Why don't console games have graphical settings?

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

It seems like it would be very beneficial to provide graphical settings for console games.

Don't like massive amounts of bloom? Turn it off.

Don't like exaggerated depth-of-field? Turn it off

Don't like lens-flares? Turn them off.

Don't like intense lag (Far Cry 3:P)? Turn shadows/AO down.

Screwed something up in the settings? Revert to default

They could also provide settings which take advantage of the increased FPS from disabled effects, such as improved shadow filtering and better LOD, or even a higher resolution

I don't really see why console games don't have this option. It would be nothing but beneficial for the players and the developers. The only issue I could see is multiplayer being biased towards those using less effects, but the settings could simply be locked to default for the multiplayer if needed.

#2 Posted by clyde46 (47440 posts) -
.
#3 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

. clyde46

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

#4 Posted by clyde46 (47440 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. Riadon2

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

Zoidberg is you, and the slinky is your thread.
#5 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

biden-shaking-head.gif

You get what you're given on consoles.

#6 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

#7 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. clyde46

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

Zoidberg is you, and the slinky is your thread.

Non-troll/Controversy threads don't seem to do very well here, true.

The concept of the thread isn't bad, but it will be ignored because people only come to System Wars for teh lulz.

#8 Posted by mems_1224 (48361 posts) -
[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. clyde46

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

Zoidberg is you, and the slinky is your thread.

:lol:
#9 Posted by clone01 (25218 posts) -

Then they would be PCs.

#10 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

Chris_Williams

You're suggesting that every single console effect is desirable to every single consumer?

#11 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (2982 posts) -
They usually do have basic things like contrast, brightness, screen positioning and gamma. Really though the devs (should) have already done the optimising for the hardware, if it runs terribly then it is either that the hardware isn't good enough for the devs vision, or the devs failed at optimising. Mass effect also had the film grain setting too, so maybe lens flare could be an option. The others that effect performance shouldn't be there in the first place if they mess up the performance. It shouldn't be the consumers job to make a game not run at 10FPS on consoles.
#12 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

Then they would be PCs.

clone01

I see no reason why they should not adopt some of the PC's better features.

#13 Posted by GarGx1 (3193 posts) -

It seems like it would be very beneficial to provide graphical settings for console games.

Don't like massive amounts of bloom? Turn it off.

Don't like exaggerated depth-of-field? Turn it off

Don't like lens-flares? Turn them off.

Don't like intense lag (Far Cry 3:P)? Turn shadows/AO down.

Screwed something up in the settings? Revert to default

They could also provide settings which take advantage of the increased FPS from disabled effects, such as improved shadow filtering and better LOD, or even a higher resolution

I don't really see why console games don't have this option. It would be nothing but beneficial for the players and the developers. The only issue I could see is multiplayer being biased towards those using less effects, but the settings could simply be locked to default for the multiplayer if needed.

Riadon2

Switch off massive amounts of bloom, remove the exaggerated d.o.f. and disable the lens flare would be like removing the make up from a 50 year old prostitute, everyone would see how ugly it really is and no one would want to buy it.

#14 Posted by Heil68 (46738 posts) -
Consolites like L0we can't understand them.
#15 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

They usually do have basic things like contrast, brightness, screen positioning and gamma. Really though the devs (should) have already done the optimising for the hardware, if it runs terribly then it is either that the hardware isn't good enough for the devs vision, or the devs failed at optimising. Mass effect also had the film grain setting too, so maybe lens flare could be an option. The others that effect performance shouldn't be there in the first place if they mess up the performance. It shouldn't be the consumers job to make a game not run at 10FPS on consoles.APiranhaAteMyVa

It happens, though. Some games run badly, so it would be nice to have the option to improve their performance.

#16 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

Riadon2

You're suggesting that every single console effect is desirable to every single consumer?

yes, thats exactly what i'm doing
#17 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

It seems like it would be very beneficial to provide graphical settings for console games.

Don't like massive amounts of bloom? Turn it off.

Don't like exaggerated depth-of-field? Turn it off

Don't like lens-flares? Turn them off.

Don't like intense lag (Far Cry 3:P)? Turn shadows/AO down.

Screwed something up in the settings? Revert to default

They could also provide settings which take advantage of the increased FPS from disabled effects, such as improved shadow filtering and better LOD, or even a higher resolution

I don't really see why console games don't have this option. It would be nothing but beneficial for the players and the developers. The only issue I could see is multiplayer being biased towards those using less effects, but the settings could simply be locked to default for the multiplayer if needed.

GarGx1

Switch off massive amounts of bloom, remove the exaggerated d.o.f. and disable the lens flare would be like removing the make up from a 50 year old prostitute, everyone would see how ugly it really is and no one would want to buy it.

If they like the insane amount of post-processing, they can leave it on.

It's that simple.

#18 Posted by AcidSoldner (7051 posts) -
No point really but I see what you're saying. I know Bioshock had an option to turn off v-synch in the options on the 360 and I remember Sega Rally 2 having a cheat code that allowed you to turn off some graphical effects to increase the frame rate.
#19 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

Chris_Williams

You're suggesting that every single console effect is desirable to every single consumer?

yes, thats exactly what i'm doing

24247619.jpg

#20 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

No point really but I see what you're saying. I know Bioshock had an option to turn off v-synch in the options on the 360 and I remember Sega Rally 2 having a cheat code that allowed you to turn off some graphical effects to increase the frame rate.AcidSoldner

I think it is a pretty major feature to allow gamers to turn off effects that bog down the game or that they don't like.

#21 Posted by 04dcarraher (20403 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

It seems like it would be very beneficial to provide graphical settings for console games.

Don't like massive amounts of bloom? Turn it off.

Don't like exaggerated depth-of-field? Turn it off

Don't like lens-flares? Turn them off.

Don't like intense lag (Far Cry 3:P)? Turn shadows/AO down.

Screwed something up in the settings? Revert to default

They could also provide settings which take advantage of the increased FPS from disabled effects, such as improved shadow filtering and better LOD, or even a higher resolution

I don't really see why console games don't have this option. It would be nothing but beneficial for the players and the developers. The only issue I could see is multiplayer being biased towards those using less effects, but the settings could simply be locked to default for the multiplayer if needed.

GarGx1

Switch off massive amounts of bloom, remove the exaggerated d.o.f. and disable the lens flare would be like removing the make up from a 50 year old prostitute, everyone would see how ugly it really is and no one would want to buy it.

:lol:
#22 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
Consolites like L0we can't understand them. Heil68
And is this another one of those examples of me making a thread about myself? Anyway, consider the difference between "can't understand" and "don't want to be bothered with".
#23 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Heil68"]Consolites like L0we can't understand them. lowe0
And is this another one of those examples of me making a thread about myself? Anyway, consider the difference between "can't understand" and "don't want to be bothered with".

You might personally not wan't to bother with the settings, but plenty of people would. I imagine that you would mess with the settings if the game suffered from extreme lag, though.

#24 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Heil68"]Consolites like L0we can't understand them. Riadon2

And is this another one of those examples of me making a thread about myself? Anyway, consider the difference between "can't understand" and "don't want to be bothered with".

You might personally not wan't to bother with the settings, but plenty of people would. I imagine that you would mess with the settings if the game suffered from extreme lag, though.

How many is "plenty"? Specifically, how many more copies would they sell, vs. how much would the extra development and testing cost?
#25 Posted by BPoole96 (22811 posts) -

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

Chris_Williams
20fps on Far Cry 3 is "getting it right"? I'd hate to see a dev fvck up.
#26 Posted by super600 (31022 posts) -

:|

Really.

#27 Posted by Chris_Williams (14882 posts) -
[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

BPoole96
20fps on Far Cry 3 is "getting it right"? I'd hate to see a dev fvck up.

yummy hows that bait taste
#28 Posted by lostrib (42007 posts) -

[QUOTE="GarGx1"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

It seems like it would be very beneficial to provide graphical settings for console games.

Don't like massive amounts of bloom? Turn it off.

Don't like exaggerated depth-of-field? Turn it off

Don't like lens-flares? Turn them off.

Don't like intense lag (Far Cry 3:P)? Turn shadows/AO down.

Screwed something up in the settings? Revert to default

They could also provide settings which take advantage of the increased FPS from disabled effects, such as improved shadow filtering and better LOD, or even a higher resolution

I don't really see why console games don't have this option. It would be nothing but beneficial for the players and the developers. The only issue I could see is multiplayer being biased towards those using less effects, but the settings could simply be locked to default for the multiplayer if needed.

Riadon2

Switch off massive amounts of bloom, remove the exaggerated d.o.f. and disable the lens flare would be like removing the make up from a 50 year old prostitute, everyone would see how ugly it really is and no one would want to buy it.

If they like the insane amount of post-processing, they can leave it on.

It's that simple.

He's pointing out how many console games use these post processing effects to hide how bad the game would look otherwise, and if the consumers were allowed to take off these effects then people would see how bad the game looks, opening up the game/devs to criticism, lose of sales, etc

#29 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

:|

Really.

super600

Care to comment on what is so bizarre about this thread?

#30 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="GarGx1"]

Switch off massive amounts of bloom, remove the exaggerated d.o.f. and disable the lens flare would be like removing the make up from a 50 year old prostitute, everyone would see how ugly it really is and no one would want to buy it.

lostrib

If they like the insane amount of post-processing, they can leave it on.

It's that simple.

He's pointing out how many console games use these post processing effects to hide how bad the game would look otherwise, and if the consumers were allowed to take off these effects then people would see how bad the game looks, opening up the game/devs to criticism, lose of sales, etc

Why would people care if the game looked terrible without post-processing (assuming the post-processing is included in the default settings)? That would be like turning Crysis on PC down to low and saying that it is an ugly game with horrible physics.

#31 Posted by lostrib (42007 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

:|

Really.

Riadon2

Care to comment on what is so bizarre about this thread?

it's dumb

#32 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="super600"]

:|

Really.

lostrib

Care to comment on what is so bizarre about this thread?

it's dumb

Care to go into more depth? What do you find the stupidest about this thread?

#33 Posted by BPoole96 (22811 posts) -
[QUOTE="BPoole96"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

because devs get it right on consoles, unlike pc where they are to lazy to add the correct settings

Chris_Williams
20fps on Far Cry 3 is "getting it right"? I'd hate to see a dev fvck up.

yummy hows that bait taste

Pretty good. What was that you put on there?
#34 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

So you want to be able to go from low settings to even lower settings on 2005 hardware? *laughs*

#35 Posted by EvanTheGamer (1136 posts) -

Console games are optimized unlike the PC ports.

#36 Posted by lostrib (42007 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

Care to comment on what is so bizarre about this thread?

Riadon2

it's dumb

Care to go into more depth? What do you find the stupidest about this thread?

How dumb it is

#37 Posted by lostrib (42007 posts) -

Console games are optimized unlike the PC ports.

EvanTheGamer

and yet the console game runs worse

#38 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11988 posts) -

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]. clyde46

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

Zoidberg is you, and the slinky is your thread.

Who wouldn't want to be Dr Zoidberg, home owner?:o

#39 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

Can you explain to me how that image relates to the thread at all?

Riadon2

Zoidberg is you, and the slinky is your thread.

Non-troll/Controversy threads don't seem to do very well here, true.

The concept of the thread isn't bad, but it will be ignored because people only come to System Wars for teh lulz.

The concept of the thread isn't bad, just terribly uninformed. you don't have grahics settings on consoles for the same reason you don't have upgradable hardware in consoles. Closed system, designed for the specific purpose of giving a unified, identical playing experience to everyone. If you had graphics settings, some people would get better performance than others, even if it was just because they made changes themselves. That's the exact opposite of what console manufacturers, and console game developers, want. And, particularly at this point in time, with the current consoles, those things are getting pushed to their limits by modern games. And, sometimes, beyond their limits (Far Cry 3). If they gave you graphics options, you might very well turn something up too far and cause your console to overheat and break.

Thems the breaks. Consoles are designed to be closed systems, where the gamer's experience is dictated by what is given to them. The hardware isn't customizable, and neither are the games. If you want to customize your experience, maybe it's time to step up to the big leagues and build a PC.

#40 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

That's why PCs exist!

Consoles are dumbed down to cater people who want simple experience. People who are computer illiterate would favour consoles.

It's true that I wished I had some graphical settings when the game runs like crap. But 95% of console exclusives run beautifully, as they are built solely for the particular console. I was quite surprised that Halo Reach dropped some serious performance here and there. This is why it boggles my mind when lems say that 360 handles games better "due to better hardware and memory architecture", yet their exclusives run like crap.

Games that have serious trouble with performance are multiplats, which are much more enjoyable on PC.

#42 Posted by archvile_78 (8384 posts) -

. clyde46

fvckin love that moment in the show.

I wish i had thing that could spontaneously explode ;_;

#43 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

Get a PC. Problem solved

#44 Posted by PAL360 (27241 posts) -

Doesn't Bioshock on 360 have the ability to increase the frame rate, at a cost of more screen tearing? I don't have the game anymore, but i remember that option.

edit: TheGuardian03 beat me on it!

#45 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

They don't need them, console games already look great as they are. They are more convienant, you don't have to spend time tweaking settings so it can run and look right on a PC.

#46 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

They don't need them, console games already look great as they are. They are more convienant, you don't have to spend time tweaking settings so it can run and look right on a PC.

ShadowMoses900

When I was playing multiplats on my PS3, there were many times when I wished I can tone down the textures. The performance have been terrible. I think it's safe to say that consoles nowadays are wannabe PC. Trying to push the technical limitations beyond consoles' limits.

Just another one of the reasons why I game on PC now.

#47 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

They don't need them, console games already look great as they are. They are more convienant, you don't have to spend time tweaking settings so it can run and look right on a PC.

GamerwillzPS

When I was playing multiplats on my PS3, there were many times when I wished I can tone down the textures. The performance have been terrible. I think it's safe to say that consoles nowadays are wannabe PC. Trying to push the technical limitations beyond consoles' limits.

Just another one of the reasons why I game on PC now.

My big problem wth PC right now is aside from upgrading again I don't like how I have to play certain games over certain services only. It's not unified like it is on consoles and not every game is on Steam. I also hate M/K for most games.

Consoles are just more convienant and I think PC fanboys overexaggerate the graphics and performance.

#48 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

Get a PC. Problem solved

seanmcloughlin

I am a hermit... I hardly even play on consoles.

#49 Posted by sonic1564 (3265 posts) -

That's why PCs exist!

Consoles are dumbed down to cater people who want simple experience. People who are computer illiterate would favour consoles.

It's true that I wished I had some graphical settings when the game runs like crap. But 95% of console exclusives run beautifully, as they are built solely for the particular console. I was quite surprised that Halo Reach dropped some serious performance here and there. This is why it boggles my mind when lems say that 360 handles games better "due to better hardware and memory architecture", yet their exclusives run like crap.

Games that have serious trouble with performance are multiplats, which are much more enjoyable on PC.

GamerwillzPS

Poor Gamerwillz, just wants to be accepted in anything that's not lems. I think someone needs a hug.

#50 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
It would confuse and ultimately scare console gamers.