How would you feel about PC-style graphics settings in console games?

[Clay]

I've thought about this a few times over the past couple years but started considering it today after reading through the thread on Control's XSX/ PS5 mode.

It seems like there's more and more examples of games that have a few graphics settings (usually Performance and Quality, sometimes a couple other options) and there's always people who aren't satisfied with the choices. Maybe the performance mode doesn't stay locked at 60fps 100% of the time and some people wish there was an option to lower the resolution a little to guarantee no drops. Maybe Quality mode is a consistent 30fps but doesn't look as good as the PC version maxed out and some people would sacrifice a locked frame rate for some extra eye candy.

Whatever the case, it seems to me the introduction of these limited options is a double-edged sword. It's cool to be able to tailor the experience to your preferences a bit, but the options are so limited that it's unlikely that one will exactly align with what you would choose if you had full control over the settings like you would on PC.

It's not feasible to add a bunch of additional preset modes since they all need to be play tested. It's just not worth a developer's time to offer six settings that cater to different combinations of fidelity and frame rate. But what if console games just gave you access to a menu of settings like a PC game?

The way I imagine this working is you're given the typical Quality and Performance options, and then an additional Custom one. If you choose Custom you're given a short message explaining that the presets are the way the game is meant to be played and will give you an optimal experience and that attempting to turn everything to max may make the game unplayable, but if you want to fiddle with things you're allowed to. If you're willing to deal with frequent dips in order to have a couple settings maxed along with ray tracing, go for it. If you want to turn down every setting to get an extremely high frame rate, you can also do that.

What do you all think? Is this a horrible idea that no one would use since consoles are supposed to be plug-and-play? Or is this inevitable as more and more games present options and users get used to making choices regarding settings? Somewhere in between?

 

[Strings]

Feels completely pointless outside of 2 or 3 presets.

 

[Deleted member 68874]

It's one of the big reasons I stopped PC gaming.

Performance vs Quality is good enough imo.

 

[Theswweet]

Allowing the options is good, even if the game defaults to specific configurations.

 

[waddledee123]

I'm a fan of just being able to play games on consoles. Seeing how many settings are available to change on PC makes my head spin

 

[Clay]

Allowing the options is good, even if the game defaults to specific configurations.

Click to shrink...

That's how I feel about it personally. If games did start giving you more control I'd likely just stick to the presets, but I would appreciate being given the option of fine-tuning things.

 

[Dezzy]

I'm fine with performance/quality choices, but more options would be fine with me as well.

I'm just happy we're getting the choice on the current consoles, finally. Being forced to run games at 30 fps sucks.

 

[Polioliolio]

No, I think the point of graphics settings is that all PCs are different.
On console, wouldn't you want a standard experience among users?

 

[Centzontotochtin]

No way. Full settings will lead us to pc "optimized" games. Only need 60fps/rt nothing more.

 

[Rosebud]

Would love it.

Just give default options for people who like them and we're good.

No, I think the point of graphics settings is that all PCs are different.
On console, wouldn't you want a standard experience among users?

Click to shrink...

We already moved on from that, look at TLOU II options (that aren't even graphical but impact everything on the game)

 

[jrcaretaker]

I don't want it for multiplayer games. Players getting an advantage from bad graphics due to better visibility and framerate is annoying.

 

[RedHeat]

If I wanted ultimate customizability I would've switched to PC by now. 2-3 presets is more than enough

Warframe's settings on console are annoying to sift through.

 

[texhnolyze]

No, having quality/performance mode is already more than enough.

Devs give various PC settings because there are countless PC configurations that people may have. But there are only one or two types of consoles on each generation.

 

[Mesoian]

I said other, because it's a no, but not for either of those reasons.

With consoles, you have planned SKUs with no differences. You don't have to plan around variability in hardware or software, so you should be able to fine tune without needing to put the responsibility of fine tuning options in the hands of the player. When it releases, it should release in the best shape for that console hardware.

 

[Sanctuary]

Yes please. Would make it so much easier to dial in 60fps, and we would be one step closer to toaster PC/console parity.

No, having quality/performance mode is already more than enough.

Click to shrink...

It's not always, especially when it "targets" 60fps and rarely hits that, or is unlocked, which is even worse.

No, I think the point of graphics settings is that all PCs are different.
On console, wouldn't you want a standard experience among users?

Click to shrink...

When a game offers 2-3 different modes, there is no "standard experience" anymore. If they could actually not just target 60fps, but keep it at that without completely butchering the image, that would be fine I guess, but that seems to only work for last-gen games right now on the current systems. Once the current-gen games start rolling out, I fully expect a repeat of last-gen with "performance" and "quality" modes. Which was a very mixed bag.

 

[beelulzebub]

As a PC gamer primarily, anything beyond 2 maybe 3 presets on console is really unnecessary. The whole reason these extensive graphics toggles exist is that every PC build is different. Throwing that onto locked off, closed box hardware undermines the plug and play strengths of consoles, and will confuse anyone but the most tuned in capital G Gamers.

 

[Clay]

No, I think the point of graphics settings is that all PCs are different.
On console, wouldn't you want a standard experience among users?

Click to shrink...

It seems like most games with options keep it pretty simple with just Performance and Quality, or something equivalent, but look at Devil May Cry Special Edition. You can play it at 4K/ 30fps with raytracing, 1080p/ 60fps with raytracing, 4K/ 60fps without raytracing, and 120fps with raytracing off. Is one of those supposed to be standard?

Similarly Miles Morales has 30 and 60 fps ray tracing modes, and a performance mode that's also 60fps with no ray tracing but with other settings turned up. Again, it doesn't seem like any of these is the intended experience, the devs leave it up to the player to decide what they prioritize.

To me it doesn't seem like too huge a step from there to just allowing players to toggle individual settings. But I know a lot of people just aren't interested in that level of control.

 

[RedOnePunch]

I think simple performance/quality option is good enough.

It seems like most games with options keep it pretty simple with just Performance and Quality, or something equivalent, but look at Devil May Cry Special Edition. You can play it at 4K/ 30fps with raytracing, 1080p/ 60fps with raytracing, 4K/ 60fps without raytracing, and 120fps with raytracing off. Is one of those supposed to be standard?

Similarly Miles Morales has 30 and 60 fps ray tracing modes, and a performance mode that's also 60fps with no ray tracing but with other settings turned up. Again, it doesn't seem like any of these is the intended experience, the devs leave it up to the player to decide what they prioritize.

To me it doesn't seem like too huge a step from there to just allowing players to toggle individual settings. But I know a lot of people just aren't interested in that level of control.

Click to shrink...

But what happens if you select options that are too demanding and the game runs poorly? I dont think developers,
publishers, and platform holders want to deal with people complaining.

PC is a different market.

 

[c0Zm1c]

More options is never a bad thing. It's why I'm primarily a PC gamer.

 

[Lobster Roll]

It would be absolutely brilliant. Think about settings on PCs for a second. There's endless amounts of customization, but every user has varying combinations of CPUs, GPUs, RAM, storage, and whatever overclock decisions they chose to make. So it can take some fine tuning here or there, but each user has their own settings that work to get the framerate and graphics they want.

Now picture a scenario where every single user has identical specs, but PC customization for settings. You have places like Digital Foundry that could publish their deeply tested "best framerate", "best graphics", and "best balance" settings. They can identify which settings are a resource waste and which are essential. You go their website, choose the game, and select "PS5" or "Series X" and it just spits out exactly what you need to choose to get the same results they did.

It sounds like a dream come true, honestly.

 

[Deleted member 1839]

I generally don't care. I'm not gonna buy multiplat games on console anyways but there at least should be a FOV slider of some kind, especially on shooter.

 

[Acquiesc3]

Just the presets are fine for the most part.

 

[Clay]

But what happens if you select options that are too demanding and the game runs poorly? I dont think developers,
publishers, and platform holders want to deal with people complaining.

PC is a different market.

Click to shrink...

Like I said in the OP, the way I imagine it working is that your presented with a couple presets, like the normal Quality/ Performance, and choosing Custom issues a warning that the presets are optimal and that playing with the settings may make the game unplayable. That would hopefully scare away casual players who may not understand what exactly they're playing around with, and most people who opt to continue would understand that if they're experience single-digit frame rates that they need to tone something down.

Devs wouldn't necessarily need to offer the exact same options presented on PC too. The PC version of a game might have Low, Mid, High, and Insane options for Texture Quality. Console might only offer Low and High, and High might not be identical to the PC version's High. Devs could limit options enough to ensure that even with everything jacked up that the game isn't completely broken.

I know this is way easier said then done but I think a great goal would be to have games average around the mid-20s at the lowest with everything maxed out.

 

[Deleted member 12833]

No thanks. Keep it simple.

 

[pg2g]

I like the Graphics/Performance modes, but also would like an unlocked Graphics mode for next-gen/Pro consoles.

 

[BadAss2961]

The more options the better.

Keep the quality/performance toggle as standard, then have advanced graphics options for the enthusiasts. This would future proof all the games that do it.

 

[Coi]

PC has multiple settings not because "developers are good people and give us multiple options" It's because games need to run on hundreds of different hardware configurations, and thats the beginning of multiple issues
Consoles are closed systems, so having locked 4K30+RT and locked 1080p60+RT its more than enough for me. I can't see the point of more configurations.

 

[Jaymageck]

Absolute no.

I want to experience the team's creative vision. They'll know best what to prioritise.

I don't even like performance / quality options. I know I'm trading something off. I get a sense of sacrifice i don't have if the devs choose for me.

 

[Clay]

PC has multiple settings not because "developers are good people and give us multiple options" It's because games need to run on hundreds of different hardware configurations, and thats the beginning of multiple issues
Consoles are closed systems, so having locked 4K30+RT and locked 1080p60+RT its more than enough for me. I can't see the point of more configurations.

Click to shrink...

Already mentioned, but there's already games with more. DMC V SE has four. Miles Morales has three.

Developers may include options in PC games out of necessity but that doesn't mean players can't appreciate the choice. Those choices may be included to accommodate different combinations of hardware, but that doesn't change the fact that they allow any given user to tailor the game to their preference for frame rate vs. fidelity.

Absolute no.

I want to experience the team's creative vision. They'll know best what to prioritise.

I don't even like performance / quality options. I know I'm trading something off. I get a sense of sacrifice i don't have if the devs choose for me.

Click to shrink...

I'm actually surprised that no games (to my knowledge anyway) call one of the graphics options the definitive one. Some games have a 'definitive' difficulty, like Halo says that Heroic is the way the game is 'meant to be played' even though you can choose an easier or harder mode if you want. Insomniac, for example, could do something similar and say that the 60fps/ raytracing option in Spiderman is the way it's meant to be experienced.

 

[Tatsu91]

Honestly should be a thing. As their are setting that are per taste ie CA and motion blur and things like Volumetric clouds which often kill your fps but don't add to much.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Performance or Fidelity presets are enough, if people want more than that, they actually want a PC not a console.

 

[Mokujin]

Options are good, presets are an OK compromise but I would like presets with some additional options to disable key effects like chromatic aberration or film grain.

 

[Tagyhag]

I would like it because then I could always aim for 60fps.

But I would say no because the bitching and whining here of people lying that they spend more time doing the settings than playing the game (News alert: no one spends 8 hours tinkering with the settings) would be insufferable.

 

[nded]

Maybe tucked away behind a code or something for those averse to it for whatever reason.

It would be good to have moving forward if future consoles adopt PC-style backwards compatibility.

 

[Coi]

Already mentioned, but there's already games with more. DMC V SE has four. Miles Morales has three.

Developers may include options in PC games out of necessity but that doesn't mean players can't appreciate the choice. Those choices may be included to accommodate different combinations of hardware, but that doesn't change the fact that they allow any given user to tailor the game to their preference for frame rate vs. fidelity.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't make sense. Whats the point of making the game running poorly with "ultra settings" when the game will be unplayable just because "more options!"? Or running with inconsistent frame rate? Sony and Microsoft wants their games to run as good as possible, so why give the option to make it run poorly?
Consoles are closed systems. It's a developers work to make the game run flawless on both 4K30 and 1080p60.
You have to consider that multiple performance options on PC are for making the game run better with your hardware. With PS5 and XSX 4K30 and 1080p60 are the best options.

 

[Teamocil]

Bright Memory on XSX does this—I hate it. Just give me modes with info on the graphics/FPS targets. I have my PC for everything else.

 

[Clay]

It doesn't make sense. Whats the point of making the game running poorly with "ultra settings" when the game will be unplayable just because "more options!"? Or running with inconsistent frame rate? Sony and Microsoft wants their games to run as good as possible, so why give the option to make it run poorly?
Consoles are closed systems. It's a developers work to make the game run flawless on both 4K30 and 1080p60.
You have to consider that multiple performance options on PC are for making the game run better with your hardware. With PS5 and XSX 4K30 and 1080p60 are the best options.

Click to shrink...

I mean, the obvious answer is to allow players more choice so they can tailor games to their own preferences.

I don't really get your inconsistent frame rate comment. Tons of console games don't have locked frame rates. And there's plenty of games that have glitches, poor frame rates, or other issues despite Sony and Microsoft wanting their games to run as good as possible. Similarly, many do not run flawlessly at 4K30 or 1080p60.

Not everyone cares about a locked frame rate. Plenty of people would be fine with a game that runs at 30fps 90% of the time but dips into the teens or lower occasionally if it means the game's graphics blow them away. Other people may be willing to sacrifice some fidelity to ensure a completely locked frame rate. Someone has to make a decision as to what should be prioritized. The question is whether you want to make that decision or whether you want devs to make it for you.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

FOV slider would be cool.

 

[ApeEscaper]

Anyone saying No is being silly. If you're that scared of some (OPTIONAL) settings guess what you don't have to touch it.

Don't worry just play it as default which "developer intended" I used to keep hearing.

Let those who would enjoy adjusting settings to better their gaming experience do so.

 

[DOT_mjo]

Why would anyone not be in favor of more control over the games you are playing?

 

[Kthulhu]

Do it. Ideally it'd mean better explanations of what each option does as the console audience won't be as used to it.

 

[modiz]

My worry is that if that happens, then developers would optimize less for an optimal performance/graphics option. On consoles we also see specialized settings per level sometimes for the sake of performance, which wouldn't exist with only PC settings.

 

[Kanann]

Yes, but just as preset. No need to go that deep and make customers traumatized.

 

[TheMadTitan]

This should definitely be a thing. I don't see how this would interfere with the "plgu and play" aspect as the default performance you get on startup is what they'd tune for. They should keep the performance/graphics presets they have now and just bury the PC style options a little deeper into the settings.

 

[Letters]

Stuff like chromatic aberration or motion blur should be options on consoles. But important performance related stuff like shadow and lightning quality no, devs should figure out the best possible setting for those and set them in stone.

 

[Clay]

FOV slider would be cool.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't really considering that when I wrote this but yeah, that would actually be really cool. I never really noticed FOV until recently but once you've played with a higher one a lot of console games, FPS especially, feel nearly unplayable.

 

[DaciaJC]

Bring them on!

 

[floridaguy954]

It's not always, especially when it "targets" 60fps and rarely hits that, or is unlocked, which is even worse.

Click to shrink...

You do realize that the PS5 and X Series consoles support VRR?

Even if the game doesn't hold 60 FPS, there should be no tearing and minimal stuttering with VRR.

 

[TheMadTitan]

It doesn't make sense. Whats the point of making the game running poorly with "ultra settings" when the game will be unplayable just because "more options!"? Or running with inconsistent frame rate? Sony and Microsoft wants their games to run as good as possible, so why give the option to make it run poorly?
Consoles are closed systems. It's a developers work to make the game run flawless on both 4K30 and 1080p60.
You have to consider that multiple performance options on PC are for making the game run better with your hardware. With PS5 and XSX 4K30 and 1080p60 are the best options.

Click to shrink...

But what if someone wants 4k60 and is fine with turning off ray tracing to get that, for example. Or Maybe they want 1080p60 with ray tracing and is fine with turning down the resolution?

I don't think the raytracing performance modes in Spider-Man drop down to 1080p, but if someone wanted to make that kind of sacrifice to get full ray tracing performance, they should just be able to do it.

Leave the Quality/Performance presets as they are and bury the more granular controls in the options and disable certain settings based on what's already toggled so games aren't rendered unplayable by users picking stuff.

Sticking with Spider-Man, if I were to enable full ray tracing, and 60fps, disable the use of all resolutions above 1080p, or if I want 4k and 60fps, disable the toggle for ray tracing.

 

[terminaljeremy]

Ugh! I'd rather they didn't, honestly. I know options are good but I find I'm always worried there's something I could be tweaking to make it 'better' whereas with consoles even if it's running at 20fps I know that's the absolute best it's going to be and I find it doesn't bother me as a result.