Does "Performance Mode" and "Visual Mode" choice defeat the point of consoles?

Inspired by discussion in the control thread I would like to hear some opinions around the direction console games are taking these days with consumers needing to choose between the best framerate or the best graphics.

For me this takes away the one of the reasons to own a console vs a PC - which is games just working as intended with no fuss for the consumer.

I get that hardware means a compromise needs to be made somewhere along the line but I think this decision should be made at the dev level - they should decide what is best for their game and vision on a console and optimise toward that.

Am I wrong and anti consumerist for wanting to take choice away from players?

aayl1 wrote:Am I wrong and anti consumerist for wanting to take choice away from players?

No, developers should optimise their games before release.

Nope it doesn't defeat the point, more choice is always the better option in my opinion.

Whether framerate or graphical fidelity was the focus the developer would always have optimised on one particular target in the past, there's nothing wrong with them now broadening that and allowing the player to choose which matters to them.

I prefer to play with a character model designed by a professional, but some people like to fanny about for hours in character creation tools. It’s good that we are all accommodated. Graphics options are like a continuation of that, now that consoles are powerful enough to allow a choice.

I don't want to worry about it!

When it comes to accessibility then yes I think those options are important and good to have for those who need them (like control remapping), the game should just provide sensible defaults for those who don't.

With the new trend of console games offering a choice of performance vs fidelity, I'm pretty hardline they should just go with performance and then no one has to worry!

One slightly insidious side to offering the choice is that you can guarantee all the promotional screenshots are going to be in fidelity mode. It's a built-in bullshot mode

I've got a Mac and I'm not going to buy a PC just for gaming, so being able to choose 60fps is great personally.

Last edited by Tomous on Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What fuss is there? You pick the option for your preference. Some people prefer a higher frame rate, other people prefer higher resolution. In a perfect world both would be maxed. If that isn't possible, then offer the player the choice. I really don't see the issue.

OrangeRKN wrote:I don't want to worry about it!

When it comes to accessibility then yes I think those options are important and good to have for those who need them (like control remapping), the game should just provide sensible defaults for those who don't.

With the new trend of console games offering a choice of performance vs fidelity, I'm pretty hardline they should just go with performance and then no one has to worry!

One slightly insidious side to offering the choice is that you can guarantee all the promotional screenshots are going to be in fidelity mode. It's a built-in bullshot mode

It isn't a built in bullshot mode :lol:

That is literally how the game looks in one mode. Aslong as it is still offering a stable 30 fps in that mode it is no more or less misleading than a game which runs at 30 fps and offers no choice.

It can be a little confusing, not to sound like a snob but I bet the layman a) doesn’t know what it means, and/or b) isn’t bothered. Like as well, I’ve been asked about HDR a few times, saturation or summat, and haven’t had a scooby.
Personally? Nicer looking at 30. Can drink in the visuals better, see?

It’s like how some people eat macarons because they are pretty, but other people prefer rougher-looking things that actually taste of something other than sugar.

Macarons are awful. Worst part of going to Paris.

I value stable, and then high, framerate. If seems the industry in general values graphical fidelity, sometimes at the cost of performance. If people still expect consoles to push 4k before stable 60, then I'll welcome the choice.

Zilnad wrote:Macarons are awful. Worst part of going to Paris.

This is wrong, you are wrong, hang your head in shame.

right now gfx vs performance is a choice that i like to have
HOWEVER - what aayl is getting at is if every game got to the point where you have to setup about 20-30 sliders and make compromises then im against that. i have a pc and its a pain/nice choice but i like that on consoles i dont have to do that!

I get the question, though I think consoles and pcs have been converging for quite a while, what with patches and different powered consoles in the same gen etc meaning that hardware and performance starts to differ even within the same gen.

Yes, one of the things about a console was always it's simplicity. But I don't think that simplicity was about choice in how you played. It was about the fact you could always play any game on it.

Pop in a cartridge and it would just work. You don't have to look at the spec requirements of a particular game and worry about upgrading your software or graphics card etc.

I think the same is still true now of discs or downloads. On any console, the game I play will just work, and it's not down to my hardware. Yes, I can tweak the settings, but it'll still work. And, in most games, I don't bother with the choice, I just keep pressing 'A' until I'm playing. But I guess it bothers some people, so fair enough.

For me, the other key difference is playing on my TV, on my couch, with a controller, and not with a keyboard and mouse etc on a monitor. I know you can probably do all those things with a pc now, but that's my impression of pc gaming, and I don't want to clart on with it.

And I think Macarons is alright, he just shouldn't have married his teacher.

I don't think this really defeats the point of consoles, it's a binary choice now that the hardware and dev teams have the headroom to offer both.

The bigger threat to the point of consoles are the increasing number of multiple SKUs and mid generation power upgrades. Everyone saw just how poorly games were running on original PS4 consoles by the end of that generation life cycle, and that just shouldn't be the case for consoles at all. You should be able to get a consistent experience for the duration until its superceded by a new generation, not this weird generation x.2 we seem to have now.

Great idea for a thread. I would prefer one, best option but can see how having options is pro-consumer. Also think developers should put an uncapped mode as a matter of course to future proof games a little.

That's a good point Knoyleo. I have a Series S and even from the outset people have been fretting whether it will become obsolete, or worse hold game development back.

For me, if I get 3-4 years out of it before it starts chugging, that's as much as I'd expect from a console.

It's only really been in these last generations, where the time between new generations has gotten longer, whilst at the same time the technology in the background improves faster, that these fractures have started to happen.

I like choice. Choice is good. Certain games I want high frame rates and others I am happy to take the hit for nicer graphics, e.g. flight sim.

Also, you could argue that PC games already have built in presets. Most have a benchmark mode, and most have low/med/high/ultra. After a week or so, there are normally videos telling you how what settings ‘cost’ most resource.

It’s hardly an effort.

I dont yet own a 4k screen. If I owned a next gen console, a boost to frame rate at cost of resolution would be welcome.

Does "Performance Mode" and "Visual Mode" choice defeat the point of consoles?

Should there be a choice between performance and graphics on consoles?

Who is online

Affiliates