The fabled max settings

I've noticed an irritating trend amongst gamers; far too many of us judge a games graphics not just on how pretty things are, rather we modify our perception of the game based on the range of graphical options that we're exposed to through the game video option menu.

How many times have you heard this phrase, or something similar "Crysis is an unoptimized piece of shit, I can only run it in medium settings!" But is Crysis really unoptimized? Optimization in terms of computers and maths means to alter some function so it still produces the same output while taking less computational effort to run. So when angry gamers moan about games being slow are they talking about "optimization", or do they really mean that they can't run in "max settings" with their brand new Geforce GTX 780 Yo-Momma edition?

But what are max settings? Some graphical features are simply toggles which turn on/off some particular type of technology such as normal mapping. But a great many of them are actually LOD (Level of Detail) ranges, these are usually measured as a distance from the player where objects get swapped out for less detailed copies, or where objects fade from view entirely.

The problem with these LOD graphical settings is that they are not upper limit bound (technically they are, but the limit is usually far greater than what is possible to use) so the developers are left translating sensible values for things like view and flora distance into a sliding scale or some low/med/high value in their graphics options.

Take Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as an example, it has a grass distance slider in the options menu, and when you move this slider and save the settings it writes a value to the games oblivion.ini settings file. You can open up this file and see what that value is, you should find:

fGrassEndDistance= 8000

The developers of Oblivion decided that 8000 game units was enough distance for grass, but why that value, why not twice that at 16,000 game units, or half that at 4000 game units? The point is 8000 units is not the max setting for this particular option, far from it, you can edit that value to be a lot bigger than 8000 and it will display more grass in game.

Now we understand these concepts a little better let's go back and look at the original point again, the fabled max settings. People who moan a game is unoptimized because they cannot run max settings smoothly is being a bit of an idiot, if Oblivion runs badly at max settings which includes 8000 game units worth of grass, and then the developers release a patch for the game which sets the maximum slider value for grass to 4000 game units and now it runs well, does it mean the game is suddenly optimized? No of course not.

Instead why can't we simply judge how visually appealing the game is compared to how well in runs without it being effect by what options we're presented with, lets face it Crysis still looks really nice in "medium settings". Next time someone presents the argument that game X is unoptimized; ask them what evidence they have for this.

-Princess_Frosty

Frosty's Blog.

A gaming blog by Sam "Frosty" Pickering, ranting about games since 1792.

Current rig: C2Q Q9450@3.6Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 2 4870s in crossfire, Velociraptor 300Gb Primary HDD, 3Tb Archive HDDs, Asus D2X Xonar, 30" WFP-HC Monitor, Antec1200 case, Lachesis Mouse & Exactmat, Lycosa Keyboard.



Comments for: The fabled max settings


Posted by: PrincessFrosty on 04/03/2010 12:43:11
Yeah I played AoC on release for about 2 months, quite a neat game and ran pretty badly for me even with crosfire 4870s I tried one of the free trials recently and it did perform a lot better so obviously there was some optimisations to be made...although not all speed increases are due to optimisation, sometimes developers go back and drop draw distance or LOD distances to get performance increase which isn't strictly speaking optimisation, it just appeals to the people who need "max settings".

Posted by: WBurchnall on 02/02/2010 20:08:00
What I'd like to possibly see is some developer release custom ini files in their forums and/or patches to add additional quality modes over time as the average hardware increases. I think a great example of a company doing this is Blizzard. Two years ago, Blizzard added 'Very High' quality to wow and a year ago added 'Ultra High' quality settings. The changes basically were better draw distances, etc but also improvements in shadows such as going from static to dynamically generated shadows. If someday Crysis were to release a Ultra-Ultra-High version in say 2013, I wouldn't be hurt that I'd be able to tax my Radeon 78xx series card with that old of a game but rather quite pleased with the developer :)

Posted by: WBurchnall on 02/02/2010 20:04:50
I liked your blog post and agree with your sentiment here that sometimes the problem with games are not their optimization but rather how the game is recieved by gamers in reference to their system. Some games though, are poorly coded. I think a good example might be Age of Conan. It ran slow when it was released on even SLIed/crossfired top of the line machines, along with many bugs, graphical glitches and CTDs. Slowly began to run better as patches were released to address gameplay issues, CTDs and bugs. It took a long time though because top of the line machines could run the game in high detail. Ironically, the graphics shouldn't have been that taxing on those systems based of what we were seeing on our screen. IE, if you took that same machine and put Crysis on medium difficulty, it would look far better and have a higher fps even in multiplayer or intense areas than AoC would in desolate areas with very little occuring, not much lightning effects, etc on high. Some would complain that the nature of mmorpgs is they 'cannot look as good as regular rpgs' but AoC was sold/marketed based of its looks. When it failed to perform playable frame rates with the looks promised even on top of the line machines, its not suprisingly their subscription numbers dropped sharply and have never recovered.

Posted by: PrincessFrosty on 11/12/2009 23:22:24
This remains my fave blog post and no one has commented :'(

Post a new comment:


Name:    
Comment:  
Tick this box if you're human!