Why don't console games have graphical settings?

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for clyde46
#2 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#3 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

. clyde46

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

Avatar image for clyde46
#4 Posted by clyde46 (49050 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.
Avatar image for psymon100
#5 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

biden-shaking-head.gif

You get what you're given on consoles.

Avatar image for Chris_Williams
#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

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#8 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 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:
Avatar image for clone01
#9 Posted by clone01 (27119 posts) -

Then they would be PCs.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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?

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
#11 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (3916 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.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#13 Posted by GarGx1 (9707 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.

Avatar image for Heil68
#14 Posted by Heil68 (57942 posts) -
Consolites like L0we can't understand them.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for Chris_Williams
#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
Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for AcidSoldner
#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.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#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

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#21 Posted by 04dcarraher (22920 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:
Avatar image for lowe0
#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".
Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for lowe0
#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?
Avatar image for BPoole96
#25 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 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.
Avatar image for super600
#26 Posted by super600 (32423 posts) -

:|

Really.

Avatar image for Chris_Williams
#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
Avatar image for lostrib
#28 Posted by lostrib (49999 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

Avatar image for Riadon2
#29 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

:|

Really.

super600

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

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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.

Avatar image for lostrib
#31 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

:|

Really.

Riadon2

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

it's dumb

Avatar image for Riadon2
#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?

Avatar image for BPoole96
#33 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 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?
Avatar image for LittleMac19
#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*

Avatar image for EvanTheGamer
#35 Posted by EvanTheGamer (1509 posts) -

Console games are optimized unlike the PC ports.

Avatar image for lostrib
#36 Posted by lostrib (49999 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

Avatar image for lostrib
#37 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

Console games are optimized unlike the PC ports.

EvanTheGamer

and yet the console game runs worse

Avatar image for PhazonBlazer
#38 Posted by PhazonBlazer (12013 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

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#39 Posted by the_bi99man (11244 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.

Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
#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.

Avatar image for archvile_78
#42 Posted by archvile_78 (8438 posts) -

. clyde46

fvckin love that moment in the show.

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

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#43 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

Get a PC. Problem solved

Avatar image for PAL360
#44 Posted by PAL360 (28960 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!

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
#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.

Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
#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.

Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
#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.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#48 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

Get a PC. Problem solved

seanmcloughlin

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

Avatar image for sonic1564
#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.

Avatar image for tagyhag
#50 Posted by tagyhag (15874 posts) -
It would confuse and ultimately scare console gamers.