• 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

rofif

Gold Member
Over the last year, every game released have a graphics mode to be selected and it's getting a bit wild out there.
For higher "quality", It can be Fidelity, Resolution, Ray tracing or graphics mode
For higher "performance", it can be Performance, framerate, fps modes.
Then there are mixes like often ray tracing modes which can be 30 or 60fps. Some games put ray tracing in quality mode, other in both.

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.

Some examples:
Death Stranding Quality mode is 4k60. With some rather rare, unnoticeable drops to 50s. Mostly in cutscenes.
It also had performance mode which is 1800p60 but with no drops... seriously... couldn't they just work better on one of the modes? That is not even including ultrawide modes which are just a nice bonus.
Halo Infinite is even different. 4k mode is targeting 60 and performance mode is 120. Both with dynamic resolution.

So I am finding the whole idea of console gaming not only improved by having options.. but also getting a bit annoying.
There is NO description. Not even a line of text explaining each modes. I have to go to DF or NX to see what mode is which resolution, effects, ray tracing and fps.
And the developers no longer aim for 1 vision. So are they doing a 30 or 60fps game? Are they doing a game that is 4k or 1080p?
If we are to have all these options, there should be an fps counter at least... at which point the whole console experience is gone.
Now - I AM NOT saying to get rid of all modes but keep it under control. There should be max of two modes. Maybe locked, developer mode and unlocked framerate mode... or something like that.
It would be a waste to make the game 30fps only an not have an option on there for future consoles to unlock the framerate. So maybe just name the modes "4k, 1440p" and have a separate fps toggle? What are your ideas?

edit: Playing in either mode I feel like I am missing something. It's a good way to sum it up. Which experience is definitive ? If I pick 4k30, I have to willingly accept 30fps. If I am playing 60fps mode.. the game can be blurry, have worse shadows or some other drawbacks. It feels like a game of compromises. I feel like this grand 4k presentation is the one to aim for "wow the game looks amazing" but then... well I only have this weak ass newest console, so I have to drop to 1440p, low shadows, no ray tracing to make it work". Gladly I am more often than not absolutely fine with 30fps.
 
Last edited:

cormack12

Gold Member
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
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
They are ok when resolution\framerate are locked, not when there is dynamic res and 60 fps only when you watch a wall or the ground.

Options are good.


Now we can argue that having various modes make the game slightly less optimized compared to having only one mode when the devs can squeeze the hell out of it.
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I have a big problem playing games at 30 FPS. Only one I can play is Flight Sim 2020 Xbox Edition (and that's like slightly above 30 with VRR) and mainly due to the fact, that we were taught in flight school "have a coffee before making decision to do anything", so you don't need to react quickly. Also only flying civil planes, as I don't really like the military ones.

I think 30 FPS games (being locked or heavens forbid something which is dropping below 30) fucking suck for gaming.
 

Kuranghi

Gold Member
Implementing better transparency/effects scaling would solve a lot of frame drops in games that try to run at 4K and resolutions approaching it. Thats what causes the frame drops a large percentage of the time. Fix that and then drop to 1800p if you can't lock to 60fps 99.9% of the time.

Ubi tried it with AC: Valhalla on console last year but they only suceeded in making the fire/transparencies look like shit AND it still didn't keep 60fps because they suck at 60fps:

Clapping Applause GIF
 

T-Cake

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.
 

dottme

Member
Options are good but the option choice need to stay simple. I’m looking for a game to look great while running at a fix frame rate. I don’t care distances of LOD, or quality of shadow or whatever you are adjusting.
i just want to be able to say run at 30fps and look as good as possible.
 

rofif

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.
yeah, I feel like "this is the game we made" is kinda lost. Sure, from software could include 720p 60fps mode in original bloodborne.
Same for god of war, uc4 and like every game but I liked that developers sticked to their guns and released the one version they wanted. It was the definitive version.
 

recursive

Member
edit: Playing in either mode I feel like I am missing something. It's a good way to sum it up. Which experience is definitive ? If I pick 4k30, I have to willingly accept 30fps. If I am playing 60fps mode.. the game can be blurry, have worse shadows or some other drawbacks. It feels like a game of compromises. I feel like this grand 4k presentation is the one to aim for "wow the game looks amazing" but then... well I only have this weak ass newest console, so I have to drop to 1440p, low shadows, no ray tracing to make it work". Gladly I am more often than not absolutely fine with 30fps.
You are missing something: Playing on pc so you can have both.

Consoles have always been a compromise. It is better now since you can now often pick what it is. I prefer framerate over resolution. You prefer higher res and low framerate. We both win.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Just optimize for 60fps all the time.

I agree with that, but most times that means sacrificing stuff like ray tracing. Personally, I'll drop ray tracing in a heartbeat, or just about any other setting, for 60 fps. Here's the thing. I've noticed a lot of folks on this forum who really want the higher visual fidelity and they are willing to drop frame rate to 30fps to get it.

Ultimately, the ability to choose performance vs quality is good and simple enough to give everyone what they want. I think I understand what rofif rofif is saying. One definitive version is better than either quality/performance version. So catering to two groups brings a inferior game overall. Perhaps that is true, but that seems impossible to prove. I'd err on the side of choice myself.
 

zeorhymer

Member
On console it's stupid. The hardware is the same. Just optimize it for highest resolution that the game will play without dying.

On PC is different. There's so many variables that you need performance sliders to catch the widest possible configurations.
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
If 60fps looks great and is stable then that's the one I choose. Sometimes both are 60fps and I go Fidelity by default despite some very few drops here and there that don't bother me.
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
I don’t see why you need to research, I just try the modes and choose what I like the best.

Performance mode is the best thing that has happened in console gaming since 60fps was dropped at the start of PS1 gen. I barely even know if I should play on PC or console now, that wasn’t the case at the start of last gen.
 

Elios83

Member
For me it's not annoying since it's basically always resolution vs frame rate.
I choose on a case by case basis.
I played Spiderman Miles Morales with full raytracing, R&C in 40fps mode, FF7R at 4K 30fps because the jump in quality was massive compared to 60fps, I've played Kena and now Lost Judgement at 60fps.

But all these modes are also a product of the cross gen nature of the current titles. Once games conceived for PS5 hardware are released and UE5 becomes commonplace, 30fps with dynamic 4k will likely become the default option, with performance modes being relegated to suffer the same huge drops in quality that now happen with120hz modes.
At that point there will be plans for mid gen refreshes anyway so the cycle will continue on new hardware.
 

rofif

Gold Member
You are missing something: Playing on pc so you can have both.

Consoles have always been a compromise. It is better now since you can now often pick what it is. I prefer framerate over resolution. You prefer higher res and low framerate. We both win.
I have a 3080 pc. That's not the point.
The point is that consoles never felt this much like a compromise. it used to be just "this version".
But as you say - we both win because there is a choice... just wish it was a bit "less choicy" and more described maybe
 

rofif

Gold Member
For me it's not annoying since it's basically always resolution vs frame rate.
I choose on a case by case basis.
I played Spiderman Miles Morales with full raytracing, R&C in 40fps mode, FF7R at 4K 30fps because the jump in quality was massive compared to 60fps, I've played Kena and now Lost Judgement at 60fps.

But all these modes are also a product of the cross gen nature of the current titles. Once games conceived for PS5 hardware are released and UE5 becomes commonplace, 30fps with dynamic 4k will likely become the default option, with performance modes being relegated to suffer the same huge drops in quality that now happen with120hz modes.
At that point there will be plans for mid gen refreshes anyway so the cycle will continue on new hardware.
Finished ff7 in two modes. First half in 60fps and 2nd half with 30fps just to return to 60fps at the end. I had a hard time deciding and spent a bit too much time comparing modes.
If they had some good motion blur, that 30fps mode would be "smoothed" out a bit better. But as you say - performance mode was kinda low res
 
This is something I've been posting a lot about too. I appreciate that we have options bit it sucks to always have to be sacrificing one or the other and your right, this does allow developers to be lazy and get away with less optimizing. There should always be a 3rd mode which should be a combination of framerate, graphics, and dynamic resolution. Something that strikes the best balance possible where we don't have to choose framerate vs visuals. The only games I can point to thar the devs clearly optimized to give the best combo of everything is Metro Exodus (dynamic "4k" resolution/60 fps/Ray traced global illumination) and Demons Souls. In these two games I have no doubt that the devs optimized to get the best combination of settings. Gears 5 on Series X as well.

This is what bugged me about Forza Horizon 5! They have quality mode looking amazing and truly PC ultra but at 30 fps or the performance mode which still looks nice but isn't at the same caliber of graphics presets but you get 60. Where is a 1440p mode that retains the settings of quality mode and the 60 fps of performance?

It's been very disheartening to get all these compromised modes just because devs rarely go that extra step in providing options to make everyone happy.
 
I'd prefer if devs just pick a res/framerate target and don't give any options. At least we will get properly optimized games.

This current trend of giving options makes sense for cross-gen games built for last gen-consoles that by definition have the performance headroom to spare. Next-gen games shouldn't be looking to provide these options because if they are, by definition they are not maxing out the performance and properly optimizing for any of the optional profiles offered in-game.

I insist that 60fps isn't necessary for every game and devs are the ones best placed to decide what fits their vision for the game. So devs should decide on a render target, build the game, optimize, properly test and QA their game and call it a day. I don't want options if those options mean I get a largely inferior, less optimized experience.
 

Con-Z-epT

Gold Member
While i like the options and the fact that we are finally getting a decent amount of 60fps games on consoles it sure is confusing since each developer takles it in their own way.

I would like to see developers go for 60fps and the best graphics they can obtain and then may add a 30fps / 4K option like Bluepoint did with the DS Remake.

What i choose right now is incredible different from game to game since each, that offers these options, is so distinct in their solutions of obtaining the varying graphical modes.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Yes, there are something that should never had happened in console space.
Every game should have a single well optimized profile with the desired developer target.

I mean if you really want these options then you should game on PC not consoles.

For the pool well there isn't "No - I always use whatever the game default".
 
Last edited:

Dr Bass

Member
For me it's not annoying since it's basically always resolution vs frame rate.
I choose on a case by case basis.
I played Spiderman Miles Morales with full raytracing, R&C in 40fps mode, FF7R at 4K 30fps because the jump in quality was massive compared to 60fps, I've played Kena and now Lost Judgement at 60fps.

But all these modes are also a product of the cross gen nature of the current titles. Once games conceived for PS5 hardware are released and UE5 becomes commonplace, 30fps with dynamic 4k will likely become the default option, with performance modes being relegated to suffer the same huge drops in quality that now happen with120hz modes.
At that point there will be plans for mid gen refreshes anyway so the cycle will continue on new hardware.
I agree 100% with this.

I haven't had any issues picking between different modes and it's been on a game by game basis. I think the options are fantastic. I preferred Ratchet in Fidelity mode. I preferred Spider-Man in performance mode. They were both rock solid in their respective modes. And that goes for other games that I tried that had those setups.

Seems like a non-issue to me.
 

rofif

Gold Member
Yes, there are something that should never had happened in console space.
Every game should have a single well optimized profile with the desired developer target.

I mean if you really want these options then you should game on PC not consoles.

For the pool well there isn't "No - I always use whatever the game default".
There is no option like that because there is rarely a clearly defined default.
Some games take this option from system settings preferred choice
 
Most of the time the Performance mode is the real “Quality” mode.
A Quality mode that outputs 30 fps isn’t quality.
But his point is that those performance modes are not delivering the graphics we've come to expect out of these next gen consoles because devs are saying to themselves, "we can just make one quality mode for people who want visuals and one performance mode for framerate and then EVERYONE should be happy"

Like, no developers, that's not how it should be as having to sacrifice one area of graphics for the other kinda sucks. Example- guardians of the galaxy and many other games. Control? They fucked that "next gen upgrade" up big time because Control is the perfect game for ray tracing except to get RT on console it's 30 fps and has TONS of input lag. The RT "quality mode" in that game sucks. There might as well not even be a quality mode due to the extra lag. Meanwhile, performance mode in Control has pretty bad graphical settings. Digital Foundry pointed out that there were several presets set to 'low' in Controls performance mode.

Another really bad "next gen" upgrade (esp on Ps5) is Avengers: quality mode looks amazing with mostly Ultra settings but it's 30 fps. Performance mode is 60 fps but has reduced resolution on ps5 (esp due to badly implemented checkerboarding) but also the actual visuals are downgraded. If these games added a 3rd option or were better optimized in general they wouldn't be such let downs.
 

ethomaz

Banned
There is no option like that because there is rarely a clearly defined default.
Some games take this option from system settings preferred choice
When you start the game it clearly come with a default option... never changed that except when some GAFers asked for comparison pics.
That system setting I never bothered with too... it is something should not exist even for these that want game profile options.
 
Last edited:

Rob_27

Member
I would prefera game at 4k60 and get all the shit out of it you can at that res and frame rate. Don't really need 120.
 

Keihart

Member
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.
SP = Higher fidelity

MP= Performance

I fucking love it, and I question the sanity of someone against more options. More options for the consumer, the better, I say.
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.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
If I wanna deal with graphical settings, I just straight up play the game on PC.
If your game needs them on a console, you suck at optimizing.
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.
 
Last edited:
Over the last year, every game released have a graphics mode to be selected and it's getting a bit wild out there.
For higher "quality", It can be Fidelity, Resolution, Ray tracing or graphics mode
For higher "performance", it can be Performance, framerate, fps modes.
Then there are mixes like often ray tracing modes which can be 30 or 60fps. Some games put ray tracing in quality mode, other in both.

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.

Some examples:
Death Stranding Quality mode is 4k60. With some rather rare, unnoticeable drops to 50s. Mostly in cutscenes.
It also had performance mode which is 1800p60 but with no drops... seriously... couldn't they just work better on one of the modes? That is not even including ultrawide modes which are just a nice bonus.
Halo Infinite is even different. 4k mode is targeting 60 and performance mode is 120. Both with dynamic resolution.

So I am finding the whole idea of console gaming not only improved by having options.. but also getting a bit annoying.
There is NO description. Not even a line of text explaining each modes. I have to go to DF or NX to see what mode is which resolution, effects, ray tracing and fps.
And the developers no longer aim for 1 vision. So are they doing a 30 or 60fps game? Are they doing a game that is 4k or 1080p?
If we are to have all these options, there should be an fps counter at least... at which point the whole console experience is gone.
Now - I AM NOT saying to get rid of all modes but keep it under control. There should be max of two modes. Maybe locked, developer mode and unlocked framerate mode... or something like that.
It would be a waste to make the game 30fps only an not have an option on there for future consoles to unlock the framerate. So maybe just name the modes "4k, 1440p" and have a separate fps toggle? What are your ideas?

edit: Playing in either mode I feel like I am missing something. It's a good way to sum it up. Which experience is definitive ? If I pick 4k30, I have to willingly accept 30fps. If I am playing 60fps mode.. the game can be blurry, have worse shadows or some other drawbacks. It feels like a game of compromises. I feel like this grand 4k presentation is the one to aim for "wow the game looks amazing" but then... well I only have this weak ass newest console, so I have to drop to 1440p, low shadows, no ray tracing to make it work". Gladly I am more often than not absolutely fine with 30fps.
I agree that devs lean on this quality vs performance to get away with doing less optimizing but I've also had to accept that my ps5 is just not as powerful as I thought it was going to be. If it was more powerful than the compromises in graphics in performance modes probably wouldn't be so severe.
 

Miles708

Member
Yes, there are something that should never had happened in console space.
Every game should have a single well optimized profile with the desired developer target.

I mean if you really want these options then you should game on PC not consoles.

For the pool well there isn't "No - I always use whatever the game default".

This is the correct answer.
On PC you have to embrace a galaxy of different specs, but ultimately you always aim for the best bang for the buck,
On a single-spec machine it's the dev job to optimize and give his game the desired quality. On PS2 it was mostly 60fps, then HD happened, but now we can go back to have proper performance by default.
That should be the aim, and i should not have an option just to justify compromises.
 
Whatever mode gives me 60.
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.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
I usually stick with 60FPS, which depending on the game means either Quality or Performance mode. 120FPS more often than not sacrifices too much of the image quality for my liking, whereas 30FPS is an obvious no-go if you're just one click away from 60.
 
Top Bottom