Instead of focusing on what is “too much settings”, i prefer game studios taking the approach of the settings of e.g. Assassin’s Creed Origins. Not only do you get the usual presets in the menu, but also some stats to your performance. E.g. how much VRAM is used/available. What’s your GPU and CPU load, RAM usage,… And for every setting you hiber over and change, you will get a (cumulative) prediction in those graphs how this combination of setting will affect which part of the system. That way you can tweak the settings more easily to your preference and your system. You may not be able to get a decent frame rate with higher poly models, but you might have enough VRAM to afford higher res textures and get better image quality that way. Having denser crowds might affect CPU load more than GPU load, so your GPU might not be the bottleneck of that feature and so on.
As a game dev, that sounds so complicated to implement. Showing numbers for what is currently happening sure, predicting what will happen and graphs and whatnot? I hope I’m not the one doing that
Personally, I’d much rather have the choice than just have whatever gets slapped together and shipped by a dev. I’m particularly grateful having recently gone to 3440x1040p, just how many game support it and the options I can tweak to get my personal sweet spot of looks vs frames.
If there’s no low, med or high options that a lot of games ship with; no shame in searching “<game> best graphics settings” or some variant. I still do for some games when I can’t be arsed or when the performance sucks due to a random post processing effect being borked and tanking performance. Games are more complex than ever and with essentially endless permutations of hardware configurations, the graphics settings tend to reflect that.
Yeah, I go into graphics settings anymore and I’m overwhelmed by all the damn settings… the fuck happened to games?
Silliest take of the century. Glass too full, lobster too buttery.
Almost every game on pc has video settings presets, if the options are too much, you can always use those.
Instead of focusing on what is “too much settings”, i prefer game studios taking the approach of the settings of e.g. Assassin’s Creed Origins. Not only do you get the usual presets in the menu, but also some stats to your performance. E.g. how much VRAM is used/available. What’s your GPU and CPU load, RAM usage,… And for every setting you hiber over and change, you will get a (cumulative) prediction in those graphs how this combination of setting will affect which part of the system. That way you can tweak the settings more easily to your preference and your system. You may not be able to get a decent frame rate with higher poly models, but you might have enough VRAM to afford higher res textures and get better image quality that way. Having denser crowds might affect CPU load more than GPU load, so your GPU might not be the bottleneck of that feature and so on.
As a game dev, that sounds so complicated to implement. Showing numbers for what is currently happening sure, predicting what will happen and graphs and whatnot? I hope I’m not the one doing that
Personally, I’d much rather have the choice than just have whatever gets slapped together and shipped by a dev. I’m particularly grateful having recently gone to 3440x1040p, just how many game support it and the options I can tweak to get my personal sweet spot of looks vs frames.
If there’s no low, med or high options that a lot of games ship with; no shame in searching “<game> best graphics settings” or some variant. I still do for some games when I can’t be arsed or when the performance sucks due to a random post processing effect being borked and tanking performance. Games are more complex than ever and with essentially endless permutations of hardware configurations, the graphics settings tend to reflect that.