• 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

Keihart

Member
Well, I haven’t been disappointed except for one game (ME3) and that was on performance so your point is mute because I have been very satisfied as a customer with my options. Also, I have rarely played a console game where fidelity or performance was "perfection" with just one option. One or the other will always be sacrificed to some degree, so having the option to choose what I want to sacrifice is a big win IMO.
completly missing the point aren't we? the claim about options being detrimental in this case was not about you but at the general perception.
You made a general claim which i contested and then you come and say that it's not true for you, who cares about you dude? I don't care what you like or not personally, i was only talknig about your general estatement that options are always better which is clearly not the case for either everyone or every situation.
 

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member


Love You Reaction GIF by Bounce
 
completly missing the point aren't we? the claim about options being detrimental in this case was not about you but at the general perception.
You made a general claim which i contested and then you come and say that it's not true for you, who cares about you dude? I don't care what you like or not personally, i was only talknig about your general estatement that options are always better which is clearly not the case for either everyone or every situation.
Ok sure, infinite options are not good for EVERYTHING but in this case, they are good because it allows me as a gamer to choose what I want to prioritize. Do you have evidence to back up the claim that only allowing one option will make "performance perfect" as opposed to an option that literally prioritizes maximizing game performance? As I said before, your point is moot because console games are inherently sacrificing something to make fidelity or performance better.

What is the ratio of games that provide worse performance from two modes other than one?

I'm well aware of the phenomenon that offering consumers too many choices can lead to some worse outcomes but in this case, I find that assertion ridiculous considering we normally only get TWO options. Anyway, I have rarely played a game that has allowed me more flexible options to buy, and customize my experience an inherently bad thing.
 

Dream-Knife

Member
Consoles are basically PC now. It's not any different from just changing settings on your own; they're handy presets now.
 

KAL2006

Banned
I agree with OP, Sony should have released PS5 that's 4 times the size and 4 times.more expensive and ensured we combined both performance and fidelity mode with no compromises.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Ok sure, infinite options are not good for EVERYTHING but in this case, they are good because it allows me as a gamer to choose what I want to prioritize. Do you have evidence to back up the claim that only allowing one option will make "performance perfect" as opposed to an option that literally prioritizes maximizing game performance? As I said before, your point is moot because console games are inherently sacrificing something to make fidelity or performance better.

What is the ratio of games that provide worse performance from two modes other than one?

I'm well aware of the phenomenon that offering consumers too many choices can lead to some worse outcomes but in this case, I find that assertion ridiculous considering we normally only get TWO options. Anyway, I have rarely played a game that has allowed me more flexible options to buy, and customize my experience an inherently bad thing.
You should not need to choose on priorize between two bad options.

You should have a single flawless option.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
This is the worst take on the internet. The choice between graphics and performance modes on console is a gift from God himself and should be treated as such.
So having the option between bad performance and bad graphics (still with bad performance) is a gift from God lol
 
Last edited:

Justin9mm

Member
I've always been a graphics first kinda guy but since PS5, I've learned to love and accept performance mode but it has to be min native 1440p / 60. 1080p is just too low.. If I wanted 1080p I would game on a PC.
 
Last edited:
At least it was better than any of the two options we have today lol
Where the fuck is this argument coming from? I'm playing Halo infinite rn and the performance mode is working great. Just about every game I have played on fidelity mode looks sharp as hell. Do you have statistics to back this up?
 
Last edited:

JimboJones

Member
So having the option between bad performance and bad graphics is an gift from God lol
What is your solution then? Some people prefer playing with 60fps but these machines aren't magic, the hardware has to give up something to double the framerate.

Some people want prettier effects but they obviously can't be rendered in the 16ms.
 

ethomaz

Banned
What is your solution then? Some people prefer playing with 60fps but these machines aren't magic, the hardware has to give up something to double the framerate.

Some people want prettier effects but they obviously can't be rendered in the 16ms.
Focus in a single option… optimize to make it near perfection.

If the dev wants 60fps do the best optimization to have solid 60fps with the best graphics they could get.

All I see is the hardware being subutilized due the lack of optimizations for these profile options.

Sometimes it is better to not have options than have half-assed options.
 
Last edited:

Zannegan

Gold Member
I agree that they should spell out what each mode means instead of going solely by ubiquitous but nonspecific labels, but I like having options.
 
Focus in a single option… optimize to make it near perfection.

If the dev wants 60fps do the best optimization to have solid 60fps with the best graphics they could get.

All I see is the hardware being subutilized due the lack of optimizations for these profile options.

Sometimes it is better to not have options than have half-assed options.
We did this with the PS3 and early PS4, and all we got were 20-30fps games. My PS5 is hooked up to a 1080p TV in the bedroom instead of the 4K downstairs, a quality mode that renders in 4K doesn't do much for me. Performance modes give me 60 fps gameplay at 1080p or higher resolutions. At some point, I will probably replace that TV with a 4K one and would like the option (especially in slower/turn based games) to see the game in 4K. Options are good!
 

Knightime_X

Member
I'm happy we are seeing more and more 60fps options.
Eventually, 8k TVs will be pressured to sell, and we'll be back to fkn 30fps again.

As long as 60fps is available, i'm good.
 

rofif

Gold Member
Not all 30fps feel the same.

Greedfall at 30fps = almost unplayable
Naughty Dog game at 30fps = playable

Not sure what it is but it looks far smoother with ND games.
It’s motion blur. Naughty dog have excellent motion blur which helps to blends frames.

I am disappointed in the results of the poll. So many next gen owners don’t even check out fidelity mode or the analysis?
Like…. You people blindly accept any drawbacks the game has in order to reach 60 fps?
It might be 1080p or lower effects or no ray tracing… like you are not even interested to check out what you are missing? On your next gen console? You should go with pc if only thing that matters is performance.
Maybe it turns out fidelity mode is also 60 fps or it’s really worth it?

It’s probably the same group who often outright disables motion blur and film grain without any reason. Because it was bad on gta3 20 years ago. Motion blur can look great and make the game look smoother. Film grain will help to remove branding and posterisation.

Well each to his own. I don’t think choice is always good thing. Maybe the console optimisation will return in next gen games
 

Romulus

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.


We're miles ahead of the last gen at the starting line. That CPU in the ps4 was complete trash. I would argue staffing and cov19 is some of it too. Not saying they're the holy grail but you're talking a cheapskate $400 box.
 

rofif

Gold Member
mad people GIF


You're part of the minority who likes to play "cinematic" games, so don't come here throwing around 'you people'.

You people should have sticked with last-gen consoles. Finally we're getting 60fps in all games - and it's a blessing.

praise GIF
So now I get to be shamed ? Wtf
 

Hunnybun

Member
It's so fucking weird to me that people complain about being given options.

If you'd prefer just to have stuck with 30fps then PLAY IN FIDELITY MODE!!

I just don't understand how that's an issue.

I've got a bit more sympathy with people who don't want 60fps OR 4k, and so either option is a waste of resources for them, but then otoh the whole stance of choosing "graphics" over 60fps is a bit fucking weird anyway.
 

Umbasaborne

Member
Im sick of these options personally. Id much rather the dev taylor the experience specifically with one mode than play pretend like i have a big boy pc
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
I agree, anyone thinking that anything less than 60FPS is acceptable in this day and age needs to be expelled from the community.

I support a guy patching slowdown out of SNES games that are 30 years old. I don’t know how anyone thinks anything less than that is the benchmark these days
 

Soodanim

Member
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.
I don't think that analogy is complete.

A good song with bad headphones can diminish the soundstage, and you can miss out on sounds/instruments entirely.
A game with a low framerate is a diminished visual experience. It's also less for your brain to work with, so it/you won't play as well. Dark Souls is a good example. Play it at 60 and it's much easier to time things like dodges and parries than it is at 30. Even a game like Super Mario 64, which doesn't have the timing needed, feels so much better to play at 60fps in the PC port than it does at its original framerate.

A good song through bad headphones is a good analogy. Not because it shows that 60fps doesn't matter, but because both are lesser versions of what they could be. Some people insist on high quality headphones, and some people insist on 60fps.
 
Last edited:

Soodanim

Member
It’s motion blur. Naughty dog have excellent motion blur which helps to blends frames.

I am disappointed in the results of the poll. So many next gen owners don’t even check out fidelity mode or the analysis?
Like…. You people blindly accept any drawbacks the game has in order to reach 60 fps?
It might be 1080p or lower effects or no ray tracing… like you are not even interested to check out what you are missing? On your next gen console? You should go with pc if only thing that matters is performance.
Maybe it turns out fidelity mode is also 60 fps or it’s really worth it?

It’s probably the same group who often outright disables motion blur and film grain without any reason. Because it was bad on gta3 20 years ago. Motion blur can look great and make the game look smoother. Film grain will help to remove branding and posterisation.

Well each to his own. I don’t think choice is always good thing. Maybe the console optimisation will return in next gen games
Not who you quoted, and I don't have next gen, but personally I would sample all modes before almost certainly choosing 60fps. I've not tried Ray-Tracing, so it could be a game changer in some circumstances, but on my personal tier list of importance 60fps is at the top every time. The benefit of doubled frames count for more than lighting, shadows, and mostly every other option out there which are just bells and whistles to me. The only time I might consider 30 over 60 would be if 30 had AA and 60 was a jaggy, shimmering mess. That is something that I will notice in every single frame of a game, just like framerate.
 

Hunnybun

Member
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.

So why are you arguing for 1440p30 then?

Why not 1440p15, or 4k15?

After all, the content is the content, even at 15fps.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Like…. You people blindly accept any drawbacks the game has in order to reach 60 fps?
It might be 1080p or lower effects or no ray tracing… like you are not even interested to check out what you are missing? On your next gen console? You should go with pc if only thing that matters is performance.
Maybe it turns out fidelity mode is also 60 fps or it’s really worth it?
Not everyone goes tistic over graphical settings mate. Most couldn't even tell apart Ray Tracing on or off before all the comparison videos started coming out.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
You should not need to choose on priorize between two bad options.

You should have a single flawless option.

Lol and how would this single flawless option be achieved, on a limited piece of hardware like the PS5?

Wouldn't there have to be some compromises to achieve 4k at 60fps with full ray tracing?
 

ethomaz

Banned
Lol and how would this single flawless option be achieved, on a limited piece of hardware like the PS5?

Wouldn't there have to be some compromises to achieve 4k at 60fps with full ray tracing?
You are in console… you are already compromising.
What we are talking about is the quality of the experience.

A good experience is better than 2 bad experiences options.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
So having the option between bad performance and bad graphics (still with bad performance) is a gift from God lol

You do realise that the alternative to that is bad performance or bad performance, right?

You do understand that alternative modes aren't the actual source of compromises?
 

ethomaz

Banned
You do realise that the alternative to that is bad performance or bad performance, right?

You do understand that alternative modes aren't the actual source of compromises?
The alternative for that the developer can focus in a good optimized experience.

And yea I realize the alternative modes are half assed by developers because they can’t focus in optimizations for these difference modes.

You talk about compromisses but you are in console that is already compromised by default… the dev just needs to work to make the quality of the experience good independent of the compromises.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
It’s motion blur. Naughty dog have excellent motion blur which helps to blends frames.

I am disappointed in the results of the poll. So many next gen owners don’t even check out fidelity mode or the analysis?
Like…. You people blindly accept any drawbacks the game has in order to reach 60 fps?
It might be 1080p or lower effects or no ray tracing… like you are not even interested to check out what you are missing? On your next gen console? You should go with pc if only thing that matters is performance.
Maybe it turns out fidelity mode is also 60 fps or it’s really worth it?

It’s probably the same group who often outright disables motion blur and film grain without any reason. Because it was bad on gta3 20 years ago. Motion blur can look great and make the game look smoother. Film grain will help to remove branding and posterisation.

Well each to his own. I don’t think choice is always good thing. Maybe the console optimisation will return in next gen games

I voted that I always choose performance mode, because I do. But the poll didn't allow me to say that I also always research the games online. But not to see which mode to use, just to determine whether to buy the game. E.g. the coverage of Guardians of the Galaxy just dissuaded me from buying the game, cos I'm not playing at 30fps regardless of how much better it looks than the 60fps mode. I'd just rather not play it at all.
 

Clear

Member
You are in console… you are already compromising.
What we are talking about is the quality of the experience.

A good experience is better than 2 options to bad experiences.

What? Don't act like the most common form of "optimization" on PC isn't buying new hardware to be able to hit "ultra" settings!

If your PC happens to be old, or is somehow limited in terms of customization like a laptop/notebook, you are going to hit limits just as hard if not harder than on a console. So unless you're advocating that every PC user has a top-end rig, you should admit that compromise is a far bigger and more common issue there than on console.
 

ethomaz

Banned
What? Don't act like the most common form of "optimization" on PC isn't buying new hardware to be able to hit "ultra" settings!

If your PC happens to be old, or is somehow limited in terms of customization like a laptop/notebook, you are going to hit limits just as hard if not harder than on a console. So unless you're advocating that every PC user has a top-end rig, you should admit that compromise is a far bigger and more common issue there than on console.
That has nothing to do with PC.
We are talking about consoles here.

PC are used and expect to have several options to reach the personal "optimal" experience.
Games on PC are not optimized to game full advantage of hardware because you an ample variety of different combinations of hardwares.

Console is the complete opposite to that... you have a focused specialized hardware where games should to be optimized to take fully advantage of the hardware to give the same experience to tall users.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
The alternative for that the developer can focus in a good optimized experience.

And yea I realize the alternative modes are half assed by developers because they can’t focus in optimizations for these difference modes.

You talk about compromisses but you are in console that is already compromised by default… the dev just needs to work to make the quality of the experience good independent of the compromises.

What's your actual evidence that providing these two options significantly impacts optimisation?

I'd have thought doubling the frame rate and halving resolution would be a relatively trivial exercise, wouldn't it?

And for the majority of us who like 60fps, all the optimisation in the world isn't going to come close to compensating for having to play at 30fps.

So I think it's a bit selfish of people to expect the majority of players to accept having their experience tarnished just so their 30fps fidelity modes can be optimised like 2% more.

I don't see those of us who prefer a good frame rate complaining about the existence of fidelity modes, and how time spent on those is having some intolerable impact on performance mode optimisation.
 

ethomaz

Banned
What's your actual evidence that providing these two options significantly impacts optimisation?

I'd have thought doubling the frame rate and halving resolution would be a relatively trivial exercise, wouldn't it?

And for the majority of us who like 60fps, all the optimisation in the world isn't going to come close to compensating for having to play at 30fps.

So I think it's a bit selfish of people to expect the majority of players to accept having their experience tarnished just so their 30fps fidelity modes can be optimised like 2% more.

I don't see those of us who prefer a good frame rate complaining about the existence of fidelity modes, and how time spent on those is having some intolerable impact on performance mode optimisation.
The games on consoles.

Optimization the game for a better experience has nothing to do with your debate about 30 vs 60 fps.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom