometimes does videos, I think shooting video is much, much harder and generally less useful. It is easy to share pictures. It's easy to hang prints. People like seeing each others pictures. They like it contemporaneously and they like it when they are old. With video, not so much. The problem is that shooting engaging video is hard. Most people spend way too little time editing (which is hard and time consuming) and their videos are boring.
I'm not totally opposed to video shooting, even if you don't intend to spend a lot of energy editing it. I think it works well in some circumstances. Shooting video of young children at home is a great idea because you'll treasure seeing and hearing them at that age long into the future. Shooting short clips of specific actions and sharing those seems to have a good return. But if you shoot the typical Disney vacation video with a couple minutes of a parade here, a ride video there, and stuff like that, don't be surprised if people show minimal interest in watching it. Creating interesting vacation videos is hard work. That's just my opinion.
