Yeah i know the basic, I mean like if they can't get to 60, can't they at least squeeze out another 5-10fps or something and go "Look, at least we tried!"?JET1971 said:I am sure she is thanking the fans.
OT:
30 and 60 has been a standard for years now. 30 for low end systems barely able to run the game or at least to hold a stable FPS, 30 is the bottom line, the base frame rate, the lowest number for playability. 60 fps is the standard for PC gaming and has been for around 20 years. That's why we have v-Sync at 60 FPS. Monitor manufacturers have used that standard for monitors bare minimum refresh rate. 60 FPS is the standard for quality because it does the same as motion blur does for movies and TV, it is fast enough to look correct without noticeable stuttering.
30 FPS actually has visible stuttering, watch smoke or dust type particle effects in a game and you can see it if you pay attention. 60 fps and you wont see that stuttering.
But then why 30 or 60? well why 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, or 4096?
Exactly this. Programmers are just lazy now i mean how can you have an office application or web browser or a simple interface for a DB run slow on a modern system they are orders of magnitude more powerful than mainframes in the 80s and they never had laggy UIs even back in the dos days apps always ran fast, but programmers need to use multiple inherited modules and packages to make that button shiny to conform to the road-map set out in the meeting ect ect and the application ends up being slow and crash all the time, its inexcusable. I am looking right now and outlook is using 54mb of ram 50 fucking 4 for email ! Yes we manged to receive email just fine back in the 70s when you where lucky to have a backup tape drive of 50mb and a few kb ( yes kb) of ram for a muti user system .Charcharo said:I have a simpler reason Jim.
Ubisoft have bad coders.
If 4A games can with less people and a much smaller budget make a 1080P 60fps game like Metro Last light Redux that looks QUITE A BIT better then Unity...
THIS time it is NOT the (otherwise pathetic) consoles fault. This time. It is Ubisofts fault. For throwing money at incompetent coders.
UbiSoft's own balance sheets suggest the same thing. Sales by platform show PC sitting at 14% for Q1 2014 up 4% from previous quarter. PS4 went from 12% to 36% and that's just one console. They include digital. I'm not getting into a debate about platforms and sales. It's not my point. My point was to tackle a PC elitist comment saying PC was the superior and more competitive platform and UbiSoft wouldn't admit it. That's clearly wrong as UbiSoft admitted that PS4 was their most profitable platform.direkiller said:I genuinly do not give a rats ass about PC vs console but, Sales figures are worthless in this great e-peen war.
Most never include digital sales because company only put them out in there stock reports.
As PC sales are a majority Digital
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/18/analyst-92-percent-of-pc-game-sales-are-digital
this leads to a rather large discrepancy in sales figures, when in reality they are much closer.
If there was a program or something that better simulated motion blur over 60 FPS gameplay I might prefer itCharcharo said:Seems like 4A had something in mid when they went for Advanced DX11 Depth of Field and Motion Blur... I hope they continue their work there.
Dont know. Where possible, Id rather have 48 fps over 24 and 60 (75) over 30. Then again, on PC you do have a choice
You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.Mikeyfell said:It's not objectively better
there is no such thing as objectively better when you're talking about a preference.
Just because you like 60 doesn't make it better
majority is not the measuring stick of objectivity
I prefer 30 I am not wrong about my own opinion, it is not objectively better, I don't care what PC gamers like because I play on a TV, and when I see video running at 60 FPS it looks horid
no you don't.Arnoxthe1 said:All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
Except those PC's don't really have any staying power. Sure they'll run modern games but in the near future, you may very well have to upgrade.DanHibiki said:no you don't.Arnoxthe1 said:All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/can-we-build-a-gaming-pc-on-a-console-budget/1100-6418829/
I must agree that there is no thing as "objectively better" when it comes to preferences, and there is little reason to argue with someone at that point. Different tastes, eh? I do get your point, but really - the difference between 30 and 60 fps is not that the higher framerate "objectively, undoubtedly, scientifically provenly" looks better, it is that it looks smoother - and that absolutely can look strange. Though there is no reason to not allow gamers to fps lock to their personal preference, just like we are allowed to change brightness and screen size.pokepuke said:You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.Mikeyfell said:It's not objectively better
there is no such thing as objectively better when you're talking about a preference.
Just because you like 60 doesn't make it better
majority is not the measuring stick of objectivity
I prefer 30 I am not wrong about my own opinion, it is not objectively better, I don't care what PC gamers like because I play on a TV, and when I see video running at 60 FPS it looks horid
You don't like it so you'll spin the context to fit your narrative, just because you know you can't argue against it with anything except your own taste, which is wrought by being solely a console/TV player.
it's guaranteed to run console ports at a higher resolution and FPS until the next generation of consoles come out, at which point you can buy a newer video card for a hundred bucks that will run those games.Arnoxthe1 said:Except those PC's don't really have any staying power. Sure they'll run modern games but in the near future, you may very well have to upgrade.DanHibiki said:no you don't.Arnoxthe1 said:All this talk of my laptop sucking just proves my point even more really. You have to shell out a lot more money for a computer that can run even half-way modern games.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/can-we-build-a-gaming-pc-on-a-console-budget/1100-6418829/
And honestly, if you're really going to go the gaming PC route, you might as well go at least a good chunk of the way.
There's no math involved in determining what looks better.pokepuke said:You disagree with math by saying "well I don't like it, so it means it's all preference". Despite objective facts being used. I gave reason and you waved it all off by claiming it's my stated preference. I said no such thing, so it seems you're being defensive over your frustration of not being able to produce a good argument.
You don't like it so you'll spin the context to fit your narrative, just because you know you can't argue against it with anything except your own taste, which is wrought by being solely a console/TV player.
It is stated that 60 is objectively better. You claim that you don't like it. That is fine. Subjective and objective facts are different things. It can be objectively better but subjectively worse for you. That is all fine.Mikeyfell said:There's no math involved in determining what looks better.
Give me an equation that PROVES conclusively what I prefer to look at.
It literally (The actual definition of literally not the new one) is my own taste. That is the only relevant information when you're talking about what looks better.
Unless you can provide an equation that I can plug concrete numbers into that will quantify aesthetics on a linear scale, you're the one who's wrong.
You prefer 60, that's your opinion
So show me the "math" you accused me of ignoring
*gasp* No wonder it felt weird to be playing it again on the PS3... I thought it was because it's been too long since I've played it without New Game + backing me up most of the time...Whatislove said:I love Tales of Symphonia, one of my favourite games, I was so excited for Tales of Symphonia Chronicles (HD rerelease on the PS3) and then I started playing and noticed something really wrong. Having played through the Gamecube version 4 or 5 times there was something not right when I started playing the HD remake.
I later discovered it was based off the PS2 port which was locked at 30fps (the gamecube version is 60fps) and it is almost unplayable for me. In fact, my last playthrough was on my Gamecube (which I still have) and I would still prefer to play my Gamecube version running at 60fps in all it's 480p blurry glory on my 55" UHD TV than the more graphically sound but locked at 30fps HD remake.
You spend more than half the game in a battle sequence which is basically an action adventure/hack n slash, it is not an FPS and it does not feel "more cinematic" at 30fps, nor does it feel better in any way.. hell, it barely feels acceptable after playing it at 60fps.
Isn't that run by a different branch in Ubisolf separate to Assassin's Creed?daxterx2005 said:At least we still have the cartoony Rayman right?