simpatico
Gold Member
But we could just tweet demands. What if something goes wrong?Henry Cavill knows a solution
Be more like Henry Cavill
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
It is time for devs to stop treating console gamers like babies
- Thread starter BennyBlanco
- Start date
Meicyn
Member
If it's any consolation (lol), we're slowly getting what we want anyways. More and more console games are shipping with options. It's a slow trend, but I expect it will continue. Elden Ring has 30 FPS/60 FPS, (shitty) ray-tracing, HDR controls to configure peak white from 500 to 2000 nits, etc.
rm082e
Gold Member
The problem there is the games you're pointing to (well, I don't know about Smash Ultimate) are pretty close to maxing out the hardware they were designed for. It made sense that Bloodborne was 30fps back when it was released. It would be great if they updated that game to take advantage of the PS5 hardware, but it's not like that's a 5 minute fix. It's something that would take some amount of engineering work, which means a financial investment.
I'm sure they know by now that money would be better spent doing a remake/remaster that they can charge money for. Even if it's a $10 patch. If they put out a remake of Bloodbone along the lines of Demon's Souls, how many people would buy it at this point? Over a million? Hard to imagine them turning down that money in favor of updating the game with a patch...
If you don't like it, then the honest answer is get a PC and buy games there. Consoles are closer to PC architecture, but they are not PCs. It would take most devs more time, manpower, and money to implement and test PC style options in a console game. It would certainly result in bugs that would need to be fixed and tested. The juice just doesn't seem worth the squeeze.
Bojji
Gold Member
There should be "advanced" toggle in every console game (with risk EULA etc.) - with useful things like unlocked framerate, vsync off/on, Chromatic Aberration on/off, PSSR on/off etc.
The same for console menu, "Boost" mode we had in PS4 Pro but more powerful with options to disable framerate locks in PS4 games (it can be done on Api level) that never got patches and update for "PSSR .dll" for games with bad implementation of PSSR abandoned by developers.
Meicyn
Member
Disagree, as I pointed out with FFXIV. The game has had extensive visual configuration options since the PS4 version shipped a decade ago. There are even more than ever now on the PS5 client and Xbox Series client.
Folks who don't care about diving into settings play FFXIV with (gasp) the default settings.
Puscifer
Member
Good Lord just break my fucking neck God DamnHenry Cavill knows a solution
Be more like Henry Cavill
Last edited:
Puscifer
Member
So fun fact. The RADV driver valve is contributing too should be researched because they're squeezing 10-30% more performance out of RDNA2/3 gpus and RT performance is better than under Windows. I'm understanding why they're so confident in launching now.Free yourself, brethren.
It leads to a higher fuss, less polished state for console games.
btw, I have pc gamed for decades ie played with ~all the settings. Quite aware of them.
Also admit I have some bias due that stems from multiplayer games where you're basically forced to go into settings menus because you can 'win the game' thru the menus. EVen going way back ~25 years... If you messed with the lighting controls in Battlefield 1942 you could clearly see in all inside rooms providing a distinct advantage for seeing enemies compared to the person not knowing about this. I don't think this sort of thing has changed.
What happens as more console games get bigger settings menus? The developer gets lazier. They start putting more of the work on the customer to dial in the experience.
And now the player is a play tester also. I'd rather they just give me their best shot because I would rather spend the time on the game than in the settings. I would rather any energy on their part go toward something else.
Last, I can't help but think that the settings menus only got longer and longer over the years while the games in many ways arguably didn't improve.
Last edited:
Crayon
Member
Those settings dont exceed what the current console can do, though. If you want future proofing settings, I'd avoid putting them where a normie can start fiddling. It's essentially giving blessing to a game that runs unacceptably, not matter how many warnings you put on it.
Meicyn
Member
Ah, good point, I see what you're saying. In that case, I agree.
dDoc
Member
If you do not want to tinker with settings, then don't.
But having the option would be nice for those that want it.
Sometimes I wonder how the human race is still going...
Klayzer
Member
Why are some PC players so unhappy? Most console players are perfectly content with the optimization of most releases.
Ease of use, plug and play, is the reason why we are console players in the first place. For a fanbase that loves to scream options, they seemingly want everyone to be a PC nerd for some reason.
Ease of use, plug and play, is the reason why we are console players in the first place. For a fanbase that loves to scream options, they seemingly want everyone to be a PC nerd for some reason.
Even in Metroid Prime 4 on S2 , I had to play with a few different controller setup options to see what worked best. And I had to play with the high fps/low res, low fps/high res option as well to see what was the way to go.
Saying you don't have to tinker if you don't want is not really true practically speaking.
ReyBrujo
Member
lol, the other day someone at Reddit posted, "Hey, I saw Henry Cavill's video assembling a PC and saw he shaved his armpit hair, should I do so too?"Henry Cavill knows a solution
Be more like Henry Cavill
It's part of the experience to press play and actually play instead of spending like 30 minutes in the options. I know people who are bothered by two options even already, quality and performance mode.
It's difficult to draw the line of how much choice you want to give and also doing proper QA.
On PC you can always say as a dev, "adjust your settings accordingly if you run into issues". On console, consumers expect to run the game always as best as possible (even if that means shit like some PS5 games... but that's just as best as possible as it gets in some cases...).
Each system comes with its own drawbacks. Just see what's more important to you and choose accordingly.
It's difficult to draw the line of how much choice you want to give and also doing proper QA.
On PC you can always say as a dev, "adjust your settings accordingly if you run into issues". On console, consumers expect to run the game always as best as possible (even if that means shit like some PS5 games... but that's just as best as possible as it gets in some cases...).
Each system comes with its own drawbacks. Just see what's more important to you and choose accordingly.
dDoc
Member
You said it yourself mate.
Imagine if you did not have the option to select your preferred way to play. You would have been stuck with the other way around, and no control to change it.
If someone does not want to tinker, use the default.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
That console is awfully big and expensive.Henry Cavill knows a solution
Be more like Henry Cavill
Sentenza
Member
poodaddy
Member
While I agree that his point didn't hold water, this is just way too mean. You could have worded this much nicer man, no need to be like this.
Yeah I imagined no options and I would have saved an hour at least if MP4 didn't have them.
I didn't have to imagine not having any options and the game being a classic because I played Metroid Prime 1 and countless other games with no options. Imagine that.
Before games get to you (the player) the developer has had a ton of time refining and developing and using the controls and there has been extensive playtesting. Call me crazy but I trust this process overall ...if, for nothing else, it's a massive time saver for me the player.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
so what if the default settings were the only ones? since you "had to" play with settings, it sounds to me like you're saying that the way the devs think was a good default, was in fact not to your liking...
almost as if there is rarely an actually optimal default. almost like different people want different things
YOU wanted to tinker. you could have played literally with fully default settings. they were specifically chosen by Retro to be mass-compatible, because developers know many players will not open the options menu at all and just hit play.
Fable
Member
Something like FPS Boost which Xbox introduce was nice, not perfect by all means but i can play Yakuza 6 and Prey at 60fps on XSX while it's stuck on 30fps on PS5, they should evolve this while increasing the resolution since some of them FPS Boost titles are using 900p res which is unacceptable, Sony and MS should make something like that, that can have control over all games.
Nah you forced to tinker in MP4 in my view because the control schemes are different enough. IT's not just swap buttons or whatever. Those mundane changes are always a waste of time and I ignore and never bother with them.so what if the default settings were the only ones? since you "had to" play with settings, it sounds to me like you're saying that the way the devs think was a good default, was in fact not to your liking...
almost as if there is rarely an actually optimal default. almost like different people want different things
YOU wanted to tinker. you could have played literally with fully default settings. they were specifically chosen by Retro to be mass-compatible, because developers know many players will not open the options menu at all and just hit play.
Also with the 60 fps/high res, 120 fps/low rest, not sure what was default or not. I think they may have asked you to choose up front. Maybe it was 60 fps by default because sure that is most mass compatible.
Mass compatible doesn't mean best option tho. Similar with the controls in MP4. How do I know if they are giving xyz option as default because it really works best with the game or more for mass compatiblity type of reasons or just a matter of something has to be default and there is no thought behind the default.
In my testing, 120 fps seemed the way to go because graphics dropoff seemed rather negligible while game was much smoother. But I had to go back and forth a few times which sucks up time.
Obviously if you're being pedantic no one has to ever tinker in console game settings afaik. Doh! Practically speaking I wouldn't agree tho.
BEcause when they startrf presenting you with more options and as you say if the defaults are mass compatible then they aren't even selecting the best option as default per se And like I said maybe default is just alphabetical or what not. Then you start going into testing mode. You've become a play tester.
Meanwhile how many countless classic games have I played over the years that had zero options?
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
Xbox did both Res and FPS boosts.
the issue however being that some games do weird shit with their resolution when you boost the FPS.
what FPS boost is is simply injecting code that changes the FPS cap without the game code being altered... it's like a direct X hack.
so, the problem now however is that some games used a dynamic resolution, and this dynamic resolution is programmed to adjust depending on how close to the target fps they can get without hitting 100% GPU load.
most FPS boost games run at One X settings, so targeting relatively high resolutions. see Kameo, which both has FPS Boost and is One X Enhanced. so it's 4k 60fps.
HOWEVER, Titanfall 2, which does have a One X patch to target high resolutions, will instead run the base Xbox One settings when FPS boost to 120fps is enabled.
and that is precisely due to the dynamic resolution.
as Respawn stated (and as is the default in their games' PC graphics settings for dynamic resolution) the game will in fact go above 4K on Xbox One X, if the GPU hits 60fps and is not saturated.
meaning the game can go up to... say, 6k on One X if you are in a scene that is very undemanding on the GPU.
now, what would happen if you change the FPS lock from 60 to 120 without changing the dynamic res behaviour? well, the game would hit 60fps, detect that the GPU has TONS of additional headroom left, and would crank up the resolution higher and higher, until it hits 60fps at 90~95% GPU load (or whatever their dynamic res threshold is).
so the game would never actually hit 120fps, but instead would maybe run at an insane internal resolution that can reach who knows how high... maybe up to 8k, which you would only notice as an increase in sharpness on your 4k screen.
so games like Titanfall 2 have this reduced resolution by running in Xbox One mode instead of One X mode, because they would need a dedicated patch that adjusts the dynamic res target to run well at 120fps and One X settings.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
many classic could have been better with options. like imagine if GTA3 and Vice City on PS2/Xbox allowed you to change the right stick behaviour to a free cam like the PC version had?
RafterXL
Member
Hate to break it to ya, but you're on the wrong platform. As evidenced by this thread, most console players don't want options. They don't want choice and they don't care about playing older games with new graphics settings, they'd rather just buy the remake/remaster whenever it releases.
So what's stopping developers from adding this stuff? Greed is part of it, for sure, but the other part is that they know their audience. These machines are designed to be simple, easy, brainless. You push button, you play game. The end. If you want more than push button, play game, you need a PC. Everything you are complaining about, and more, are why many of us have PCs. Maybe the new Xbox will have this stuff, but then isn't it just a PC anyway?
Basically you bought apple juice and now you're upset it doesn't taste like orange juice. Next time just buy the orange juice.
bitbydeath
Member
Games are typically made to run on PS5 these days, then upgrade/downgrade from there. They can't build against anything higher such as the PS6 because it doesn't exist yet and PS5 Pro doesn't have a sufficient install base to warrant it.
In short, if you're getting a PS5, it is the best they can do with the hardware.
In short, if you're getting a PS5, it is the best they can do with the hardware.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
they don't have to target any spec. they just need to allow you to toggle between different FPS targets, and between different resolution targets... that would already be more than enough.
•1080p - 1440p - 2160p
•30fps - 60fps - 120fps
•RT On - RT Off
that's all we really need.
Sony actually does it decently well, even though their "unlocked fps" settings are not really unlocked... usually they have a sub-120fps target for some reason, when they should all target 120fps.
Last edited:
Holammer
Member
Spyro Reignited Trilogy & Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled still being limited to 30fps on current gen consoles when it's literally only a matter of changing a few values in an XML file is legitimately shameful. Console players should be causing a stink about it.
Sony's policy on the issue:
Sony's policy on the issue:
NOt saying it isn't possible but it sounds like arguing that Michael Jordan could have been better.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
If Xenoblade X was on Steam, believe me I would've bought it there
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
But we can agree that a ps6 will exist one day. Now something like Rise of Ronin will run at ps5 settings on ps6.
If there was simple graphics options, locked behind some kind of safeguard for brainlets or children, you could play this at modern day PC settings where it looks way better.
But it seems I was wrong and consolebros would prefer to pay for ini tweaks.
kevboard
Member
not really, because in most cases we literally know that the games could have been better.
GTA Vice City is an excellent example of this. the PC version played 10x better than the PS2 and Xbox versions. so we had a direct comparison for the original PS2 version just a few months after it released. and then the Xbox version came after the PC version and was a downgrade again in terms of playability compared to it.
so the correct anslogy would be, having the ability to look into 3 different timelines of Michael Jordan and seeing that in one of them he was way better because he did something slightly differently in that universe... so we know he could have been better because we have evidence.
we have evidence that Vice City could play better than on Xbox... and all the necessary gameplay mechanics, the free look cam and free aim with every weapon, were already implemented in the PC version that came before it.
Last edited:
But metacritic has PS2 MIchael Jordan at 95 and pc MJ at 94.
and pc MJ ate more expensive Wheaties than PS2 MJ allowing him to have his head on a swivel. Despite this he still rated lower.
And no matter they both classics. They both all time greats. IT's a split hairs argument to argue MJ could be better in the end.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
No, it wouldn't work as console games are highly optimised against the hardware it uses. Stepping away from that would be far worse.But we can agree that a ps6 will exist one day. Now something like Rise of Ronin will run at ps5 settings on ps6.
If there was simple graphics options, locked behind some kind of safeguard for brainlets or children, you could play this at modern day PC settings where it looks way better.
But it seems I was wrong and consolebros would prefer to pay for ini tweaks.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
review scores are irrelevant.
anyone who played both versions at the time knows how much better the PC version felt to play.
GTA was always insanely overrated either way. like, those games took 3 iterations on console to finally get the brilliant innovation of... A FREE MOVING CAMERA... an an open world game nonetheless.
the gunplay was worse than that of most N64 games
Last edited:
Durin
Member
Given consoles have abandoned being super bespoke hardware anymore, they should at least build their platforms to offer forwards compatibility.
I should be able to play games that at least scale pixel resolution and frame-rates on future hardware, instead of waiting to potentially get charged again for it.
I should be able to play games that at least scale pixel resolution and frame-rates on future hardware, instead of waiting to potentially get charged again for it.
Fable
Member
Not even in this thread there is a majority of console players who don't want options, check again.
Mark Cerny said a few years ago that about 75% of PS5 players choose performance mode when there's an option,
And judging by previous polls i've seen over the years many console players do indeed want options.
EverydayBeast
ChatShitGPT Alpha 0.001
Consoles are easy access, and represent the mass audience, so they optimize for new players, kids and people who sit on couches.
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
The console already offer upgrades to the old library out of the gate, what more do you want?
The game is already a remaster, and somehow you think you can run even better? Hell, you tried to emulate yourself and got errors, don't this tell you how far can you push the game?
This game as it is either is worth playing or not. No performance setting will change that
The game is already a remaster, and somehow you think you can run even better? Hell, you tried to emulate yourself and got errors, don't this tell you how far can you push the game?
This game as it is either is worth playing or not. No performance setting will change that