You shouldn't get options because other people would then have to live with the knowledge that someone out there is playing a console game with different settings than they are and that is unacceptable
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would you mind graphics options on consoles if it let you play at higher fps?
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
You shouldn't get options because other people would then have to live with the knowledge that someone out there is playing a console game with different settings than they are and that is unacceptable
That'd be great. I know it's the only way I'll ever get 60 FPS on a console, because developers are never going to do it for me.
And honestly, the amount of hate in this thread for the idea is disturbing. What do you people have against customization? Half the reason I don't play console games is because they run at 30 (honestly, it's usually sub-30) FPS, which leads to choppy gameplay and horrible input lag. The idea proposed in the OP would fix this, and you're against it? Why?
And honestly, the amount of hate in this thread for the idea is disturbing. What do you people have against customization? Half the reason I don't play console games is because they run at 30 (honestly, it's usually sub-30) FPS, which leads to choppy gameplay and horrible input lag. The idea proposed in the OP would fix this, and you're against it? Why?
smuldegspaj
Banned
because it would divert time and money from precious optimisation.
Haunted
Member
Some of the reactions in here are downright embarrassing.
Like, really. What is wrong with you people.
Haunted
Member
What if you could check a few boxes to make a game that's running at 60fps run at 30fps instead but with much better looking graphics and image quality, wouldn't that be great for someone like you?
Just like it does on PC?
Edit: Sarcasm is sometimes lost over the internet. And you should know, these lower settings already exist on 99% of console games, developers program the engine first, then decide what quality levels they're going to use for the final shipping product. The lower/higher options are just hidden away because the console standard to not support them.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
I'll say something that's been said milion times in this thread. What optimisation? Console games nowadays run like SHIT, that's unacceptable. And I sense sarcasm in your post, I'm not stupid, just making sure as many people as possible can read it.
smuldegspaj
Banned
there is no set hardware on pc.
Krauser Kat
Member
consoles take more work to use than steam does now. The only thing consoles have now are exclusives and not having to install (oh wait). I would rather be able to tailor my experience.
I was being sarcastic. These lower/higher graphics options already exist, no game developer knows exactly what their game is going to look like, or how much fidelity they can squeeze out of a console, until the game is nearly finished. Putting them in a menu and allowing users to access them should be a simple process.
But some people still use sd tv's. Some others don't have widescreen.
So there are already people playing with different settings than others are right now.
He is being sarcastic.
Heh. My mistake aeolist. Though in this thread, its kinda hard to tell who's joking and who's serious. Some really crazy opinions are being presented.
A lot of console guys here seem embittered that devs aren't already magically "optimizing" games to run at a steady 60fps. The Xenon core and the Cell were sourced nearly a decade ago. Coding for those chips are as optimized as it's gonna get; you can't sit there and demand these consoles operate on the same level as a modern computer without some sacrifices being made; perhaps among them configurable options settings.
Devs aren't lazy; they're being forced to deal with ancient console hardware that under any sane cycle would have been abandoned two or three years ago.
Devs aren't lazy; they're being forced to deal with ancient console hardware that under any sane cycle would have been abandoned two or three years ago.
Yeahhhhh its crazy you cant turn the music off in some games.
Dick Justice
Banned
Wow, so many selfish cocks in this thread. Seriously, you don't want others to have options just because of your own insecurities? SMH.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I just think we're kind of admitting defeat if we do this instead of trying to optimize the games.
Look at the current situation: We don't have options and games aren't optimized
Why would adding some user-accessible toggles for options that already exist make the situation worse?
Fudgepuppy
Banned
Don't know, I just believe that we have PC's for that in depth experience with all the options you want, and that we have consoles for plug-n-play. Although as it is now consoles aren't very plug-n-play.
Just to clarify, I'm not against this, I just don't feel hindered by lower framerates. It's just that it might change the industry to something different, and possibly worse, but I don't know.
So, if they announced this feature for an upcoming game, I wouldn't really cry, I would probably feel curiousity and a sense of empathy for those who really want it.
No, I don't want that. Because there would be not point to actually play on the console.
Also, its the job of the dev to give me the games at the best quality and FPS they can.
Settings on PC exist because they are needed in order to reach a larger userbase. It's not really options that are meant to customise your experience for fun, even if you obviously can see it that way too. On consoles, everybody is having the same machine, there's no point in having settings to accomodate different machines.
Also, its the job of the dev to give me the games at the best quality and FPS they can.
Settings on PC exist because they are needed in order to reach a larger userbase. It's not really options that are meant to customise your experience for fun, even if you obviously can see it that way too. On consoles, everybody is having the same machine, there's no point in having settings to accomodate different machines.
Christ, thats just ridiculous though, seriously.
Some serious "Option are bad m'kaaaaaaay' in this thread. And lol @ it giving devs an excuse not to optimize. Alot of them don't as is. Shitloads of sub 30fps games out there when the action kicks up on screen.
dragonelite
Member
BF 3 is also guilty.
I remember a screenshot from a presentation with the Tunnel map.
Where it showed a frame with pre post-processing and post post-processing(color correction).
We aren't saying that devs go with the lowest setting.
I expect that devs release a game where everything that can be on will be on and it will run 30fps or 60fps.
Some people can get sick or nausea from certain effects like a bad motion blur.
For those people if they can set motion blur off the game becomes more enjoyable for them.
Or a dev fucked up a post processing AA methode that destroys IQ instead of improving it.
Wouldn't be better to put that post processing filter off.
And it would probably net you a more stable framerate.
The game will still be V-synced so fps will always be capped at 30 or 60fps.
MisterHero
Super Member
Options by itself are not a bad thing, but nonoptimized retail software would look terrible against games that are more and more platform-optimized (digital distribution games).
Performance would effect Online gameplay too. Why not leave it and make sure everyone's on equal footing?
Will nerfing graphics make up for a sub-standard internet gaming connection?
Performance would effect Online gameplay too. Why not leave it and make sure everyone's on equal footing?
Will nerfing graphics make up for a sub-standard internet gaming connection?
lol
smuldegspaj
Banned
well put.
astroturfing
Member
weird to see so many people saying just straight up "NO".
like, why? how would more options hurt you?
i personally thought it was great how Bioshock 1 and 2 on PS3 allowed me to switch off v-sync. seemed to run smoother and i didnt notice any screentearing or anything.
stuff like Assassins Creed (all of them) could really have benefited from toning down some of the texture detail or AA or whatever, to allow it to run smoother or without screentearing. they just run like complete ass, i would sacrifice any other aspect of visuals just to get 5 more frames per second.
like, why? how would more options hurt you?
i personally thought it was great how Bioshock 1 and 2 on PS3 allowed me to switch off v-sync. seemed to run smoother and i didnt notice any screentearing or anything.
stuff like Assassins Creed (all of them) could really have benefited from toning down some of the texture detail or AA or whatever, to allow it to run smoother or without screentearing. they just run like complete ass, i would sacrifice any other aspect of visuals just to get 5 more frames per second.
Haunted
Member
SHUT UP
I don't want this hassle of "assigning buttons" and all this complicated shit that's like PC gaming, I want to play the game as the developer intended for me, he says I should click the left stick to aim, I ask "how hard".
fucking sheep
Fully customisable controls must be the most expensive and hardest thing to program otherwise it would be in every game.
So basically, would I like to have an option that would kill motion blur, reflections, some particles and such in order to play PGR 3, PGR 4, RacePro, GRID, Ferrari Challenge, Supercar Challenge, both Shifts and both F1 games in 60fps instead unbareable 30?
Where the hell do i sign up for that?
Where the hell do i sign up for that?
I'd like to disable those silly smoke/mist effect that does nothing but blur the screen and drop my framerate down to 20fps
It makes sense the framerate drops when you're rendering more objects, but I can't see shit, the framerate should go up!
Slamtastic
Member
No, the devs should just lower the graphics enough to hit 60 fps, and force everyone to experience how much better it is.
The amount of people in this thread saying they don't want options is hilarious.
Great job contributing to the stereotype that console gamers are braindead idiots who will eat up anything the developers throw at them and are afraid of opening the options menu.
Hahaha Oh wow.
This thread just makes me realize that I've completely grown out of console gaming. For me, gameplay trumps all. How people could not even want the OPTION of running their games at a higher FPS baffles me. If games aren't a standard 60 fps next gen (they probably won't be) I think I'll be PC only.
People can't choose because not every games are multiplatform, and not all developers are multiplatform developers due to budget.
It kind of sucks for both the player and the dev, a few options could solve the problem, so why not.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
You know, this thread makes me worried. Seriously worried.
DJ_Lae
Member
Sure, but only a basic option or two like Bioshock's v-sync.
And I happily turned vsync off in those games - they weren't exactly lookers to begin with, I didn't find the tearing all that bad and the locked framerate was painful.
Kind of like how some 3DS games run at 30fps in 3D mode and 60fps in 2D, although I realize that situation is a bit different.
And I happily turned vsync off in those games - they weren't exactly lookers to begin with, I didn't find the tearing all that bad and the locked framerate was painful.
Kind of like how some 3DS games run at 30fps in 3D mode and 60fps in 2D, although I realize that situation is a bit different.
RomanticHeroX
Member
No thanks, I already have a PC. Make what you think is the best and give it to me. I sincerely don't think more options are always better.
why?
For contra arguments, ask Miyamoto.
For pro arguments, ask Sakurai.
In the end, it's all about personal liking. Sometimes no options can hurt the game value, sometimes a Sakurai game can be frustrating as well. And yes, I know game options aren't exactly graphic options, but the point still stands.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
Look I know many may not like what I say here, so I'm sorry but it's called DUMBING DOWN.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
None of you guys ever thought that games with overdone bloom, or DOF should have had an option to tone it down? I'm not talking about messing up with the level of geometry or textures, just little things that are either shades or post processing.
I mean, even the Witcher 2 in the PC screenshot thread you see a 50/50 division of people playing it with bloom and without.
I mean, even the Witcher 2 in the PC screenshot thread you see a 50/50 division of people playing it with bloom and without.
Someone should make an online game where it forces everyone to play with 2s ping. It would be the best competitive online game.
I wish they were better. they're so off unless the point is to actually crush detail in the low range :l
trying to make a grey that's 20 levels above black seem barely brighter can tend to crush the first 19 levels into actually being fucking black. GAH.
i don't want the option because that is dev time that is clearly moving from getting the 30fps version working smoother and looking better. I mean, who the hell else would be working on making a 60fps version?