• 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?

The notion that configuring one's graphics settings is complicated has got to be one of the most ill-informed positions I've ever heard. Do you people not dress yourselves? Because I can't imagine how a few sliders and words like "on" and "off" could be difficult to interpret. If you don't understand something, you can still reasonably assume that turning it off will make your game run better whereas turning it on will make it run worse. The only remotely difficult decision to make is Vsync and the change is often so drastic that it's not difficult to form an opinion about it after a couple of minutes.

The argument that this has anything to do with multiple hardware configs and optimization is ignoring the fact that preference plays into performance any time a user is forced to make a tradeoff between performance and image quality, which is almost always. I don't tolerate FPSes below 60 or input lag of any kind in any multiplayer game, so I'll take image tearing and blockiness if that's what it takes to get it. Right now, if the developer decides to sacrifice framerate for image quality (which they do frequently), that's a loss for me. Having the option to change that can only benefit me and can't possibly hurt you.
 
Not to the extent of PC games. Do it like Bioshock (and apparently Alan Wake) though and it's OK, a higher FPS option for those who don't care about V-Sync or other visual options is good, but I'd rather not have a bunch of variables to toggle and get neurotic about, never playing the game.
 
I was thinking about this myself a few days ago and yeah, I think more options is good but I can just imagine Call of Duty-only players being all "why da hell wud u want to make grapics crapper??"

If it was only something like V-sync and AA then I don't see why it would bother anyone if there were options.
 
I don't want devs wasting time on multiple graphics paths to support this shit, I'd rather them work on getting the most out of the hardware in a singular instance.
 
squidyj said:
I don't want devs wasting time on multiple graphics paths to support this shit, I'd rather them work on getting the most out of the hardware in a singular instance.
Click to expand...

Wow, you sound like you know how exactly goes the process of making a console game. Teach us more.
 
Ciastek3214 said:
Wow, you sound like you know how exactly goes the process of making a console game. Teach us more.
Click to expand...

Well of course there are some things you can just flag off, but you can't change the shading model or light placement without effort. There's a lot of stuff you can't just 'turn down' without having to actually put effort into it. Do you think a game that uses HDR and manages exposure is going to work well if you turn off the hdr and just scale shit 0 to 1? Cmon. You start taking features out and turning them off and stuff has to be tweaked. What if you ran a real-time GI solution? (not really for current gen but it could easily happen next gen). Now you've gotta bake in some manner ambient lighting for people who want 60fps? you've gotta make sure it loads and reads properly?

This isn't even addressing having to rebuild everything to look passable because if they release a 60fps mode that literally just turns features off it will look like absolute ass and they WILL get shredded for it.

So I'd rather they focus on doing the one path well.
 
squidyj said:
So I'd rather they focus on doing the one path well.
Click to expand...

turning off motion blur, post-processing, etc. is one line in .ini file in most UE3 games. It's just a "true/false" line. This stuff is built into the engine by default, you don't need to put any sort of effort into it. But if you turn off some settings you will get a decent increase in FPS. What you are saying about a shader model is fucking ridiculous. We're not talking about DX10/DX9 kind of options here. We're talking about effects and some basic stuff which doesn't need any kind of effort.

you can turn off vsync in .ini file of Chronicles of Riddick on 360 and get 60 fps in most scenes. This option is there, why it's not in menu then?

ffs people...
 
squidyj said:
So I'd rather they focus on doing the one path well.
Click to expand...

See there's your problem, because they're mostly not doing it well, because most console games run like shit, and that should be unacceptable, but it isn't because of "cinematic>soap opera" bullshit argument media, lazy developers, and masses use. And you can make examples of games that run at, well let's say 24 fps, but CONSISTENTLY, and that will be like 1% or less of console games out there.
 
Not a higher FPS no. But the Xbox game Wreckless allowed you to adjust shaders effects during the replay could have even been during gameplay, I can't remember. I would love to be able to mess around with shader options in game.
Farcry 1 on PC allowed you to even switch it to Cellshading. I would LOVE if SP console games allowed you to mess around with things like that. It could add a whole new feel to some games. An RPG where I could switch it to rough cell-shading would be really cool.

But strictly speaking for a better technological edge. No I wouldn't care for that.
 
Acheteedo said:
I'd rather not have to think about it, I'd keep changing my mind every time I saw something imperfect like I do with PC games.
Click to expand...

I have this problem. Probably spend more time adjusting settings than actually playing.

Edit: I wouldn't mind options, but is there really any wiggle room on consoles? As far as I know, most games already run at low settings and ~30 fps.
 
Super Smash Bros. Brawl has an option for sharp but jaggy (AA OFF?) or smooth but blurry graphics (AA ON?):

smash_options_1.jpg
 
subversus said:
turning off motion blur, post-processing, etc. is one line in .ini file in most UE3 games. It's just a "true/false" line. This stuff is built into the engine by default, you don't need to put any sort of effort into it. But if you turn off some settings you will get a decent increase in FPS. What you are saying about a shader model is fucking ridiculous. We're not talking about DX10/DX9 kind of options here. We're talking about effects and some basic stuff which doesn't need any kind of effort.

you can turn off vsync in .ini file of Chronicles of Riddick on 360 and get 60 fps in most scenes. This option is there, why it's not in menu then?

ffs people...
Click to expand...

There are a few things that will improve shit but if you think disabling blurs is going to jump from a 33ms frame time to a 16ms frame time you're the one who's "fucking ridiculous".

Ciastek3214 said:
See there's your problem, because they're mostly not doing it well, because most console games run like shit, and that should be unacceptable, but it isn't because of "cinematic>soap opera" bullshit argument media, lazy developers, and masses use. And you can make examples of games that run at, well let's say 24 fps, but CONSISTENTLY, and that will be like 1% or less of console games out there.
Click to expand...
they are getting a lot of work out of consoles for that 30fps most of the time, except for Dark Souls. I haven't seen any evidence that you understand what is going on in these engines and these games. I don't even know why you're bringing up 24p which had nothing to do with my original statement.
 
squidyj said:
There are a few things that will improve shit but if you think disabling blurs is going to jump from a 33ms frame time to a 16ms frame time you're the one who's "fucking ridiculous".
Click to expand...

No, you aren't really protecting your argument right there, you said that it would take huge amounts of work, he proved it doesn't. As to what you say here, blur is one of many things that can be disabled, that when disabled, stack up a significant amount of performance improvement.
 
Ciastek3214 said:
No, you aren't really protecting your argument right there, you said that it would take huge amounts of work, he proved it doesn't. As to what you say here, blur is one of many things that can be disabled, that when disabled, stack up a significant amount of performance improvement.
Click to expand...

Blurs are one of the only things that can just be 'turned off'. If you think those post process filters are enough by themselves to hit 60fps you're wrong but it seems you're committed to your crusade so whatever.
 
I have a feeling that platform holders don't allow this because publishers would release screenshots with unplayable full settings. But they kind of already do, so it makes no difference.
 
squidyj said:
There are a few things that will improve shit but if you think disabling blurs is going to jump from a 33ms frame time to a 16ms frame time you're the one who's "fucking ridiculous".
Click to expand...

actually I have measured it in times when my PC wasn't up to snuff and I can measure it now. It will be noticeable only in FPS counter though. Also turning off grain filter in ME1 on xbox360 improved perfomance and it's just a minor cosmetic effect. So your opinion is wrong
lol
 
squidyj said:
Blurs are one of the only things that can just be 'turned off'. If you think those post process filters are enough by themselves to hit 60fps you're wrong but it seems you're committed to your crusade so whatever.
Click to expand...

First, no matter how much, it is a performance gain. Second, your first argument is still invalid, it's really little to no work making an option to disable them, and remember, that was the main point of this discussion. Third, I'm not commited to any crusade, because I don't have one, I'm in a discussion with you, and other people that make same or similiar points as yours. If it's coming out as forcing someone to give up his opinion, then I'm sorry if anyone feels that way. I say that just to clear things up.

EDIT: You know subversus here is making a good point. He is more competent than me, I give him that, so you should be arguing with him rather than me, but I get the feeling it is easier to "prove" that I'm wrong, because I'm not talking about specifics, because I don't feel I know enough to give you a good example.
 
I would want nothing more than to be able to make all the games I play look like the way people play Quake 3 competitively.

But seriously, I wouldn't mind some sort of options to graphic settings. Maybe if not for the sake of performance, but maybe just for visual preference. Some games may have bad HDR implementation, so maybe I could turn it off. The original Mass Effect had the option to disable motion blur and filmgrain, and that was much appreciated. Sometimes I don't want to see a lot of post-processing visual clutter.

Though with performance specifically, I loved that Bioshock had an unlock FPS option. As a person who could not possibly give any less of a shit about screen tearing, it made the game play a lot better. So yeah, I'd be all for those options in more console games.

Edit: I also remember that Perfect Dark had a few options like this. Specifically there was a hi-res option you could tick that would completely tank the already poor framerate of the game. So I played with that unticked, and I also put on the setting to play the game in widescreen letterboxed so that it would run a little bit better on top of that.
 
The problem is console devs can't even get it right now, imagine when they've got two settings to program for?

No one's saying they don't want options, if they could guarantee 30/60 FPS with some blur/bloom or AA turned on or off no one in their right mind would be against it. But well baby steps.
 
subversus said:
actually I have measured it in times when my PC wasn't up to snuff and I can measure it now. It will be noticeable only in FPS counter though. Also turning off grain filter in ME1 on xbox360 improved perfomance and it's just a minor cosmetic effect. So your opinion is wrong
lol
Click to expand...

Yes. Post process filters are the easiest thing to drop to improve performance, I thought I acknowledged that. I also stated that dropping post process effects will not take a 30fps game and make it a 60fps game on consoles, this remains true. If you want to get to 60 you are going to have to do work.
 
Nugg said:
Yes, I would mind very much. It's not my job to tweak a console game. There's not a million different setup like on PC.
Click to expand...
You mind having options?

Also, not having differing HW doesn't really have anything to do with this. People do not weigh IQ, etc elements the same.
 
Seep said:
The problem is console devs can't even get it right now, imagine when they've got two settings to program for?
Click to expand...

I don't want them to program for two settings (what does this even mean anyway?). I want them to aim for 25 fps like they usually do (ok, I exaggerate a bit but you get the idea) and let me get remaining 5-10 fps by turning some minor shit off. They could do this at least.
 
No, I buy consoles because I don't want to have to deal with PC stuff. I just want everything to work at the best of its ability from the start. I shouldn't have to tweak anything.
 
squidyj said:
Yes. Post process filters are the easiest thing to drop to improve performance, I thought I acknowledged that. I also stated that dropping post process effects will not take a 30fps game and make it a 60fps game on consoles, this remains true. If you want to get to 60 you are going to have to do work.
Click to expand...

well, 5-10 fps would be enough for me if it is THAT HARD.
 
Row said:
Slippery slope, no thanks. Allow people to turn off filters and hud elements sure, but tweaking graphics settings...no. It takes away from the plug and play nature of consoles.
Click to expand...

So because you wouldnt want to tweak it nobody else should be able to have that option?
 
Rahxephon91 said:
No, I buy consoles because I don't want to have to deal with PC stuff. I just want everything to work at the best of its ability from the start. I shouldn't have to tweak anything.
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't have to...thats why it'd be OPTIONAL.
 
Rahxephon91 said:
No, I buy consoles because I don't want to have to deal with PC stuff. I just want everything to work at the best of its ability from the start. I shouldn't have to tweak anything.
Click to expand...

are you ok with playing a game at 20 fps?
 
Who in their right mind would mind an extra option, given that it doesn't effect the game in any negative way?

Since when are options for anything a bad thing?
 
They ought to have a graphical standard that is unchangeable for MP at least. There's no way someone should be able to ADS (for example) with higher framerate and no blur, it just forces that setting as the only competitive settings.


Einbroch said:
Who in their right mind would mind an extra option, given that it doesn't effect the game in any negative way?

Since when are options for anything a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Depending on the settings they provide it might be a production hinderance or have a negative influence on the way the game is played.
 
squidyj said:
Depending on the settings they provide it might be a production hinderance or have a negative influence on the way the game is played.
Click to expand...

Could, but PC gamers do this with dozens if not hundreds of different options in a game on millions of combinations of PCs all the time.

One console having a few options would likely take very little time or manpower. Hi-res / low-res. High shadows / low shadows.

Etc. I admittedly don't know anything about game production, but PC programmers do it on a much larger scale, so console toggles I would think would be really easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What modern game is worth to play on a high-end PC, with max graphical settings - if you would compare it to the current gen consoles?
2 3
101
3K
Fortress of Regrets replied
If you could force the entirety of Neogaf to play a game till completion, which one would you choose?
2 3 4 5
207
2K
Danny22 replied
If you're Sony boss what would you do with Fairgame$?
2 3 4
163
1K
MALpractice311 replied
If you could give any franchise to a specific studio for a dream project, what would you choose?
2
83
243
GinkoLudwig replied
  • Poll
Do you play local Multiplayer more on Consoles or PC
12
462
Gaiff replied
Top Bottom