More like Ubisoft talks bollocks about framerate and Revolution
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
[small]sorry, I had to[/small]
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
[small]sorry, I had to[/small]
And really there would be nothing wrong with that sort of admission. But rather than the reason being 'we suck' just tell us that other technical demands such as physics (being able to latch onto & jump around anything) & npc AI/density is taking up too many resources and preventing optimal graphics performance.EMWISE94 said:Now I'll admit, when it comes to 30fps vs 60fps I'm one of those people who don't really care, don't get me wrong 60fps is great but if a game runs at 30fps I'm not gonna throw a hissy fit about it, its only ever really a problem when the framerate keeps dropping or some shit. That being said, claiming that you're locking your game at 30 because you claim its better is utter bullshit, it would've been more sound if Ubisoft just said "we can't achieve 60fps cause we suck." cause really.. this business of claiming you know what people like when you obviously dont is getting annoying.
You're a very sexy person, thank you. With all this babble about frame rates no-one ever seems to discuss frame rating which can be much more important, there are some great guides on PC Perspective and their YouTube channel for anyone wanting to understand this issue.Thanatos2k said:Also, one thing that never gets mentioned is absolute frame rate is not what's important - framerate CONSISTENCY is what matters. 30 fps DOES look better than 60 fps if the 30 fps is consistent but the 60 fps is not. Show someone a game and ask them what frame rate it's running at and they'll get it wrong half the time, but EVERYONE notices stuttering, and even if it's always above 30 fps but stuttering somewhere between 60 and 30fps it's going to look terrible.
Yet no one talks about this.
This is why I cap frames at 45 FPS if I can with games that average 60, The video card is never at full load so if something big happens like multiple large explosions requiring more processing power there is more available. That keeps the framerates consistent and smooth with no chop. If the game runs higher than 60 FPS I cap at 60. Anything over 70fps causes screen tearing because my monitors refresh rate.Thanatos2k said:Also, one thing that never gets mentioned is absolute frame rate is not what's important - framerate CONSISTENCY is what matters. 30 fps DOES look better than 60 fps if the 30 fps is consistent but the 60 fps is not. Show someone a game and ask them what frame rate it's running at and they'll get it wrong half the time, but EVERYONE notices stuttering, and even if it's always above 30 fps but stuttering somewhere between 60 and 30fps it's going to look terrible.
Yet no one talks about this. They'll proudly tout 60 fps or 30 fps but never say what the average fps is, and you'll have to wait for reviews for them to maybe mention stuttering.
If Ubisoft decided to cap it at 30 fps because they couldn't get a consistent 60 fps then fine - say that. But given the performance of previous AC games which go into slow motion once 7+ enemies are around you or you throw a smoke bomb I'm guessing they couldn't even get a consistent 30 fps.
So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?Westonbirt said:PC MASTER RACE !
But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."
It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
Why everything thinks this is the age of Jaguar is beyond me. Last generation you could perhaps argue that, this one not so much. They are billed as the best at their price range. Quoting a couple of managers hyping their clients doesn't change that fact, they are managers so of course they're going to tell us how perfect their client is. Mr Perfect was apparently the perfect man who do anything perfectly, yet he never won the big one as his hype might lead you to believe (after all he was the perfect wrestler).nevarran said:Neither Sony nor MS would like hearing such thing. They sell their products as a powerhouses, a leap in the technology, revolutionary... They know they cannot compete with PC, so they just pretend it doesn't exist.
It's ridiculous, I know. It's like Fiat boosting about the new Panda's 0-100 acceleration, instead of focusing on it's convenience. But that's the world we live in, many people out there genuinely believe Sony and MS' bullshit.
Rozalia1 said:So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?Westonbirt said:PC MASTER RACE !
But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."
It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
Source for those numbers? and does the source count only retail sales or both retail and digital?LaochEire said:PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million
So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.
Crappy laptop club ahoy! We have nachos in the back.Silentpony said:Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.
But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.
Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.
Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?
Yeah, I forgot they were French. Still they're working they're way towards replacing EA as company most hated by gamershydrolythe said:You probably mean the worst company in France. It would probably never obtain that title, since French probably would rather give that honour to Infogrames (which nowadays hides under Atari's brand label to avoid brand-exposure, it is that bad). Mainly because they are well-known there for making lots of shovelware (though a few of their titles are still well-remembered there, but very few).canadamus_prime said:I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.
One has to wonder though if they are as lying to the people in their home country. I do not know.
Dirt cheap laptops maybe.Ultratwinkie said:laptops are not for gaming. They don't have the battery life for a real graphics card. A real graphics card would also die in there due to heat.
Farcry 2 was coded fine.Arnoxthe1 said:Specs:Charcharo said:What laptop? My mate's laptop cost 800 dollars and whilst not even close to a similar priced Desktop PC (what WE WERE TALKKING about here) it can definitely max 6 year old games.Arnoxthe1 said:Uh... Considering that I have a $750 recent laptop that can't even run Far Cry 2 on medium settings and a reduced resolution without getting choppy, I think you're very wrong.Charcharo said:Want to match the PS4 on a lets say 500 dollar machine? Lower to medium-high. And you may even BEAT it.
Intel Core i5-4200M (2.5 GHz, 4 CPU's)
Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Better than you think.)
1366x768
4 GB's of RAM
Windows 7 Pro
What's funny though is that it can run Serious Sam 3 pretty well and even Skyrim decently enough so I suspect it's probably just Far Cry 2 being stupidly optimized, if at all.
Probably because not everyone is bothered that the fps is at 30. Personally frame rate consistency is more important than anything. 30fps consistent is far better than 60fps stuttering.GloatingSwine said:So what are you going to do about it Jim?
You're the reviews editor at The Escapist, it should be easy for you to institute a policy that any game which runs at sub-60fps is specifically marked down and that it is mentioned in the review that this is why it's happening.
Hit them in their metacritic scores.
After all, the fact that reviews never have marked games down for failing to be 60fps and will frequently mention that graphical compromises have been made to get to 60 (equivocating over whether it's an overall benefit) is why game developers don't actually chase it as a feature.
I genuinly do not give a rats ass about PC vs console but, Sales figures are worthless in this great e-peen war.LaochEire said:Rozalia1 said:So a "console-centric developer" should insult by proxy Sony and Microsoft...do you hear yourself? The "superior and more competitive platform" is tired bunkum so I'll not bother with it. I have pretty much all platforms, your platform choice is inferior to my own...you happy? Or is the divisive comments you make not so fun when you're the weak little lamb targeted?Westonbirt said:PC MASTER RACE !
But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."
It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
PS3 ? 2.43 million
X360 ? 2.17 million
PS4 ? 1.22 million
Xbox One ? 0.55 million
PC ? 0.38 million
Wii U ? 0.12 million
So inferior and less competitive they outsell PC by some margin. Those are January sales figures by the way, it stands at 0.47m now on PC, but as long as you get to take a free swipe at consoles you're happy Westonbirt.