• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Quality and performance modes are annoying

Do you research graphics modes before playing?

  • Yes - DF, NXg etc

    Votes: 111 30.6%
  • No - I always put in Fidelity

    Votes: 56 15.4%
  • No - I always put in Performance mode

    Votes: 196 54.0%

  • Total voters
    363

FeldMonster

Member
OP, I agree with you that any modes should have descriptions available, but not your overall sentiment. Just because this having modes isn't a perfect solution, doesn't mean they have to be done away with. And get out of here with the whole "artistic vision" garbage. Play how you want.

My only requirement moving forward is that there should be an "ultimate" mode, even if in an advanced menu that would serve as a future proofing mode that has the best of every mode: 120 fps, 4K, Maximum textures, Ray tracing, whatever.
 

Fbh

Member
I think it's great, having options is nice.

I agree that I wish devs would be more straightforward about what each mode does. I get that they try to keep it simple for more casual players but it'd be nice to get a small explanation for every mode beyond just "this mode prioritizes visuals". Maybe make it so you can press a button to get a more detailed explanation like "This mode runs at 30fps, targets 4K with dynamic resolution. Shadows, particles and draw distance are enhanced".


So for me this is a big annoyance. Yes, it's nice to have choice. But it still indicates that these new consoles are not powerful enough to make the developer's vision a reality. If they can't do 4K60 and have to go to 4K30/1440p60 then you're having to compromise. Still. And this early in the gen.

The Series X is $500, The Ps5 starts at $400 and the Series S is $300.
In a market where $1500 GPU's exist (and that's the MSRP that you rarely ever see these days) and even those can struggle with games in native 4K with ray tracing, console gaming will always have to deal with compromises
 
Last edited:
I think the options suck ass, i prefer my console games to have only one mode be it targeting high frame rate or fidelity depending of the game and that decision shouldn't be mine but the dev's who i would expect took performance into consideration when designing the gameplay.

Never mind that i mostly play on PC laltely so i can just crank most stuff to max and get 60+ framerates since all games are kinda cross gen for now, but i'm not prefering the PC platform because of performance concerns precisely but because in part not having to think much about performance it's a perk i value that got lost on consoles.

That is demostrably and proven to be wrong, there is a whole field dedicated to it and is used against cosumers, search "the paradox of choice" if you care enough.
Please explain to me how having more options is "worse" in my gaming experience. It's not like I have 50 different options here, just two......
 
Last edited:
I think the options suck ass, i prefer my console games to have only one mode be it targeting high frame rate or fidelity depending of the game and that decision shouldn't be mine but the dev's who i would expect took performance into consideration when designing the gameplay.

Never mind that i mostly play on PC laltely so i can just crank most stuff to max and get 60+ framerates since all games are kinda cross gen for now, but i'm not prefering the PC platform because of performance concerns precisely but because in part not having to think much about performance it's a perk i value that got lost on consoles.
That is what happened from some years already.
Instead a good mode you get two half ass modes lol

The game development took a big hit starting in the middle of PS4 generation.
New techs that prime for performance over quality are just making it go downhill.
It's so true man. The least effort for the biggest financial return is how these company's operate.
Even Sony has been letting us down with recent ps5 upgrades and nobody has more incentive right now to show off the "power" of their new console. Let's see: Ghost of Tsushima Dir Cut didn't even get improved graphics, a complete joke (it got the resolution improved a tiny bit over the already 60 fps patched version; and they charged $ for this!); Uncharted 4 Collection Remaster is about to come out next month- it gets a 30 fps "quality mode" and is stuck at 1440p still in performance mode. Doubt there will be any improvements to the visuals esp in the performance mode. So this $10 upgrade is essentially no different than the free 60 fps patch for LoU2! That's a lame effort from Naughty Dog and Sony if you ask me and doesn't exactly make the ps5 look good.

At least Spiderman Remastered had some actual effort put into it with RT and clearly noticeable improvements to the visuals compared to the ps4 pro. Death Stranding also did it mostly right, having a 60 fps mode that uses dynamic res but also makes improvements to LODs and water effects. Plus they added Wide-screen which was a nice touch.

But man, these next gen "upgrades" have been pretty disappointing.
 

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
The names slightly differ and the goals differ.
Quality mode can aim for 4k30, 4k60, 1800p+checkerboard. It can have ray tracing enabled or not.
Performance can go as laughably low as 1080p (imo a joke in 2021) and sometimes not hold 60fps or go for 120.

30fps is the only thing that shouldn't be an option in 2021 - just like in 2011 and 2001. That's laughable.

So you think performance mode doesn't hit 60fps as often as quality mode?

Biased much?
 

rofif

Gold Member
30fps is the only thing that shouldn't be an option in 2021 - just like in 2011 and 2001. That's laughable.

So you think performance mode doesn't hit 60fps as often as quality mode?

Biased much?
I don't think that.
There are multiple different games.
30fps looks the same as id did 10 years ago. 1080p fps looks like crap though. TAA made it less aliased but more blurry and we all have 4k tv's. Some close on a desk.
I would much prefer for bloodborne to be 4k rather than still 1080p and 60fps
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Very important to me that games have different modes. I like to hear what they are and what the 60 mode is like by the game sites doing the leg work. I will always play one that is 60 fps over 30 (unless there's something tragically wrong with the 60 mode). And 120 modes are useless for me as my TV cant even do 120 fps.
 

Keihart

Member
Please explain to me how having more options is "worse" in my gaming experience. It's not like I have 50 different options here, just two......
i think the thread it's pretty evident with the impressions. You have more options yet there is more people dissatisfied with how the games run.
They changed the expectations with the options, people expect fidelity perfection with one option and performance perfection with the other and get dissapointed by both, obviously.
 

rofif

Gold Member
Exactly, like shit.
1080p with all the whistles and bells looks way better than 10 year old 1080p.

I know you use a TV for a monitor. 48" isn't even good enough for 4K, so I understand the situation you're in.
I am coming from 27" 4k ips monitor.
So I am surprised that 48" is actually not too bad ppi. Even at 27", 4k games required anti aliasing anyway.
30fps is also better(nowadays an previous gens). You have stable 30fps, with sometimes very good motion blur and so on. It can look good and feel right depending on the gae.
I know people hate Bloodborne 30fps but I personally feel it's one of more responsive 30fps games... maybe that's why it can stutter a bit because they didn't do vsync
 
Last edited:

Magic Carpet

Gold Member
I always start with high graphics first to get a feel. Then check the performance to see any noticable difference. Then keep it on performance If I have to squint and count leaves and tuffs of grass to see a difference.
 

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
30fps is also better. You have stable 30fps, with sometimes very good motion blur and so on. It can look good and feel right depending on the gae.
Cbs No GIF by HULU
 

ethomaz

Banned
i think the thread it's pretty evident with the impressions. You have more options yet there is more people dissatisfied with how the games run.
They changed the expectations with the options, people expect fidelity perfection with one option and performance perfection with the other and get dissapointed by both, obviously.
It is the lose of focus.
If you focus in one mode you will end reaching near perfection.
But with 2 modes in most times you change a code to fit one mode that breaks the other mode… so you never reach a ideal close perfection state in any because if you really tries to do it you will end with 2 different game branches and not just 2 modes.

People like to use PC as example but PC brute force every single issue at development point so devs just do general critical path optimizations and let gamers brute force everything else.

Consoles are at base not made to brute force code but to be heavy specific hardware optimized.

Platform holders, publishers and developers lose the touch of what is PC and what is console and that lead to that game development crisis we are facing now.
 
Last edited:
i think the thread it's pretty evident with the impressions. You have more options yet there is more people dissatisfied with how the games run.
They changed the expectations with the options, people expect fidelity perfection with one option and performance perfection with the other and get dissapointed by both, obviously.
Well, I haven’t been disappointed except for one game (ME3) and that was on performance so your point is mute because I have been very satisfied as a customer with my options. Also, I have rarely played a console game where fidelity or performance was "perfection" with just one option. One or the other will always be sacrificed to some degree, so having the option to choose what I want to sacrifice is a big win IMO.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
This 30 and 60 fps nonsense is only for cross gen games. Once next gen only games arrive and target 1440p 30 fps, you are not gonna have a 1080p 60 fps performance mode. We are already seeing how native 4k 30 fps modes are unable to scale down to 1440p 60 fps. Guardians is 1080p 50 fps and has downgrades on top.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
100% why I'm a PC gamer, and even now I cant make a full switch to consoles, I want to pick and choose what's important to me to reach my desired frame rate. For someone like me, Ray Tracing is an important visual tech that matters, so I'll sacrifice resolution to get it, but not frame rate. I was so glad when Insomniac gave Spiderman a 60fps+RT option that dropped the res.
 

ethomaz

Banned
100% why I'm a PC gamer, and even now I cant make a full switch to consoles, I want to pick and choose what's important to me to reach my desired frame rate. For someone like me, Ray Tracing is an important visual tech that matters, so I'll sacrifice resolution to get it, but not frame rate. I was so glad when Insomniac gave Spiderman a 60fps+RT option that dropped the res.
Perfect.

You have PC for that and it will continue being PC.

The issue is that we console users lose the console with that… so we are abandoned by our own platform choice and there is no other option left to us.

Or we accept consoles trying in a ugly way be a PC or we stop to play games…

Thinking a bit more about console basically died.
 
Last edited:

Hendrick's

Gold Member
Meh, 60 is overrated. It literally doesn't make a game any more enjoyable. The content is the content no matter how fast it's running.

Similarly, a good song listened to on cheap headphones is still a good song. Using expensive headphones isn't going to make the song suddenly completely different. It's still the same song. A crappy song isn't going to suddenly turn into a good song with expensive equipment either.
I feel sorry for you.
 
I sit like 10ft from my OLED so there's no way I'm seeing full 4k but switching to performance mode I will notice a drop in texture detail, shadow quality and scene complexity so it's an annoying game of compromises, I have Ratchet & Clank on 40fps and it looks incredible and plays smooth af, I'd prefer more of that, give me all the bells and whistles locked at 40fps or give me all the bells and whistles locked at 1440p/60.. this native 4K can suck a dick imo as it's sucking far too many resources away from making the scene complex in favour of making it look sharp
 
oh cmon now. Ignorance is bliss. You will realize that with age
I'm not ignorant. I played on PC for 2 years with a 144Hz monitor. Some games I ran at 140fps (to stay inside the freesync range) and some games I willingly dropped down to 30 (like Tomb Raider). It's a preference thing.

Maybe it's all in my head but to me, 30fps looks "higher quality" to me than 60fps. Probably stems from arcade games. If a game is going for that "movie look", then I want it to play like a movie as well. I know y'all are probably throwing up in your mouths right now, but I really don't care.

Anyways, my point is, I know what high frame rates look and feel like, so I'm not blind or ignorant to it. I just prefer 30fps for it's look and feel. Feels more premium to me... like the system is being pushed as hard as it can go.

I sit like 10ft from my OLED so there's no way I'm seeing full 4k but switching to performance mode I will notice a drop in texture detail, shadow quality and scene complexity so it's an annoying game of compromises, I have Ratchet & Clank on 40fps and it looks incredible and plays smooth af, I'd prefer more of that, give me all the bells and whistles locked at 40fps or give me all the bells and whistles locked at 1440p/60.. this native 4K can suck a dick imo as it's sucking far too many resources away from making the scene complex in favour of making it look sharp
What about people like me that use a 4K monitor and can easily tell the difference between 4K and 1440p? Ratchet and Clank looked like ass in 1440p. It was too soft.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping we would be seeing more 4k 60fps games. It's disappointing that even cross gen games need the resolution to be reduced to hit 60fps.
 
I have no problem with playing 30 fps. Even right after i played that game in 60 fps.
Don't understand why people are obsessed with it but i glad that i don't lol.
 
If there weren’t options, the developers would still make sacrifices for the “definitive edition.” The only difference is the people playing their games wouldn’t know what was sacrificed. I’m not sure why some people are upset with the ability to control what takes a hit.

Team performance all the way.
 

Ezekiel_

Member
I feel like console game developers should go back to optimizing for one mode, whichever they think is best. Just max-out the hardware the best way you can. If you think the 4k + full effects gives players the best experience, just go with that. If you think it's 60fps, then go with that by adjusting other settings accordingly.

This was one advantage of consoles versus PCs. All these different modes result in the 'choice paradox', where the more options you have, the less likely you are of being satisfied with the option you choose, because you feel like you could maybe get a better experience with another choice.
 
I feel like console game developers should go back to optimizing for one mode, whichever they think is best. Just max-out the hardware the best way you can. If you think the 4k + full effects gives players the best experience, just go with that. If you think it's 60fps, then go with that by adjusting other settings accordingly.

This was one advantage of consoles versus PCs. All these different modes result in the 'choice paradox', where the more options you have, the less likely you are of being satisfied with the option you choose, because you feel like you could maybe get a better experience with another choice.
Fear of missing out

If I choose 4K/30, then I'm missing out on fluidness

If I choose 1440p/60, then I'm missing out on effects, resolution, extra grass, ray tracing etc.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
So for me this is a big annoyance. Yes, it's nice to have choice. But it still indicates that these new consoles are not powerful enough to make the developer's vision a reality. If they can't do 4K60 and have to go to 4K30/1440p60 then you're having to compromise. Still. And this early in the gen.
I'm not sure being powerful enough to make the developer's vision a reality is the metric we should be chasing. There are some developers that are going to be more ambitious than even top of the line hardware can manage. One measure of creativity is making the vision work in the box they have to work with. A poor builder blames their tools, etc.
 

arvfab

Member
I usually go with quality for first run or if graphics are similar in performance modes.

E.g.

Ratchet, Spider-Man, GotG => quality
AC, Deathloop, Demon's Souls => performance
 
It is the lose of focus.
If you focus in one mode you will end reaching near perfection.
But with 2 modes in most times you change a code to fit one mode that breaks the other mode… so you never reach a ideal close perfection state in any because if you really tries to do it you will end with 2 different game branches and not just 2 modes.

People like to use PC as example but PC brute force every single issue at development point so devs just do general critical path optimizations and let gamers brute force everything else.

Consoles are at base not made to brute force code but to be heavy specific hardware optimized.

Platform holders, publishers and developers lose the touch of what is PC and what is console and that lead to that game development crisis we are facing now.
Exactly ..gone are the days when it felt like the consoles had that special sauce due to being closed systems and having that optimization advantage. They are treated as PCs now which let's devs get away with doing less work:quality or performance but never that 3rd option where they optimize the best combo of settings for that one mode.
 
I think its created a weird acceptance of sub standards in both.

Now playing in quality mode you expect a lower frame rate and dips as the price. And when I choose performance mode I kind of expect to experience various degrees of popin or texture loss etc
Isn't that the pointing? If there wasn't a trade-off, there wouldn't be the choice.
 

skneogaf

Member
There should always be 3 modes on consoles as games are forward compatible so quality, performance and unlocked fps quality.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Perfect.

You have PC for that and it will continue being PC.

The issue is that we console users lose the console with that… so we are abandoned by our own platform choice and there is no other option left to us.

Or we accept consoles trying in a ugly way be a PC or we stop to play games…

Thinking a bit more about console basically died.
I can understand that, consoles for the longest time were the place you go for things to just “work”. no fiddling, no setup, no options to compromise on, you got what you got and you either liked it or you didn’t. that kinda thing is freeing in away, as it’s so easy to get lost in tinkering with things that you stop actually playing games, you just scrutinize them for what they aren’t, rather than what they are.

I get it.
 

rofif

Gold Member
If you can't pick between two options, I can't imagine how you manage to play games where you have to level up and select skills or choose between different guns. This is an amazing complaint.
wow. That's big of you.
I see you have a problem with understanding any social topics today... maybe get some rest to clear your mind and ready posts in this topic again.
It's not about making a hard choice. I am a pc gamer since like 1997. Having options by itself is not an issue. But on pc you have tools, rtss, msi afterburner, temperature sensors, different hardware and unoptimized games to go with it.... console is a console. You just want to go an play. The specially crafted version of the game. Not just a pc game with lowered settings to run 4k or 1080p.
This topic is about something entirely different... oh man I am tired of explaining this. think whatever you want
 

rofif

Gold Member
This is why I'm playing games on a 27" 4K monitor.

Edit: with integer scaling.
will ferrell lube GIF
I was a big proponent for integer scaling when I owned 27" 4k monitor.
Especially for 2d or old games. I even made quite a big topic about this few years ago haha. Nvidia added it officially year later.

... lol I also made one of the biggest topic requiring freesync support on nvidia gpu's... look how far we got :p

btw. I think ps5 might be doing integer scaling 1080p ps4 games. I fired up bloodborne some time ago and look how "pixelated" it is.
 
Last edited:

dd492941

Member
I played guardians of the galaxy in 30fps mode because of digital foundry videos. Everything else thus far I've exclusively played in 60fps. I played a bit of cod cold War in 120fps but ehh, I preferred a smooth 60 fps with better visuals. I think besides vr, 60 fps seems to be my sweet spot with the occasional 30fps if the graphics are worth it.
 
Last edited:

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
I was a big proponent for integer scaling when I owned 27" 4k monitor.
Especially for 2d or old games. I even made quite a big topic about this few years ago haha. Nvidia added it officially year later.

... lol I also made one of the biggest topic requiring freesync support on nvidia gpu's... look how far we got :p

btw. I think ps5 might be doing integer scaling 1080p ps4 games. I fired up bloodborne some time ago and look how "pixelated" it is.
My 27" has hardware integer scaling - begone blurry 1080p games!

It also looks like there's a softness to that picture especially looking around the character. Doesn't look like true integer scaling.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom