Full In-Game Graphics Adjustment

Can we please see the Full graphics adjustment put in-game when it is possible in the future.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I think he means the ability to change the video/graphics settings in game rather than having to exit the game and go through the config menu.
This would be great for me in terms of going from full screen to windowed mode tbh - most games have the ability to do this.

Oh, PS3 limitations. Having to endlessly compromise because some people just insist on playing on inferior hardware and with inferior input devices sucks but that's the way SE seems to like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frein

Oh, PS3 limitations. Having to endlessly compromise because some people just insist on playing on inferior hardware and with inferior input devices sucks but that's the way SE seems to like it.

---

To some people (to most people), the more expensive hardware is the inferior hardware.

Good luck playing this game on a 250 buck PC.

Not that this problem has anything to do with PS3, but hey.

I'd would like to see what difference texture filtering makes. I have it on highest but I'm not sure it changes anything visually

PS3 wouldn't have graphic settings. Everything will be optimized. Why does PC need it when every PC is a flux capacitor powered dream machine? Everything should be set to maximum by default to appease the master race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haledos

I think he means the ability to change the video/graphics settings in game rather than having to exit the game and go through the config menu.
This would be great for me in terms of going from full screen to windowed mode tbh - most games have the ability to do this.

---

yes and yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korbei

PS3 wouldn't have graphic settings. Everything will be optimized. Why does PC need it when every PC is a flux capacitor powered dream machine? Everything should be set to maximum by default to appease the master race.

---

If I turn everything on max my room turns into a sauna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

To some people (to most people), the more expensive hardware is the inferior hardware.

Good luck playing this game on a 250 buck PC.

Not that this problem has anything to do with PS3, but hey.

---

This problem has everything to do with the PS3. It was the same story with FFXI and the PS2.

If they want to make a game for a console, they should do that and not bother with PCs because a PC game that makes concessions in order to work on consoles with standard input devices (pads) cannot compete with other PC games. The end result is a really bad PC game (because it's limited by console hardware) and a less than perfect console game (because resources are wasted on the PC port).

As far as cost goes, a PS3 may only cost 250 bucks or whatever, while a desktop with acceptable FFXIV performance probably costs ~$500, but why would you ever buy a console if you don't already have a computer? So all the people complaining about not being able to afford a gaming PC probably already have some shitty laptop AND a PS3 for a combined cost that far exceeds the desktop they'd need to run the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frein

This problem has everything to do with the PS3. It was the same story with FFXI and the PS2.

If they want to make a game for a console, they should do that and not bother with PCs because a PC game that makes concessions in order to work on consoles with standard input devices (pads) cannot compete with other PC games. The end result is a really bad PC game (because it's limited by console hardware) and a less than perfect console game (because resources are wasted on the PC port).

As far as cost goes, a PS3 may only cost 250 bucks or whatever, while a desktop with acceptable FFXIV performance probably costs ~$500, but why would you ever buy a console if you don't already have a computer? So all the people complaining about not being able to afford a gaming PC probably already have some shitty laptop AND a PS3 for a combined cost that far exceeds the desktop they'd need to run the game.

---

I'd say its more budget and priority limitations at least for my thread topic than PS3 limitation.

Quote:

---

If they want to make a game for a console, they should do that and not bother with PCs because a PC game that makes concessions in order to work on consoles with standard input devices (pads) cannot compete with other PC games. The end result is a really bad PC game (because it's limited by console hardware) and a less than perfect console game (because resources are wasted on the PC port).

---

PC games rarely utilize the hardware. Guess why? Because it costs a ton of money. And guess where the money is? Not on a single platform, I guarantee it.

Just because the possibility to utilize the hardware exists, doesn't mean it will be.

And lastly, PC gamers have dealt with "console-ish" controls in the majority of their games for a decade already. And they will continue to do so in the future. This is only a problem for said PC gamers, but who should give half of a damn about them? They are self-entitled nerds, nothing more.

There is money to be made on consoles, and anyone thinking otherwise is not going to be around making games 10 years from now. Even Blizzard knows this and much like Diablo 3, their next MMO will make it's way to consoles.

And you will either deal with it, or not play these games. It's nobody's issue but yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

PC games rarely utilize the hardware. Guess why? Because it costs a ton of money. And guess where the money is? Not on a single platform, I guarantee it.

---

They don't utilize the hardware because porting the game over to the weaker consoles with different, and for most genres worse, input devices would become so much more complicated. For this reason consoles have almost halted the technological advancement in the gaming industry. That's why my PC with almost all parts bought in 2006 can run most cutting edge games at high settings and why the original Crysis (2007) is probably still the most graphically intensive game in the world. Crysis is now finally getting a PS3/Xbox360 port but obviously it looks like crap compared to the PC version.

Obviously this is, as you said, exactly because there is more money to be made with multi-platform games. However, MMOs are still a predominantly PC-only genre and you can't just make a PC MMO, play by a console's rules and expect to be competitive with the PC crowd. Why bother if the PC gamers will all go to competing titles? Just make it console only.

Quote:

---

And lastly, PC gamers have dealt with "console-ish" controls in the majority of their games for a decade already. And they will continue to do so in the future. This is only a problem for said PC gamers, but who should give half of a damn about them? They are self-entitled nerds, nothing more.

---

Why do you think most games sell like crap on the PC? That's right, because they're sacrificed on the console altar. Also, because console gamers will buy your crap even if it is, well, crap, that's what you make. Well made PC games still sell very well (look at StarCraft 2, The Witcher 2) but it's a lot easier to mass produce Halo/CoD clones and sports titles and just dump them on the drooling masses who will gladly buy with both arms.

Quote:

---

There is money to be made on consoles, and anyone thinking otherwise is not going to be around making games 10 years from now. Even Blizzard knows this and much like Diablo 3, their next MMO will make it's way to consoles.

---

We'll see about that. It wouldn't surprise me to see them pull a Shadowrun and at the very least separate the players by hardware because the console crowd simply cannot compete with the PC gamers and their mouse/keyboard combinations.

Quote:

---

They don't utilize the hardware because porting the game over to the weaker consoles with different, and for most genres worse, input devices would become so much more complicated.

---

Hardware=/=input devices.

PC only games don't utilize the hardware. They look worse than console games most of the time.

Quote:

---

Well made PC games still sell very well (look at StarCraft 2, The Witcher 2)

---

They would sell better as multiplatform.

It's not even about selling "like crap". It's about recouping your investments, and PC audience alone (like PS3 audience or Xbox audience alone) is not large enough for that to happen most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

Hardware=/=input devices.

---

I never said so.

Quote:

---

PC only games don't utilize the hardware. They look worse than console games most of the time.

---

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Crysis for the PS3 (coming soon): http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2958/unledwan.jpg
Crysis for the PC (2007): http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/1...0912510250.jpg

Even in FFXIV SE has said they'll have to reduce texture quality to make the PS3 version happen. You're seriously delusional if you think consoles are anywhere near PCs in gaming power.

Quote:

---

They would sell better as multiplatform.

---

In the past many RTS games were ported to consoles. The ports all sucked and sold poorly. It's not always a good investment to aim for the whole market.

Quote:

---

I never said so.

---

Yes, you keep lumping input devices and hardware together and that is your problem. Exactly.

Quote:

---

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

---

If there was a definition for the word "predictable" in the dictionary, your name would be on it.

There's a reason why Crysis is taking a step back and fixing their earlier mistake of not making Crysis multiplat from the beginning. At least they learned their lesson in time for Crysis 2.

I can name another game too. The Witcher 2 (although that one is going multiplat as well later- shocking). Still, you need to name quite a few games to prove that most PC only games do indeed make use of PC hardware most of the time.

The witcher 2 and Crysis are a good start. And that's where it ends (unless you want to name another.. few dozen games. And you'd still be wrong).

Quote:

---

It's not always a good investment to aim for the whole market.

---

It's pretty much the only genre that is incompatible. Likewise seeing a fighting game on a PC is quite a rare sight. Most fare well on any platform with any input device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

Yes, you keep lumping input devices and hardware together and that is your problem. Exactly.

---

Both are relevant but at no point did I say they're the same thing. The PC has better hardware and, for most genres, better standard input devices. This is why people who brought keyboards and mice to their PS3 UT3 games were considered cheaters. The pad is just inferior.

Quote:

---

There's a reason why Crysis is taking a step back and fixing their earlier mistake of not making Crysis multiplat from the beginning. At least they learned their lesson in time for Crysis 2.

---

Crysis in its original form could never be multiplatform. The new Crysis for consoles uses the Crysis 2 engine, and like Crysis 2, looks much worse than the first Crysis. The only thing Crysis really had going for it were the graphics and the freedom, anyway, so when they downgraded the graphics and the open world for Crysis 2, there was nothing left and the game kind of sucked. Why did they do that, then? That's right, because they wanted to make it multiplatform and the only way to achieve that was to make the game worse than the first one.

Quote:

---

I can name another game too. The Witcher 2 (although that one is going multiplat as well later- shocking). Still, you need to name quite a few games to prove that most PC only games do indeed make use of PC hardware most of the time.

The witcher 2 and Crysis are a good start. And that's where it ends (unless you want to name another.. few dozen games. And you'd still be wrong).

---

Are you seriously suggesting that console games look as good as PC games? Even the PC ports of multiplatform console games tend to blow the console versions out of the water when you ramp up the settings (which anyone with a 2006+ rig can do). Did you even look at the screenshots of Crysis I provided?

And what about DX10 and DX11? Neither current gen console has GPUs capable of running those effects. In fact, the PS3 has a GPU based on the Nvidia 7800GTX. That is some ancient stuff right there.

Quote:

---

It's pretty much the only genre that is incompatible. Likewise seeing a fighting game on a PC is quite a rare sight. Most fare well on any platform with any input device.

---

Console fighting games tend to be better suited for pads than keyboards. I'm all for making fighters console only, because if you want them to play well on keyboards, you need to design the controls to specifically be compatible with them. Of course, anyone who is serious about fighters has an arcade stick, though.

I would love to be able to change ALL graphic settings while in game. It always annoyed me that both FFXI and now FFXIV require you to completely exit the game when you want to test things. :(

Betelgeuzah? You sir are delusional. If you think there is ANY Console game out there that when compared to a PC...and when I say compared, take 2 identical games, 1 for PC and 1 for Console, the PC version would destroy the console version. Regardless of input devices or internal hardware; ie. (CPU, GPU, drive speed). Also lets point out HO Wmany true FPS gamers would rather play on a PC rather than a console for one and usually the #1 reason being, speed. To lock in and shoot a target is faster on a PC than a console. Look it up while you continue to pull wherever the hell your getting your "facts" from in this debate. PC gamers will always lose out simply from the fact that a console GPU and CPU cannot handle the load need to really produce intense graphical display plain and simple.

i'm really not sure where this PS3 limitation issue is comming from, and i don't know how it can even be compaired to the XI/PS2 limitations.

The PC graphics in XI were never restricted by PS2 limitations it was limited by the FFXI engine. if it was limited by the PS2 we would have all been playing in 640x480 with 320x240 background resolution, we also wouldn't have had the options for mipmap amoung other things.

All the PS2 limited in XI was the storage not just item storage but everything that required some kind of storage, e.g. every time they added words to the auto translate dictionary the had to take some others out.

Hardware the PS3 (and all modern consoles) is more of a PC then a console, the PS3 has a 64bit PPC processor same you find in older macs and it has a Nvidia GPU which is better then some of the ones found in the pc that ppl are currently playing on, and you should also research the Cell architecture the the PS3 uses.

I'm not a PS3 fanboy before anyone labels me as one my ps3 has only been turn on about 6 times in the past year, i'm just simpley saying you're wrong if you even consider blaming this on the PS3.

Oh and i too would like to change my graphic setting within the game, i know all cannot be changed but it'd be nice to be able to adjust more then just the shadows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okiura

i'm really not sure where this PS3 limitation issue is comming from, and i don't know how it can even be compaired to the XI/PS2 limitations.

The PC graphics in XI were never restricted by PS2 limitations it was limited by the FFXI engine. if it was limited by the PS2 we would have all been playing in 640x480 with 320x240 background resolution, we also wouldn't have had the options for mipmap amoung other things.

---

The FFXI engine was built for the PS2, so of course it limited what the PC version could do. The PC version is essentially a port. You couldn't even get true AA to work in it.

Quote:

---

Hardware the PS3 (and all modern consoles) is more of a PC then a console, the PS3 has a 64bit PPC processor same you find in older macs and it has a Nvidia GPU which is better then some of the ones found in the pc that ppl are currently playing on, and you should also research the Cell architecture the the PS3 uses.

---

It's a 7800GTX. It's terrible by today's standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frein

The FFXI engine was built for the PS2, so of course it limited what the PC version could do. The PC version is essentially a port. You couldn't even get true AA to work in it.

---

I think you'll find no AA was a DX thing and not a PS2 thing. the PS2 never used a DX bassed engine and the PC did, so graphics wise they were 2 completely different engines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frein

think you'll find that was a
It's a 7800GTX. It's terrible by today's standards.

---

i didn't even say it was the best by todays standards, i said "is better then some of the ones found in the pc that ppl are currently playing on"