What do you think?

[EvilWiffles]

This might be in the wrong section and if it is, sorry bout that.

 

I've been toying around with the idea of graphical options being in console games, it's been debated in the past on multiple forums every now and then.

I'm trying to find any valid argument as to why they aren't available (at least for multi platform games).

 

I keep seeing arguments like "it'll affect the plug-in-play experience" which is complete and utter nonsense (modern day consoles aren't plug-in-play and tweaking graphical options isn't demanded by the player, it's an option AS IN OPTIONAL). Some also resort to saying that there isn't a need to increase graphics on already weak hardware. None of these arguments are valid as to why consoles shouldn't have graphical options.

 

First, developers can have the default optimizations, much like almost every PC game. You can change and tweak those settings in the graphical options to your liking, disabling DoF or AO, maybe disabling that ugly FXAA. Maybe you are one of those folks who cannot tell the difference between 720p, 900p, and 1080p.

[2FA]

This might be in the wrong section and if it is, sorry bout that.

 

I've been toying around with the idea of graphical options being in console games, it's been debated in the past on multiple forums every now and then.

I'm trying to find any valid argument as to why they aren't available (at least for multi platform games).

 

I keep seeing arguments like "it'll affect the plug-in-play experience" which is complete and utter nonsense (modern day consoles aren't plug-in-play and tweaking graphical options isn't demanded by the player, it's an option AS IN OPTIONAL). Some also resort to saying that there isn't a need to increase graphics on already weak hardware. None of these arguments are valid as to why consoles shouldn't have graphical options.

 

First, developers can have the default optimizations, much like almost every PC game. You can change and tweak those settings in the graphical options to your liking, disabling DoF or AO, maybe disabling that ugly FXAA. Maybe you are one of those folks who cannot tell the difference between 720p, 900p, and 1080p.

The point of having different graphic options isn't because it's optional, it's because people have a wide range of hardware with different levels performance. To accommodate weaker and stronger hardware, they have different levels of graphic fidelity available. Consoles all have identical hardware (I'm not talking cross brand, I mean PS4->PS4). There isn't a need to accommodate non-existent hardware.

[Applesean]

I think it's basically because all console type have the same hardware, where PC's all have different hardware, why give console the option to change settings? A lot of games don't run that well to start with, so no game would have the option set the settings higher. That leaves just the option of turning them down, and who would want to do that? 1 in every 100? not even that I don't think.

[EvilWiffles]

I think it's basically because all console type have the same hardware, where PC's all have different hardware, why give console the option to change settings? A lot of games don't run that well to start with, so no game would have the option set the settings higher. That leaves just the option of turning them down, and who would want to do that? 1 in every 100? not even that I don't think.

 

I've talked about that before. Still isn't a valid reason as to why it's not an option. It doesn't really matter if there isn't any change of hardware, it's the matter of accommodating everyone's personal preferences. If it was all about what @DeadEyePsycho stated, there wouldn't be a need for FXAA or SMAA, they have absolutely no impact in terms of performance.

 

 

 

A lot of games don't run that well to start with, so no game would have the option set the settings higher. That leaves just the option of turning them down, and who would want to do that?

 

A lot of games don't run that well, then why not give the users some flexibility? Seriously, cant think of a single thing here that is actually valid.

If a game doesn't run well, you either wait till there is a patch (good luck waiting for that crap) or you could tweak the game to run how you would like it. Right now, you'd be out of luck on this one currently.

 

It's almost mind blowing knowing people don't want these features on consoles...

[Applesean]

I've talked about that before. Still isn't a valid reason as to why it's not an option. It doesn't really matter if there isn't any change of hardware, it's the matter of accommodating everyone's personal preferences. If it was all about what @DeadEyePsycho stated, there wouldn't be a need for FXAA or SMAA, they have absolutely no impact in terms of performance.

 

 

A lot of games don't run that well, then why not give the users some flexibility? Seriously, cant think of a single thing here that is actually valid.

If a game doesn't run well, you either wait till there is a patch (good luck waiting for that crap) or you could tweak the game to run how you would like it. Right now, you'd be out of luck on this one currently.

 

It's almost mind blowing knowing people don't want these features on consoles...

Well, can't argue with any of that. Okay then lets think about how the console started, or more who it was aimed at to begin with, "Kids" it was more something to keep the kids busy, so even today where a lot of adults play consoles there main selling point are still kids and family's, and I know back in the day on my ps1 the last thing I would of wanted is a big list full of settings to play about in and mess up my game because I would of not had a clue what I was doing. And I don't think a non tech savvy mon would like it much either. 

[Guest]

There's no good reason why some options aren't available. For the devs probably just the ability to optimize a game. I think we're seeing PC ports needing large amounts of RAM and vram because that's how consoles are configured. Perhaps having settings would simply discredit the console. I think if you could choose to lower quality to run at 60 fps that game would just look awful and suffer because of it

[skywake]

For starters you should give this thread a better title.

 

On the topic itself well I'd take a different approach to the question. I'd argue that the graphical options in PC games aren't an advantage to most consumers. They're more of a necessary evil to get around the fact that there's a huge range of hardware. A good console developer will optimise the game so that it runs at a specific level of fidelity at an acceptable framerate. The same can never be true for a PC game.

 

With a community like this we're going to skew heavily towards the people who want control over everything. We want to turn those dials upto 11 and see our systems choke and splutter. The average consumer doesn't want that option. Quite frankly more often than not I don't bother changing the default graphical settings in PC games unless it's really obvious I could get more or my system is struggling. If the defaults are great I'm more than happy not to tinker and just get on with playing the game.

[GoldSrc]

The most I've seen is an option to enable or disable Vsync in Bioshock.

Having a more advanced set of graphics settings in console games could lead to problems, like if you cranked the settings to high could make the console overheat or something.

Is not worth it for most if not all games on console.

I mean, sure it would be fun to see how well games run on low settings in consoles.