Graphic Settings

[jondm1]

Has telltale said what the graphics quality settings do? My pc isn't powerful enough to play 1920X1080 with quality set to 9 - if I drop it to 6 the game becomes playable. I have played it at a lower resolution on setting 9 and the only notable difference I noticed is that some of the special effects (toys of power) are better looking. Is there something that says 9 - 4xAA, 8 - 2xAA, 7 - enhanced special effects, 6 - shadows etc etc?

[DPB]

I'd be interested to know this too. The most noticeable difference I can see is that the character shadows are only on from 7 and above.

[Ben]

Roughly, levels 7-9 are shader version 3.0, 4-6 are 2.0, and 1-3 are 1.0.

One big difference between the levels is the quality of the lighting calculations. In level 9, all lights are evaluated per pixel. In lower levels, some lights are only evaluated per vertex. Various other lighting calculations are also simplified in lower levels.

Then of course you only get full screen effects like shadows, glow, and depth of field at the higher levels.

[Pantagruel's Friend]

Originally Posted by Ben

Then of course you only get full screen effects like shadows, glow, and depth of field at the higher levels.

And I assume AA, too. Can you tell me what kind of antialiasing you're using? 2xMSAA?

[jondm1]

Thanks. I use the default settings - I tried adjusting them via the nvidia control panel and it didn't seem to make any difference. I'll just have to decide if 1920x1080 at 6 or 1280x720 at 9 is best - both work out playable at 25 fps. 1920x1080 at 9 gives 15 fps - a delay is noticable in movement and on the mouse cursor.

[taumel]

@Ben
I don't like the current system. It's intransparent and prevents people from choosing a setting which suits best to their needs. On fillrate limited system it for instance would make sense beeing able to choose if you want to go with some AA (level?!) or pixel precise lightning. I hope this will be improved in the future.

[Ben]

Anti aliasing isn't tied to the graphics quality setting. We choose an AA setting automatically based on your GPU. More or less, if you have an old GPU, you get no AA. Otherwise, you get some form of MSAA, depending on what your GPU supports.

I don't like the current system...

We want to keep things simple, and for a lot of (non-technical) users, what we have is probably fine. It's simple and reasonably effective to just increasing the number until the game gets too slow. Having lots of settings would also put more pressure on our already swamped QA team, as they would have many more configurations to test.

That being said, I think it would be an improvement to offer a few different settings. Maybe separate toggles for AA, glow/DOF, and shadows for example. This isn't really my call though, so no promises ;-)

[tabstis]

Out of interest, what is everyone running the game at?

[NeatNit]

1680x1050, 9
It sometimes gets a low framerate (well, often) but still playable and imo it's worth it. Before I got this computer I had a gamer's worst nightmare computer; I'm used to bad framerates :P

[taumel]

@Ben

Hmm if i remember things correctly then AA was beeing disabled at lower settings whilst it was enabled at higher settings, i'm talking about the Mac version.

I agree that things should stay easy but a) the current system isn't and b) it still would be nice if there would be more screws for the users, which btw. also can be offered in a easy way (we once had this discussion with example screens and what not).

Sometimes you want to experiment with more AA but less lightning, then, when you're running on your battery, you want to run things in a less GPU intensive way, you could have a powerful card but due to some driver issues shadows might be broken, still you could run pixel exact lightning without any probelms and so on.

There are always situations where a more flexible systems with some toggles comes in more handy as you can't just offer something perfect for all these situations (unless you want to loose yourself in endless permutations) in advance and again it doesn't have to turn more complex automatically, it depends on how and how many possibilities you offer - just getting closer to the sweet spot. :O)

[Ben]

Mac actually has no AA at all for the moment (this is on the TODO list).

I agree that things should stay easy but a) the current system isn't and b) it still would be nice if there would be more screws for the users, which btw. also can be offered in a easy way (we once had this discussion with example screens and what not).

I think the current system is about as simple as it could be, although this is of course subjective. A user may not know what MSAA means, or understand the trade-offs involved with different lighting quality settings. I think everyone understands that higher numbers mean better graphics :-)

Having said that I think some more options would be useful, and I certainly agree that a more flexible system could be implemented while mostly retaining ease of use. It's just a matter of time/resources.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by Ben

Mac actually has no AA at all for the moment (this is on the TODO list).


I think the current system is about as simple as it could be, although this is of course subjective. A user may not know what MSAA means, or understand the trade-offs involved with different lighting quality settings. I think everyone understands that higher numbers mean better graphics :-)

Having said that I think some more options would be useful, and I certainly agree that a more flexible system could be implemented while mostly retaining ease of use. It's just a matter of time/resources.

I understand maintaining super simple settings for those less technologically inclined, but I don't understand not having an advanced settings button, complete with big scary words like anisotropic and anti-aliasing to scare casual users from going into it.

[taumel]

@Ben

Well, then i was remembering things wrong.

In my opinion the current system is confusing for simple minded users as they have no idea of what these options are doing and there are too many whilst at the same time it's not satisfying for advanced users as they can't alter things according to their wishes nor do they have proper information about what the settings mean.

If you're visualising things in a easy way or rename settings to more user friendly terms then people also understand what they alter (blocky, less blocky, no blocks anymore - Sam&Max giving some comments to the altered 3d gfx of them, etc.), if you just throw some buzzwords at them, chances exist that some won't get it but a) visualise it nicely, b) use proper terms and c) you could hide all the technical bazoo in some expert settings (although personally i most likely would stick with the first two options).

I hear you.

[Pantagruel's Friend]

Originally Posted by Pale Man

I understand maintaining super simple settings for those less technologically inclined, but I don't understand not having an advanced settings button, complete with big scary words like anisotropic and anti-aliasing to scare casual users from going into it.

But he's just told us the reason - more elaborate settings mean more QA. With the monthly episode schedule, I see where it causes a problem.

[ShaggE]

I completely understand why the settings are so simple and vague, but as a natural born tweaker, it does bug me a bit. I can run S&M at it's highest settings with no problem, but I do like to know what the engine is doing while running a game.

Maybe a small blurb under each number? ("Setting 1: No AA, Shader Model 1.0, shadows off, static lighting, etc.") That way, even though there's no functional difference, your average player can say "Oh, my card's capable of such-and-such, so I'll be wanting to use Setting X" instead of having to jump in and out of the game until they get it right.

[Shwoo]

Are you sure the average user knows what their card's capable of?

[Avistew]

I think ShaggE's definition of an average user isn't mine Not only don't I know what my card is capable of (or how to figure it out), I have no clue what 90% of these things even ARE.

[ShaggE]

Sorry, I should have said "average gamer".

[taumel]

Originally Posted by Avistew

I think ShaggE's definition of an average user isn't mine Not only don't I know what my card is capable of (or how to figure it out), I have no clue what 90% of these things even ARE.

After this monster thread about your gfx card, you should be an expert by now. :O)