Daisetsu: Yeah, but not this time. So....
Nirth: Why would less options suddenly be better this time?
Given the high specs required to run this game, multiple choices is actually better like for example if you don't mind the blur effects of FXAA or SMAA but can't take the performance hit by traditional techniques such as MSAA or SSAA.
I agree that more options are always better than less options because someone who doesn't want or need the options can simply just not use them, while at the same time it allows people who do want or need them to be able to change them. By having options everyone benefits in being able to play things the way they want to play it instead of only some people getting what they want. Options FTW.
Having said that though, I have a recommended system but an underpowered GPU and I did extensive testing of all of the game's graphics options at a wide variety of resolutions up to 2560x1600 and what I found is that the majority of graphic detail and post-processing options have no noticeable impact on the frame rate or CPU usage on my system even with my sub-minimum-spec GPU.
I'm guessing that at least with this game, anti-aliasing uses so little resources compared to what is available that it has a more or less negligible impact on the game's performance. I was completely unable to see any frame rate drop at all turning it on/off anyway on a Radeon HD7850. Same was the case for most of the graphic options except of course for the big frame rate killers.
At the same time though I did notice certain things in game that showed aliasing from time to time and wondered if perhaps the game's anti-aliasing setting was only anti-aliasing certain things and not full-screen all the time. I contemplated disabling the in-game AA and using my AMD control panel to enable the highest and best AA modes and see if there were any performance impacts from that. I just never got around to trying it out in the end though. :)